Going Electric - Who’s Going to Pay?
The jury’s no longer out on whether GSE needs to go electric. Studies done by a wide-range of groups — from the Department of Energy to private companies — all show that electric is cheaper in the long-run, especially when the cost of fuel goes up, and electric vehicles are cheaper to maintain. (And for cold weather operations, electric has a clear advantage.) The environmental benefits are also beyond dispute at this point — the carbon footprint of electric GSE is significantly smaller than for gas- or diesel-powered vehicles. The big issues are infrastructure and paying for new equipment or converting old equipment.
So two things need to happen — the airports need to update their infrastructure to support electric GSE and GSE operators need to find the money to invest in new equipment or conversion of old equipment. GSE operators are not alone in wanting to go electric on the ramp. Airlines and airport operators will be under increasing pressure to reduce their carbon footprints. One way to do that will be to reduce their emissions on the ground. So they are going to be pushing ground handlers to convert their vehicles so that they can get the credit for the resulting reduction in emissions.
Ground handling companies may end up getting squeezed to make investments in new or converted vehicles, even when it is not economically an opportune time. But before that happens, companies need to look into what opportunities there are for government grants. And while I haven’t seen any public utilities giving grants for GSE, that doesn’t mean that they can’t be pursuaded to do so. For example, the recently passed stimulus bill has $6.9 billion for state block grants for energy efficiency improvements and reduction of carbon emissions. Each state can spend this money broadly on projects covered by the legislation. GSE operators need to meet with their airport operators to see whether some of that money could be used for infrastructure improvements at their airports and purchases of electric GSE or GSE conversions. The Department of Energy and EPA have or have had grants for energy efficiency improvements which should be explored. The FAA’s Airport Improvement Program grants may now or in the future be available for carbon reduction projects. While the focus may have been on delivery fleets and shuttle buses in the past, this doesn’t mean that airport operators can’t make the case for electric GSE at their airports.
I know that a number of airports hire dedicated personnel to pursue grant opportunities. GSE operators need to make sure that their needs are covered in the pursuit of such grants.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Dear Goglia
You are right. there are two aspects to the “good deed” that goes towards going electric. One is the benifits and the other the cost. The benifit may be even reduced operational costs over time that may pay off for the equipment and also the reduction in the carbon footprint and the social awareness that this issue merits.
However the more concerning issue is the big one of Vitamin M - money! The costs are simply mind boggling for an operator to replace. the new ones being procured could go electric but simply exorting the ground handler to replace equipment is simply nonsensical. The handler would have invested into the existing equipment to run for a certain age before turning over into electric. The diesel engines are simply too expensive to do away with
Another alternative that could be looked at in cities where the infrastructure is existing is the conversion to CNG. the CNG is a clean gas. However the airport has to invest into dispensing stations for the CNG for this to be viable. India already has enforced CNG Catering Hi Lifts as well as tarmac coaches for the new equipment. They are also not looking to spread into other equipment. The advanctage stems from the fact that for a cost an exiting diesle engine can be converted into a gas vehicle and the cylinders ewill be placed accordingly. The other advantage is the cleanliness. it leaves out water! clean as it comes.
We hope the aviation authorities give great plicy thought rather than passing policy decisions that cannot be taken back
The author is a well known manufacturer of aviation GSE in India. http://www.nandan.co.in
June 17th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
We have at the airline I work for, had CNG, and It also comes with it’s own set of issues. Some of the engines can’t handle the difference in cc pressure and lack of any kind of lube in the engine. This still doesn’t eliminate the regular mx of the vehicle either. We have converted, just out of our Phx base, over 125 pieces of fossil fuel vehicles to electric. This has been a substantial reduction in our mx costs. And when you figure it costs about $2.00 to charge a piece up to full, that is considerably different than $30.00 to $40.00 dollars worth of fuel.
The people that sell CNG aren’t stupid either, it isn’t cheap, nor is the conversion. Our conversions tend to cost less than half of trying to buy a new electric piece of equipment.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
For the record, our electric eTug does not require the expensive external charger infastructue because we use a standard 110v outlet. In addition, with the leases we have available, we remove the other obstical of buying electric - up front capital. Electric is available everywhere and available today. CNG equipment is not the answer. It still has an engine that leaks oil, overheats and infastucture costs are very high. Go Green, Save Green - eTug !!!!!
June 24th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Dear Sir, I would like to know if you are available to do a speaking presentation on September 18 at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida????? In any event……..
Happy Landings,
Denis