The Experts below are selected from a list of 300 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Lester B. Lave - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Evaluating Automobile Fuel/propulsion system technologies
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2020Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. LaveAbstract:We examine the life cycle implications of a wide range of Fuels and propulsion systems that could power cars and light trucks in the US and Canada over the next two to three decades ((1) reformulated gasoline and diesel, (2) compressed natural gas, (3) methanol and ethanol, (4) liquid petroleum gas, (5) liquefied natural gas, (6) Fischer ‐ Tropsch liquids from natural gas, (7) hydrogen, and (8) electricity; (a) spark ignition port injection engines, (b) spark ignition direct injection engines, (c) compression ignition engines, (d) electric motors with battery power, (e) hybrid electric propulsion options, and (f) Fuel cells). We review recent studies to evaluate the environmental, performance, and cost characteristics of Fuel/propulsion technology combinations that are currently available or will be available in the next few decades. Only options that could power a significant proportion of the personal transportation fleet are investigated. Contradictions among the goals of customers, manufacturers, and society have led society to assert control through extensive regulation of Fuel composition, vehicle emissions, and Fuel economy. Changes in social goals, Fuel-engine-emissions technologies, Fuel availability, and customer desires require a rethinking of current regulations as well as the design of vehicles and Fuels that will appeal to consumers over the next decades. The almost 250 million light-duty vehicles (LDV; cars and light trucks) in the US and Canada are responsible for about 14% of the economic activity in these countries for the year 2002. These vehicles are among our most important personal assets and liabilities, since they are generally the second most expensive asset we own, costing almost $100 000 over the lifetime of a vehicle. While an essential part of our lifestyles and economies, in the US, for example, the light-duty fleet is also responsible for 42 000 highways deaths, and four million injuries each year, consumes almost half of the petroleum used, and causes large amounts of illness and premature death due to the emissions of air pollutants (e.g. nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particles). The search for new technologies and Fuels has been driven by regulators, not the marketplace. Absent regulation, most consumers would demand larger, more powerful vehicles, ignoring Fuel economy and emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases; the vehicles that get more than 35 mpg make up less than 1% of new car sales. Federal regulators require increased vehicle safety, decreased pollution emissions, and better Fuel economy. In addition, California and Canadian regulators are concerned about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Many people worry about the US dependence on imported petroleum, and people in both countries desire a switch from petroleum to a more sustainable Fuel. The Fuel-technology combinations and vehicle attributes of concern to drivers and regulators are examined along with our final evaluation of the alternatives compared to a conventional gasoline-Fueled spark ignition port injection Automobile. When the US Congress passed laws intended to increase safety, decrease emissions, and increase Fuel economy, they did not realize that these goals were contradictory. For example, increasing safety requires increasing weight, which lowers Fuel economy; decreasing emissions generally decreases engine efficiency. By spending more money or by reducing the performance of the vehicle, most of the attributes can be improved without harming others. For example, spending more money can lighten the vehicle (as with an aluminum frame with greater energy absorbing capacity), improving performance and safety; a smaller engine can increase Fuel economy without diminishing safety or increasing pollution emissions, but performance
-
Life Cycle Assessment of Automobile/Fuel Options
Environmental Science & Technology, 2003Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. LaveAbstract:We examine the possibilities for a “greener” car that would use less material and Fuel, be less polluting, and would have a well-managed end-of-life. Light-duty vehicles are fundamental to our economy and will continue to be for the indefinite future. Any redesign to make these vehicles greener requires consumer acceptance. Consumer desires for large, powerful vehicles have been the major stumbling block in achieving a “green car”. The other major barrier is inherent contradictions among social goals such as Fuel economy, safety, low emissions of pollutants, and low emissions of greenhouse gases, which has led to conflicting regulations such as emissions regulations blocking sales of direct injection diesels in California, which would save Fuel. In evaluating Fuel/vehicle options with the potential to improve the greenness of cars [diesel (direct injection) and ethanol in internal combustion engines, battery-powered, gasoline hybrid electric, and hydrogen Fuel cells], we find no option dominates the other...
-
life cycle assessment of Automobile Fuel options
Environmental Science & Technology, 2003Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. LaveAbstract:We examine the possibilities for a “greener” car that would use less material and Fuel, be less polluting, and would have a well-managed end-of-life. Light-duty vehicles are fundamental to our economy and will continue to be for the indefinite future. Any redesign to make these vehicles greener requires consumer acceptance. Consumer desires for large, powerful vehicles have been the major stumbling block in achieving a “green car”. The other major barrier is inherent contradictions among social goals such as Fuel economy, safety, low emissions of pollutants, and low emissions of greenhouse gases, which has led to conflicting regulations such as emissions regulations blocking sales of direct injection diesels in California, which would save Fuel. In evaluating Fuel/vehicle options with the potential to improve the greenness of cars [diesel (direct injection) and ethanol in internal combustion engines, battery-powered, gasoline hybrid electric, and hydrogen Fuel cells], we find no option dominates the other...
-
Evaluating Automobile Fuel/propulsion system technologies
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2003Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Maclean Heather L., Lester B. Lave, Lave Lester B.Abstract:We examine the life cycle implications of a wide range of Fuels and propulsion systems that could power cars and light trucks in the US and Canada over the next two to three decades ((1) reformulated gasoline and diesel, (2) compressed natural gas, (3) methanol and ethanol, (4) liquid petroleum gas, (5) liquefied natural gas, (6) Fischer–Tropsch liquids from natural gas, (7) hydrogen, and (8) electricity; (a) spark ignition port injection engines, (b) spark ignition direct injection engines, (c) compression ignition engines, (d) electric motors with battery power, (e) hybrid electric propulsion options, and (f) Fuel cells). We review recent studies to evaluate the environmental, performance, and cost characteristics of Fuel/propulsion technology combinations that are currently available or will be available in the next few decades. Only options that could power a significant proportion of the personal transportation fleet are investigated. Contradictions among the goals of customers, manufacturers, and society have led society to assert control through extensive regulation of Fuel composition, vehicle emissions, and Fuel economy. Changes in social goals, Fuel-engine-emissions technologies, Fuel availability, and customer desires require a rethinking of current regulations as well as the design of vehicles and Fuels that will appeal to consumers over the next decades. The almost 250 million light-duty vehicles (LDV; cars and light trucks) in the US and Canada are responsible for about 14% of the economic activity in these countries for the year 2002. These vehicles are among our most important personal assets and liabilities, since they are generally the second most expensive asset we own, costing almost $100 000 over the lifetime of a vehicle. While an essential part of our lifestyles and economies, in the US, for example, the light-duty fleet is also responsible for 42 000 highways deaths, and four million injuries each year, consumes almost half of the petroleum used, and causes large amounts of illness and premature death due to the emissions of air pollutants (e.g. nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particles). The search for new technologies and Fuels has been driven by regulators, not the marketplace. Absent regulation, most consumers would demand larger, more powerful vehicles, ignoring Fuel economy and emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases; the vehicles that get more than 35 mpg make up less than 1% of new car sales. Federal regulators require increased vehicle safety, decreased pollution emissions, and better Fuel economy. In addition, California and Canadian regulators are concerned about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Many people worry about the US dependence on imported petroleum, and people in both countries desire a switch from petroleum to a more sustainable Fuel. The Fuel-technology combinations and vehicle attributes of concern to drivers and regulators are examined along with our final evaluation of the alternatives compared to a conventional gasoline-Fueled spark ignition port injection Automobile. When the US Congress passed laws intended to increase safety, decrease emissions, and increase Fuel economy, they did not realize that these goals were contradictory. For example, increasing safety requires increasing weight, which lowers Fuel economy; decreasing emissions generally decreases engine efficiency. By spending more money or by reducing the performance of the vehicle, most of the attributes can be improved without harming others. For example, spending more money can lighten the vehicle (as with an aluminum frame with greater energy absorbing capacity), improving performance and safety; a smaller engine can increase Fuel economy without diminishing safety or increasing pollution emissions, but performance suffers; modern electronics have improved performance, Fuel economy, and lowered emissions, but have increased the price of the vehicle. However, low price and performance are important attributes of a vehicle. To resolve these contradictions, regulators in the US and Canada need to specify the desired tradeoffs among safety, emissions, Fuel economy, and cost, and a single agency needs to be designated in each country to oversee the tradeoffs among the regulators’ attributes and those desired by consumers. We discuss methods needed to evaluate the attractiveness of vehicles employing alternative Fuels and propulsion systems including: 1.Predicting the vehicle attributes and tradeoffs among these attributes that consumers will find appealing;2.assessing current and near term technologies to predict the primary attributes of each Fuel and propulsion system as well as its externalities and secondary effects;3.applying a life cycle assessment approach;4.completing a benefit–cost analysis to quantify the net social benefit of each alternative system;5.assessing the comparative advantages of centralized command and control regulation versus the use of market incentives;6.characterizing and quantifying uncertainty. An especially important feature of the analysis is ensuring that vehicles to be compared are similar on the basis of size, safety, acceleration, range, Fuel economy, emissions and other vehicle attributes. Since it is nearly impossible to find two vehicles that are identical, we use the criterion of asking whether consumers (and regulators) consider them to be comparable. Comparability has proven to be a difficult task for analysts. No one has managed a fully satisfactory method for adjustment, although some have made progress. Absurd comparisons, such as comparing the Fuel economy of a Metro to that of an Expedition, have not been made because of the good sense of analysts. However, steps should be taken to achieve further progress in developing methods to address this issue. Comparing Fuels and propulsion systems require a comprehensive, quantitative, life cycle approach to the analysis. It must be more encompassing than ‘well-to-wheels’ analysis. Well-to-wheels is comprised of two components, the ‘well-to-tank’ (all activities involved in producing the Fuel) and ‘tank-to-wheel’ (the operation/driving of the vehicle). The analyses must include the extraction of all raw materials, Fuel production, infrastructure requirements, component manufacture, vehicle manufacture, use, and end-of-life phases of the vehicle. Focusing on a portion of the system can be misleading. The analysis must be quantitative and include the array of environmental discharges, as well as life cycle cost information, since each Fuel and propulsion system has its comparative advantages. Comparing systems requires knowing how much better each alternative is with respect to some dimensions and how much worse it is with respect to others. Since focusing on a single stage or attribute of a system can be misleading, e.g. only tailpipe emissions, we explore the life cycle implications of each Fuel and propulsion technology. For example, the California Air Resources Board focused on tailpipe emissions in requiring zero emissions vehicles, neglecting the other attributes of battery-powered cars, such as other environmental discharges, cost, consumer acceptance and performance. The necessity of examining the whole life cycle and all the attributes is demonstrated by the fact that CARB had to rescind its requirement that 2% of new vehicles sold in 1998 and 10% sold in 2003 be zero emissions vehicles. No one Fuel/propulsion system dominates the others on all the dimensions in Table 8. This means that society must decide which attributes are more important, as well as the tradeoffs among attributes. For example, higher manufacturing cost could be offset by lower Fuel costs over the life of the vehicle. Changes in social goals, technology, Fuel options, customer desires, and public policy since 1970 have changed vehicle design, Fuel production, manufacturing plants, and infrastructure. In particular, gasoline or diesel in an internal combustion engine (ICE) is currently the cheapest system and is likely to continue to be the cheapest system through 2020. These vehicles will continue to evolve with improvements in performance, safety, Fuel economy, and lower pollution emissions. However, if society desires a more sustainable system or one that emits significantly less greenhouse gases, consumers will have to pay more for an alternative Fuel or propulsion system. We review a dozen life cycle studies that have examined LDV, comparing different Fuels and/or propulsion systems. The studies are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5. The studies vary in the Fuel/propulsion options they consider, the environmental burdens they report, and the assumptions they employ, making it difficult to compare results. However, all of the studies include the ‘well-to-tank’ and ‘tank-to-wheel’ activities and the majority of the studies include a measure of efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions associated with these activities. We limit our comparison to these activities and measures. The life cycle studies match most closely for the well-to-tank portion and for conventional fossil Fuels. See Table 6 for a summary of the ranges of efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reported in the studies for the well-to-tank portion for the various options. For the well-to-tank portion for the production of electricity, renewable Fuels, and hydrogen, differing Fuel production pathways are most important. Due to the range of different production options for these Fuels (as well as other issues such as study assumptions), results are much more variable. In addition, there is less experience with producing these Fuels, resulting in more uncertainty. It is important to distinguish between total and fossil energy required for production when comparing efficiencies among the Fuels. Petroleum-based Fuels have the highest efficiency for the well-to-tank portion when total energy is considered. However, if only fossil energy is considered,
-
evaluating Automobile Fuel propulsion system technologies
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2003Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. LaveAbstract:We examine the life cycle implications of a wide range of Fuels and propulsion systems that could power cars and light trucks in the US and Canada over the next two to three decades ((1) reformulated gasoline and diesel, (2) compressed natural gas, (3) methanol and ethanol, (4) liquid petroleum gas, (5) liquefied natural gas, (6) Fischer ‐ Tropsch liquids from natural gas, (7) hydrogen, and (8) electricity; (a) spark ignition port injection engines, (b) spark ignition direct injection engines, (c) compression ignition engines, (d) electric motors with battery power, (e) hybrid electric propulsion options, and (f) Fuel cells). We review recent studies to evaluate the environmental, performance, and cost characteristics of Fuel/propulsion technology combinations that are currently available or will be available in the next few decades. Only options that could power a significant proportion of the personal transportation fleet are investigated. Contradictions among the goals of customers, manufacturers, and society have led society to assert control through extensive regulation of Fuel composition, vehicle emissions, and Fuel economy. Changes in social goals, Fuel-engine-emissions technologies, Fuel availability, and customer desires require a rethinking of current regulations as well as the design of vehicles and Fuels that will appeal to consumers over the next decades. The almost 250 million light-duty vehicles (LDV; cars and light trucks) in the US and Canada are responsible for about 14% of the economic activity in these countries for the year 2002. These vehicles are among our most important personal assets and liabilities, since they are generally the second most expensive asset we own, costing almost $100 000 over the lifetime of a vehicle. While an essential part of our lifestyles and economies, in the US, for example, the light-duty fleet is also responsible for 42 000 highways deaths, and four million injuries each year, consumes almost half of the petroleum used, and causes large amounts of illness and premature death due to the emissions of air pollutants (e.g. nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particles). The search for new technologies and Fuels has been driven by regulators, not the marketplace. Absent regulation, most consumers would demand larger, more powerful vehicles, ignoring Fuel economy and emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases; the vehicles that get more than 35 mpg make up less than 1% of new car sales. Federal regulators require increased vehicle safety, decreased pollution emissions, and better Fuel economy. In addition, California and Canadian regulators are concerned about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Many people worry about the US dependence on imported petroleum, and people in both countries desire a switch from petroleum to a more sustainable Fuel. The Fuel-technology combinations and vehicle attributes of concern to drivers and regulators are examined along with our final evaluation of the alternatives compared to a conventional gasoline-Fueled spark ignition port injection Automobile. When the US Congress passed laws intended to increase safety, decrease emissions, and increase Fuel economy, they did not realize that these goals were contradictory. For example, increasing safety requires increasing weight, which lowers Fuel economy; decreasing emissions generally decreases engine efficiency. By spending more money or by reducing the performance of the vehicle, most of the attributes can be improved without harming others. For example, spending more money can lighten the vehicle (as with an aluminum frame with greater energy absorbing capacity), improving performance and safety; a smaller engine can increase Fuel economy without diminishing safety or increasing pollution emissions, but performance
Heather L. Maclean - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Evaluating Automobile Fuel/propulsion system technologies
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2020Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. LaveAbstract:We examine the life cycle implications of a wide range of Fuels and propulsion systems that could power cars and light trucks in the US and Canada over the next two to three decades ((1) reformulated gasoline and diesel, (2) compressed natural gas, (3) methanol and ethanol, (4) liquid petroleum gas, (5) liquefied natural gas, (6) Fischer ‐ Tropsch liquids from natural gas, (7) hydrogen, and (8) electricity; (a) spark ignition port injection engines, (b) spark ignition direct injection engines, (c) compression ignition engines, (d) electric motors with battery power, (e) hybrid electric propulsion options, and (f) Fuel cells). We review recent studies to evaluate the environmental, performance, and cost characteristics of Fuel/propulsion technology combinations that are currently available or will be available in the next few decades. Only options that could power a significant proportion of the personal transportation fleet are investigated. Contradictions among the goals of customers, manufacturers, and society have led society to assert control through extensive regulation of Fuel composition, vehicle emissions, and Fuel economy. Changes in social goals, Fuel-engine-emissions technologies, Fuel availability, and customer desires require a rethinking of current regulations as well as the design of vehicles and Fuels that will appeal to consumers over the next decades. The almost 250 million light-duty vehicles (LDV; cars and light trucks) in the US and Canada are responsible for about 14% of the economic activity in these countries for the year 2002. These vehicles are among our most important personal assets and liabilities, since they are generally the second most expensive asset we own, costing almost $100 000 over the lifetime of a vehicle. While an essential part of our lifestyles and economies, in the US, for example, the light-duty fleet is also responsible for 42 000 highways deaths, and four million injuries each year, consumes almost half of the petroleum used, and causes large amounts of illness and premature death due to the emissions of air pollutants (e.g. nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particles). The search for new technologies and Fuels has been driven by regulators, not the marketplace. Absent regulation, most consumers would demand larger, more powerful vehicles, ignoring Fuel economy and emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases; the vehicles that get more than 35 mpg make up less than 1% of new car sales. Federal regulators require increased vehicle safety, decreased pollution emissions, and better Fuel economy. In addition, California and Canadian regulators are concerned about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Many people worry about the US dependence on imported petroleum, and people in both countries desire a switch from petroleum to a more sustainable Fuel. The Fuel-technology combinations and vehicle attributes of concern to drivers and regulators are examined along with our final evaluation of the alternatives compared to a conventional gasoline-Fueled spark ignition port injection Automobile. When the US Congress passed laws intended to increase safety, decrease emissions, and increase Fuel economy, they did not realize that these goals were contradictory. For example, increasing safety requires increasing weight, which lowers Fuel economy; decreasing emissions generally decreases engine efficiency. By spending more money or by reducing the performance of the vehicle, most of the attributes can be improved without harming others. For example, spending more money can lighten the vehicle (as with an aluminum frame with greater energy absorbing capacity), improving performance and safety; a smaller engine can increase Fuel economy without diminishing safety or increasing pollution emissions, but performance
-
Life Cycle Assessment of Automobile/Fuel Options
Environmental Science & Technology, 2003Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. LaveAbstract:We examine the possibilities for a “greener” car that would use less material and Fuel, be less polluting, and would have a well-managed end-of-life. Light-duty vehicles are fundamental to our economy and will continue to be for the indefinite future. Any redesign to make these vehicles greener requires consumer acceptance. Consumer desires for large, powerful vehicles have been the major stumbling block in achieving a “green car”. The other major barrier is inherent contradictions among social goals such as Fuel economy, safety, low emissions of pollutants, and low emissions of greenhouse gases, which has led to conflicting regulations such as emissions regulations blocking sales of direct injection diesels in California, which would save Fuel. In evaluating Fuel/vehicle options with the potential to improve the greenness of cars [diesel (direct injection) and ethanol in internal combustion engines, battery-powered, gasoline hybrid electric, and hydrogen Fuel cells], we find no option dominates the other...
-
life cycle assessment of Automobile Fuel options
Environmental Science & Technology, 2003Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. LaveAbstract:We examine the possibilities for a “greener” car that would use less material and Fuel, be less polluting, and would have a well-managed end-of-life. Light-duty vehicles are fundamental to our economy and will continue to be for the indefinite future. Any redesign to make these vehicles greener requires consumer acceptance. Consumer desires for large, powerful vehicles have been the major stumbling block in achieving a “green car”. The other major barrier is inherent contradictions among social goals such as Fuel economy, safety, low emissions of pollutants, and low emissions of greenhouse gases, which has led to conflicting regulations such as emissions regulations blocking sales of direct injection diesels in California, which would save Fuel. In evaluating Fuel/vehicle options with the potential to improve the greenness of cars [diesel (direct injection) and ethanol in internal combustion engines, battery-powered, gasoline hybrid electric, and hydrogen Fuel cells], we find no option dominates the other...
-
Evaluating Automobile Fuel/propulsion system technologies
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2003Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Maclean Heather L., Lester B. Lave, Lave Lester B.Abstract:We examine the life cycle implications of a wide range of Fuels and propulsion systems that could power cars and light trucks in the US and Canada over the next two to three decades ((1) reformulated gasoline and diesel, (2) compressed natural gas, (3) methanol and ethanol, (4) liquid petroleum gas, (5) liquefied natural gas, (6) Fischer–Tropsch liquids from natural gas, (7) hydrogen, and (8) electricity; (a) spark ignition port injection engines, (b) spark ignition direct injection engines, (c) compression ignition engines, (d) electric motors with battery power, (e) hybrid electric propulsion options, and (f) Fuel cells). We review recent studies to evaluate the environmental, performance, and cost characteristics of Fuel/propulsion technology combinations that are currently available or will be available in the next few decades. Only options that could power a significant proportion of the personal transportation fleet are investigated. Contradictions among the goals of customers, manufacturers, and society have led society to assert control through extensive regulation of Fuel composition, vehicle emissions, and Fuel economy. Changes in social goals, Fuel-engine-emissions technologies, Fuel availability, and customer desires require a rethinking of current regulations as well as the design of vehicles and Fuels that will appeal to consumers over the next decades. The almost 250 million light-duty vehicles (LDV; cars and light trucks) in the US and Canada are responsible for about 14% of the economic activity in these countries for the year 2002. These vehicles are among our most important personal assets and liabilities, since they are generally the second most expensive asset we own, costing almost $100 000 over the lifetime of a vehicle. While an essential part of our lifestyles and economies, in the US, for example, the light-duty fleet is also responsible for 42 000 highways deaths, and four million injuries each year, consumes almost half of the petroleum used, and causes large amounts of illness and premature death due to the emissions of air pollutants (e.g. nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particles). The search for new technologies and Fuels has been driven by regulators, not the marketplace. Absent regulation, most consumers would demand larger, more powerful vehicles, ignoring Fuel economy and emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases; the vehicles that get more than 35 mpg make up less than 1% of new car sales. Federal regulators require increased vehicle safety, decreased pollution emissions, and better Fuel economy. In addition, California and Canadian regulators are concerned about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Many people worry about the US dependence on imported petroleum, and people in both countries desire a switch from petroleum to a more sustainable Fuel. The Fuel-technology combinations and vehicle attributes of concern to drivers and regulators are examined along with our final evaluation of the alternatives compared to a conventional gasoline-Fueled spark ignition port injection Automobile. When the US Congress passed laws intended to increase safety, decrease emissions, and increase Fuel economy, they did not realize that these goals were contradictory. For example, increasing safety requires increasing weight, which lowers Fuel economy; decreasing emissions generally decreases engine efficiency. By spending more money or by reducing the performance of the vehicle, most of the attributes can be improved without harming others. For example, spending more money can lighten the vehicle (as with an aluminum frame with greater energy absorbing capacity), improving performance and safety; a smaller engine can increase Fuel economy without diminishing safety or increasing pollution emissions, but performance suffers; modern electronics have improved performance, Fuel economy, and lowered emissions, but have increased the price of the vehicle. However, low price and performance are important attributes of a vehicle. To resolve these contradictions, regulators in the US and Canada need to specify the desired tradeoffs among safety, emissions, Fuel economy, and cost, and a single agency needs to be designated in each country to oversee the tradeoffs among the regulators’ attributes and those desired by consumers. We discuss methods needed to evaluate the attractiveness of vehicles employing alternative Fuels and propulsion systems including: 1.Predicting the vehicle attributes and tradeoffs among these attributes that consumers will find appealing;2.assessing current and near term technologies to predict the primary attributes of each Fuel and propulsion system as well as its externalities and secondary effects;3.applying a life cycle assessment approach;4.completing a benefit–cost analysis to quantify the net social benefit of each alternative system;5.assessing the comparative advantages of centralized command and control regulation versus the use of market incentives;6.characterizing and quantifying uncertainty. An especially important feature of the analysis is ensuring that vehicles to be compared are similar on the basis of size, safety, acceleration, range, Fuel economy, emissions and other vehicle attributes. Since it is nearly impossible to find two vehicles that are identical, we use the criterion of asking whether consumers (and regulators) consider them to be comparable. Comparability has proven to be a difficult task for analysts. No one has managed a fully satisfactory method for adjustment, although some have made progress. Absurd comparisons, such as comparing the Fuel economy of a Metro to that of an Expedition, have not been made because of the good sense of analysts. However, steps should be taken to achieve further progress in developing methods to address this issue. Comparing Fuels and propulsion systems require a comprehensive, quantitative, life cycle approach to the analysis. It must be more encompassing than ‘well-to-wheels’ analysis. Well-to-wheels is comprised of two components, the ‘well-to-tank’ (all activities involved in producing the Fuel) and ‘tank-to-wheel’ (the operation/driving of the vehicle). The analyses must include the extraction of all raw materials, Fuel production, infrastructure requirements, component manufacture, vehicle manufacture, use, and end-of-life phases of the vehicle. Focusing on a portion of the system can be misleading. The analysis must be quantitative and include the array of environmental discharges, as well as life cycle cost information, since each Fuel and propulsion system has its comparative advantages. Comparing systems requires knowing how much better each alternative is with respect to some dimensions and how much worse it is with respect to others. Since focusing on a single stage or attribute of a system can be misleading, e.g. only tailpipe emissions, we explore the life cycle implications of each Fuel and propulsion technology. For example, the California Air Resources Board focused on tailpipe emissions in requiring zero emissions vehicles, neglecting the other attributes of battery-powered cars, such as other environmental discharges, cost, consumer acceptance and performance. The necessity of examining the whole life cycle and all the attributes is demonstrated by the fact that CARB had to rescind its requirement that 2% of new vehicles sold in 1998 and 10% sold in 2003 be zero emissions vehicles. No one Fuel/propulsion system dominates the others on all the dimensions in Table 8. This means that society must decide which attributes are more important, as well as the tradeoffs among attributes. For example, higher manufacturing cost could be offset by lower Fuel costs over the life of the vehicle. Changes in social goals, technology, Fuel options, customer desires, and public policy since 1970 have changed vehicle design, Fuel production, manufacturing plants, and infrastructure. In particular, gasoline or diesel in an internal combustion engine (ICE) is currently the cheapest system and is likely to continue to be the cheapest system through 2020. These vehicles will continue to evolve with improvements in performance, safety, Fuel economy, and lower pollution emissions. However, if society desires a more sustainable system or one that emits significantly less greenhouse gases, consumers will have to pay more for an alternative Fuel or propulsion system. We review a dozen life cycle studies that have examined LDV, comparing different Fuels and/or propulsion systems. The studies are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5. The studies vary in the Fuel/propulsion options they consider, the environmental burdens they report, and the assumptions they employ, making it difficult to compare results. However, all of the studies include the ‘well-to-tank’ and ‘tank-to-wheel’ activities and the majority of the studies include a measure of efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions associated with these activities. We limit our comparison to these activities and measures. The life cycle studies match most closely for the well-to-tank portion and for conventional fossil Fuels. See Table 6 for a summary of the ranges of efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reported in the studies for the well-to-tank portion for the various options. For the well-to-tank portion for the production of electricity, renewable Fuels, and hydrogen, differing Fuel production pathways are most important. Due to the range of different production options for these Fuels (as well as other issues such as study assumptions), results are much more variable. In addition, there is less experience with producing these Fuels, resulting in more uncertainty. It is important to distinguish between total and fossil energy required for production when comparing efficiencies among the Fuels. Petroleum-based Fuels have the highest efficiency for the well-to-tank portion when total energy is considered. However, if only fossil energy is considered,
-
evaluating Automobile Fuel propulsion system technologies
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2003Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. LaveAbstract:We examine the life cycle implications of a wide range of Fuels and propulsion systems that could power cars and light trucks in the US and Canada over the next two to three decades ((1) reformulated gasoline and diesel, (2) compressed natural gas, (3) methanol and ethanol, (4) liquid petroleum gas, (5) liquefied natural gas, (6) Fischer ‐ Tropsch liquids from natural gas, (7) hydrogen, and (8) electricity; (a) spark ignition port injection engines, (b) spark ignition direct injection engines, (c) compression ignition engines, (d) electric motors with battery power, (e) hybrid electric propulsion options, and (f) Fuel cells). We review recent studies to evaluate the environmental, performance, and cost characteristics of Fuel/propulsion technology combinations that are currently available or will be available in the next few decades. Only options that could power a significant proportion of the personal transportation fleet are investigated. Contradictions among the goals of customers, manufacturers, and society have led society to assert control through extensive regulation of Fuel composition, vehicle emissions, and Fuel economy. Changes in social goals, Fuel-engine-emissions technologies, Fuel availability, and customer desires require a rethinking of current regulations as well as the design of vehicles and Fuels that will appeal to consumers over the next decades. The almost 250 million light-duty vehicles (LDV; cars and light trucks) in the US and Canada are responsible for about 14% of the economic activity in these countries for the year 2002. These vehicles are among our most important personal assets and liabilities, since they are generally the second most expensive asset we own, costing almost $100 000 over the lifetime of a vehicle. While an essential part of our lifestyles and economies, in the US, for example, the light-duty fleet is also responsible for 42 000 highways deaths, and four million injuries each year, consumes almost half of the petroleum used, and causes large amounts of illness and premature death due to the emissions of air pollutants (e.g. nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particles). The search for new technologies and Fuels has been driven by regulators, not the marketplace. Absent regulation, most consumers would demand larger, more powerful vehicles, ignoring Fuel economy and emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases; the vehicles that get more than 35 mpg make up less than 1% of new car sales. Federal regulators require increased vehicle safety, decreased pollution emissions, and better Fuel economy. In addition, California and Canadian regulators are concerned about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Many people worry about the US dependence on imported petroleum, and people in both countries desire a switch from petroleum to a more sustainable Fuel. The Fuel-technology combinations and vehicle attributes of concern to drivers and regulators are examined along with our final evaluation of the alternatives compared to a conventional gasoline-Fueled spark ignition port injection Automobile. When the US Congress passed laws intended to increase safety, decrease emissions, and increase Fuel economy, they did not realize that these goals were contradictory. For example, increasing safety requires increasing weight, which lowers Fuel economy; decreasing emissions generally decreases engine efficiency. By spending more money or by reducing the performance of the vehicle, most of the attributes can be improved without harming others. For example, spending more money can lighten the vehicle (as with an aluminum frame with greater energy absorbing capacity), improving performance and safety; a smaller engine can increase Fuel economy without diminishing safety or increasing pollution emissions, but performance
Carolyn Fischer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Automobile Fuel economy standards: Impacts, efficiency, and alternatives
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Soren T Anderson, Ian W H Parry, James M Sallee, Carolyn FischerAbstract:This article discusses Automobile Fuel economy standards in the United States and other countries. We first describe how these programs affect the Automobile market, including impacts on Fuel consumption and other dimensions of the vehicle fleet. We then review two different methodologies for assessing the costs of Fuel economy programs-engineering and market-based approaches-and discuss what the results of these assessments imply for policy. Next we compare the welfare effects of Fuel economy standards and Fuel taxes and discuss whether these two types of policies can be complementary. Finally, we review arguments for transitioning away from Fuel economy regulations and toward a "feebate" system, a policy approach that imposes fees on vehicles that are Fuel inefficient and provides rebates to those that are Fuel efficient.
-
Automobile Fuel economy standards impacts efficiency and alternatives
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Soren T Anderson, Ian W H Parry, James M Sallee, Carolyn FischerAbstract:This paper discusses Fuel economy regulations in the United States and other countries. We first describe how these programs affect the Automobile market, including their impacts on Fuel use and other dimensions of the vehicle fleet. We then review different methodologies for assessing the costs of Fuel economy regulations and discuss what the results of these methodologies imply for policy. Following that, we compare the welfare effects of Fuel economy regulations to those of Fuel taxes and assess whether or not these two policies can be complements. Finally, we review arguments for transitioning away from Fuel economy regulations towards a "feebate" system.
-
should Automobile Fuel economy standards be tightened
The Energy Journal, 2007Co-Authors: Carolyn Fischer, Winston Harrington, Ian W H ParryAbstract:This paper develops analytical and numerical models to explain and estimate the welfare effects of raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for new passenger vehicles. The analysis encompasses a wide range of scenarios concerning consumers valuation of Fuel economy and the full economic costs of adopting Fuel-saving technologies. It also accounts for, and improves estimates of, CAFE's impact on externalities from local and global pollution, oil dependence, traffic congestion and accidents. The bottom line is that it is difficult to make an airtight case either for or against tightening CAFE on pure efficiency grounds, as the magnitude and direction of the welfare change varies across different, plausible scenarios.
Lave Lester B. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Evaluating Automobile Fuel/propulsion system technologies
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2003Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Maclean Heather L., Lester B. Lave, Lave Lester B.Abstract:We examine the life cycle implications of a wide range of Fuels and propulsion systems that could power cars and light trucks in the US and Canada over the next two to three decades ((1) reformulated gasoline and diesel, (2) compressed natural gas, (3) methanol and ethanol, (4) liquid petroleum gas, (5) liquefied natural gas, (6) Fischer–Tropsch liquids from natural gas, (7) hydrogen, and (8) electricity; (a) spark ignition port injection engines, (b) spark ignition direct injection engines, (c) compression ignition engines, (d) electric motors with battery power, (e) hybrid electric propulsion options, and (f) Fuel cells). We review recent studies to evaluate the environmental, performance, and cost characteristics of Fuel/propulsion technology combinations that are currently available or will be available in the next few decades. Only options that could power a significant proportion of the personal transportation fleet are investigated. Contradictions among the goals of customers, manufacturers, and society have led society to assert control through extensive regulation of Fuel composition, vehicle emissions, and Fuel economy. Changes in social goals, Fuel-engine-emissions technologies, Fuel availability, and customer desires require a rethinking of current regulations as well as the design of vehicles and Fuels that will appeal to consumers over the next decades. The almost 250 million light-duty vehicles (LDV; cars and light trucks) in the US and Canada are responsible for about 14% of the economic activity in these countries for the year 2002. These vehicles are among our most important personal assets and liabilities, since they are generally the second most expensive asset we own, costing almost $100 000 over the lifetime of a vehicle. While an essential part of our lifestyles and economies, in the US, for example, the light-duty fleet is also responsible for 42 000 highways deaths, and four million injuries each year, consumes almost half of the petroleum used, and causes large amounts of illness and premature death due to the emissions of air pollutants (e.g. nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particles). The search for new technologies and Fuels has been driven by regulators, not the marketplace. Absent regulation, most consumers would demand larger, more powerful vehicles, ignoring Fuel economy and emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases; the vehicles that get more than 35 mpg make up less than 1% of new car sales. Federal regulators require increased vehicle safety, decreased pollution emissions, and better Fuel economy. In addition, California and Canadian regulators are concerned about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Many people worry about the US dependence on imported petroleum, and people in both countries desire a switch from petroleum to a more sustainable Fuel. The Fuel-technology combinations and vehicle attributes of concern to drivers and regulators are examined along with our final evaluation of the alternatives compared to a conventional gasoline-Fueled spark ignition port injection Automobile. When the US Congress passed laws intended to increase safety, decrease emissions, and increase Fuel economy, they did not realize that these goals were contradictory. For example, increasing safety requires increasing weight, which lowers Fuel economy; decreasing emissions generally decreases engine efficiency. By spending more money or by reducing the performance of the vehicle, most of the attributes can be improved without harming others. For example, spending more money can lighten the vehicle (as with an aluminum frame with greater energy absorbing capacity), improving performance and safety; a smaller engine can increase Fuel economy without diminishing safety or increasing pollution emissions, but performance suffers; modern electronics have improved performance, Fuel economy, and lowered emissions, but have increased the price of the vehicle. However, low price and performance are important attributes of a vehicle. To resolve these contradictions, regulators in the US and Canada need to specify the desired tradeoffs among safety, emissions, Fuel economy, and cost, and a single agency needs to be designated in each country to oversee the tradeoffs among the regulators’ attributes and those desired by consumers. We discuss methods needed to evaluate the attractiveness of vehicles employing alternative Fuels and propulsion systems including: 1.Predicting the vehicle attributes and tradeoffs among these attributes that consumers will find appealing;2.assessing current and near term technologies to predict the primary attributes of each Fuel and propulsion system as well as its externalities and secondary effects;3.applying a life cycle assessment approach;4.completing a benefit–cost analysis to quantify the net social benefit of each alternative system;5.assessing the comparative advantages of centralized command and control regulation versus the use of market incentives;6.characterizing and quantifying uncertainty. An especially important feature of the analysis is ensuring that vehicles to be compared are similar on the basis of size, safety, acceleration, range, Fuel economy, emissions and other vehicle attributes. Since it is nearly impossible to find two vehicles that are identical, we use the criterion of asking whether consumers (and regulators) consider them to be comparable. Comparability has proven to be a difficult task for analysts. No one has managed a fully satisfactory method for adjustment, although some have made progress. Absurd comparisons, such as comparing the Fuel economy of a Metro to that of an Expedition, have not been made because of the good sense of analysts. However, steps should be taken to achieve further progress in developing methods to address this issue. Comparing Fuels and propulsion systems require a comprehensive, quantitative, life cycle approach to the analysis. It must be more encompassing than ‘well-to-wheels’ analysis. Well-to-wheels is comprised of two components, the ‘well-to-tank’ (all activities involved in producing the Fuel) and ‘tank-to-wheel’ (the operation/driving of the vehicle). The analyses must include the extraction of all raw materials, Fuel production, infrastructure requirements, component manufacture, vehicle manufacture, use, and end-of-life phases of the vehicle. Focusing on a portion of the system can be misleading. The analysis must be quantitative and include the array of environmental discharges, as well as life cycle cost information, since each Fuel and propulsion system has its comparative advantages. Comparing systems requires knowing how much better each alternative is with respect to some dimensions and how much worse it is with respect to others. Since focusing on a single stage or attribute of a system can be misleading, e.g. only tailpipe emissions, we explore the life cycle implications of each Fuel and propulsion technology. For example, the California Air Resources Board focused on tailpipe emissions in requiring zero emissions vehicles, neglecting the other attributes of battery-powered cars, such as other environmental discharges, cost, consumer acceptance and performance. The necessity of examining the whole life cycle and all the attributes is demonstrated by the fact that CARB had to rescind its requirement that 2% of new vehicles sold in 1998 and 10% sold in 2003 be zero emissions vehicles. No one Fuel/propulsion system dominates the others on all the dimensions in Table 8. This means that society must decide which attributes are more important, as well as the tradeoffs among attributes. For example, higher manufacturing cost could be offset by lower Fuel costs over the life of the vehicle. Changes in social goals, technology, Fuel options, customer desires, and public policy since 1970 have changed vehicle design, Fuel production, manufacturing plants, and infrastructure. In particular, gasoline or diesel in an internal combustion engine (ICE) is currently the cheapest system and is likely to continue to be the cheapest system through 2020. These vehicles will continue to evolve with improvements in performance, safety, Fuel economy, and lower pollution emissions. However, if society desires a more sustainable system or one that emits significantly less greenhouse gases, consumers will have to pay more for an alternative Fuel or propulsion system. We review a dozen life cycle studies that have examined LDV, comparing different Fuels and/or propulsion systems. The studies are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5. The studies vary in the Fuel/propulsion options they consider, the environmental burdens they report, and the assumptions they employ, making it difficult to compare results. However, all of the studies include the ‘well-to-tank’ and ‘tank-to-wheel’ activities and the majority of the studies include a measure of efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions associated with these activities. We limit our comparison to these activities and measures. The life cycle studies match most closely for the well-to-tank portion and for conventional fossil Fuels. See Table 6 for a summary of the ranges of efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reported in the studies for the well-to-tank portion for the various options. For the well-to-tank portion for the production of electricity, renewable Fuels, and hydrogen, differing Fuel production pathways are most important. Due to the range of different production options for these Fuels (as well as other issues such as study assumptions), results are much more variable. In addition, there is less experience with producing these Fuels, resulting in more uncertainty. It is important to distinguish between total and fossil energy required for production when comparing efficiencies among the Fuels. Petroleum-based Fuels have the highest efficiency for the well-to-tank portion when total energy is considered. However, if only fossil energy is considered,
Soren T Anderson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Automobile Fuel economy standards: Impacts, efficiency, and alternatives
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Soren T Anderson, Ian W H Parry, James M Sallee, Carolyn FischerAbstract:This article discusses Automobile Fuel economy standards in the United States and other countries. We first describe how these programs affect the Automobile market, including impacts on Fuel consumption and other dimensions of the vehicle fleet. We then review two different methodologies for assessing the costs of Fuel economy programs-engineering and market-based approaches-and discuss what the results of these assessments imply for policy. Next we compare the welfare effects of Fuel economy standards and Fuel taxes and discuss whether these two types of policies can be complementary. Finally, we review arguments for transitioning away from Fuel economy regulations and toward a "feebate" system, a policy approach that imposes fees on vehicles that are Fuel inefficient and provides rebates to those that are Fuel efficient.
-
Automobile Fuel economy standards impacts efficiency and alternatives
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Soren T Anderson, Ian W H Parry, James M Sallee, Carolyn FischerAbstract:This paper discusses Fuel economy regulations in the United States and other countries. We first describe how these programs affect the Automobile market, including their impacts on Fuel use and other dimensions of the vehicle fleet. We then review different methodologies for assessing the costs of Fuel economy regulations and discuss what the results of these methodologies imply for policy. Following that, we compare the welfare effects of Fuel economy regulations to those of Fuel taxes and assess whether or not these two policies can be complements. Finally, we review arguments for transitioning away from Fuel economy regulations towards a "feebate" system.