Automobile Fuel - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Automobile Fuel

The Experts below are selected from a list of 300 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Lester B. Lave – 1st expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • Evaluating Automobile Fuel/propulsion system technologies
    Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2020
    Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. Lave

    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

  • Life Cycle Assessment of Automobile/Fuel Options
    Environmental Science & Technology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. Lave

    Abstract:

    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, 2003
    Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. Lave

    Abstract:

    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…

Heather L. Maclean – 2nd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • Evaluating Automobile Fuel/propulsion system technologies
    Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2020
    Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. Lave

    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

  • Life Cycle Assessment of Automobile/Fuel Options
    Environmental Science & Technology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. Lave

    Abstract:

    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, 2003
    Co-Authors: Heather L. Maclean, Lester B. Lave

    Abstract:

    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…

Carolyn Fischer – 3rd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • Automobile Fuel economy standards: Impacts, efficiency, and alternatives
    Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2011
    Co-Authors: Soren T Anderson, Ian W H Parry, James M Sallee, Carolyn Fischer

    Abstract:

    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, 2011
    Co-Authors: Soren T Anderson, Ian W H Parry, James M Sallee, Carolyn Fischer

    Abstract:

    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, 2007
    Co-Authors: Carolyn Fischer, Winston Harrington, Ian W H Parry

    Abstract:

    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.