Nearly 1,500 cars are added to Beijing’s roads daily. Credit: Xiayang Liu/Corbis
 |
DATA SHOT
2.3 kilograms
The amount of carbon dioxide produced by burning a liter of gasoline in an engine. The emission ratio is 2.7 kg/l for diesel and 2.5 kg/l for jet fuel.
|
Transportation defines our civilization. Where we live and work, the structure of our cities, the flow of global commerce--all have been shaped by transportation technologies. But modern transportation's reliance on fossil fuels cannot be sustained. Passenger planes, trains, and automobiles were responsible for nearly four billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2005--about 14 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted globally that year. If we continue to rely almost exclusively on petroleum to power these vehicles, they will be responsible for 11 billion to 18 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2050. That's because developing nations--which are home to 82 percent of the world's population and will be responsible for 98 percent of population growth in coming years--are on the verge of mass motorization. Auto ownership in the developing world is growing at a rate of 30 percent per year (see "Cleaner Vehicles by the Million").
In the developed world, carbon emissions from transportation are also a steadily growing problem. U.S. passenger transportation is responsible for 18 percent of America's greenhouse-gas emissions. Reducing these emissions by transforming the habits of consumers in America's deeply entrenched car culture won't be easy, but it would yield significant global benefits.
Relatively wealthy U.S. drivers can afford to adopt new alternative transportation technologies, and after a century's dominance by the internal-combustion engine and gasoline, these technologies, such as electric vehicles and biofuels, are finally becoming competitive (see "Petroleum's Long Good-bye"). But they still have a long way to go, and they must be fostered with coherent government policy (see "Washington Backs Plug-ins") if they are to displace fossil-fuel power.
As our world continues to globalize and urbanize, the issue of congestion, on the streets and in the air, must also be addressed with the help of information technology that can allow cars and planes to organize themselves into efficient traffic patterns (see "Urban Renewal" and "Satellites for Speedy Skies"). Needed most of all is a coherent transportation policy that promotes alternatives to fossil fuels while mandating that gasoline- and diesel-powered cars continue to become more fuel-efficient. And as the world's population becomes increasingly urban, we need to modify the structure and operation of our cities so that someone who needs to buy groceries or get to work doesn't have to fire up an internal-combustion engine to do it.
E-mail
Audio »
Print
Favorite
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Technology problem - The battery technology is simply not ready, becouse todays dominant technology have fundamental lacks (lithyon ion). So even if we do continuous improvements, It will not compete with energy storage of gasoline. We need a discontinuous innovation on this field, and move it from TRL 1 to 9 in a very short time.
A market problem - In general terms, how to adopt a worse (in terms of performance) and more expensive technology? People will simple not buy it becouse its not a logic choise. The only answer, in my opinion, is to raise the taxes on the gasoline powered technology and make a conventional car cost iqual or more then a EV. Yes, Make it expensive using big taxes. It will change a lot of things in our society. Cars will be a luxury, like in the beggining of the century. But, when the technology breaktrough appear, It will bring the cars price by 3 x fold (like henry's Mass production did) and we will see an increase production again.
I accept comments. So please if someone has diffent insighs, please help me understand this problem better.
INOVE51
11/02/2009
Posts:5
Why are we concentrating on batteries when we should be pushing the envelope. Or maybe we should all teleconference more often.
Aubreyff
11/02/2009
Posts:1
If they ever get developed they will used scads of power.
EFC episode had a nice view of them tho. public teleportation portal stations you just walk thru.
If you had your destination preprogrammed on a transponder with you, then you don't even need to stop, as a criminal did, to get away to any other destination portal.
erbium
11/08/2009
Posts:136
As for the implications of the technology (and there are many, depending on what its limitations are), I refer those interested to the Larry Niven essay;
'The Theory and Practice of Teleportation.'
delphinus100
12/03/2009
Posts:5
However, consumers are blind to the true costs of Petroleum in the first place, so what I feel is needed is a level playing field that takes into account all possible costs for a particular energy source, roll them up into an (Up and Downstream together) aggregated cost and present them in some common format to one another (like cost per BTU's or something).
I suspect the typical US citizen would choke on the fact that the price at the pump would jump up considerably and make "other" types of vehicles more attractive. The cost to secure oil with our Military forces (a long term issue), subsidies to exploration and refineries, added taxes for government programs, long term costs for road expansion and maintenenace all should be looked at as part of the overall costs. These are all our tax dollars at work and we need to be more diligent on how we allow Government to spend it. A knowledgable consumer is a dangerous consumer - especially to those Special Interests of big business and the people they buy. Knowing how much the energy costs are is a small piece that has never been fully disclosed by our government. If we all knew too much - they may have to shoot us all. It may even drive Mass Transit to evolve more quickly.
IMHO- Subsidized petroleum, coal, natural gas, ethanol and eventually Lithium I suspect should all be forced to operate under Free Market Conditions with ZERO help from consumers and taxes in the first place.
mkogrady
11/04/2009
Posts:234
I purchased gas this morning at $2.68/gal. $.32 was state taxes, $.18 federal taxes. About 19% tax. What type of tax would be necessary to shift the economics in favor of battery driven EVs? An increase in tax will never work because of its direct impact on all food and services. It would ultimately mean that these things will get more expensive at a time people have less money. Its economic and political suicide.
As virtuous as EVs are if they can't compete without significant help, they can't compete at all.
mkogrady, you obviously don't know what you're talking about when you're demanding "the use of financial incentives to switch from one energy source to another" while also saying all sources of energy "should all be forced to operate under Free Market Conditions". Financial incentives and disincentives are in direct opposition to the notion of a free market. EVs have yet to compete in a free market. They get $2000 tax credits while gas guzzlers get a $2000 tax, and EVs still lose out. If the vehicles were worthwhile that would be enough.
Financal methods will speed adoption of technology, but only innovation will get us to a point where its worthwhile to adopt it.
aka_mythos
11/30/2009
Posts:6
A battery that has a range of 2000 miles without recharge will kill gasoline overnight!! Believe me!
INOVE51
11/26/2009
Posts:5
enantiomer20...
11/02/2009
Posts:53
While we may have hit 'peak oil', strangely we are NOT running out of oil. We are simply running out of easy to get oil and bungling by many nationalized oil companies plus location of the remaining oil in inaccessible locations means it won't be extracted. fully 2/3 of the world's basin formations that could contain oil have not been explored with modern techniques (i.e. within the last 25 years), source - current issue scientific american on oil.
Frankly we do need to get off oil because of the billions of tons of CO2 we spew out each year. it will be slow and probably painful tho.
The funniest thing is one comment about 'not seeing a hydrogen gusher anywhere'. Well, only 15% of oil is extracted using pressure of the oil itself. The 2/3 of oil that remains in the ground of known reserves is there because it is very hard to extract. Contrary to popular belief it does not often occur in big 'pools' underground but instead mixed among rocks or sand where it is hard to extract. the saudi's for example inject vast amounts of seawater to displace oil, and other fields use steam or the newest is carbon dioxide to extract oil, which also sequesters the CO2.
erbium
11/08/2009
Posts:136
Batteries cost to much and do not last long enough yet.
Capacitors are a way out, but they hold very little energy right now.
I do disagree that taxes are the way to change peoples buying habits. Mainly since the alternative is not yet ready.
It is easy to suggest taxes as a "fix", until it is you who cannot afford a car.....
I would much rather see the government fund research. Then let the market take it from there.....
DennisBuller
11/02/2009
Posts:47
Thanks!
INOVE51
11/02/2009
Posts:5
Govt ALWAYS picks the wrong horse.
Alot in govt want battery research. The most advanced batteries now store 1/50th to 1/75th the energy density of chemical fuels according to tech revu sidebar in other article.
And that govt program to produce fusion power! JUST a few hundred billion and 20 years away (was 40 years ago also).
Nuclear fission today supplies 20% of the US power but is heavily subsidized and still one of the most expensive power sources. Subsidies exist in the form of waste disposal and transport, liability for disasters is assumed by govt. (What wind farm could make 300 square miles of heavily populated area near it uninhabitable for years?)
erbium
11/04/2009
Posts:136
This depends on what you mean. If you mean that the energy density of a battery (W/kg) is not as high as liquid fuels or that the battery/electric motor drive is not as cheap up front, I would agree.
It seems to me, however, that they don't need to meet these requirements to make a significant impact on the petroleum market.
First: a battery's lower energy density is somewhat offset by its efficiency. A greater percentage of its energy will go to moving the car that that which is held in a gas tank given the inefficiencies of heat engines.
Second: much of our driving is fairly local - for many a BEV (Nissan's and Tesla's paradigm) or an EREV (GM's and Toyota's paradigm) might fit the bill quite well.
In a year, we will hopefully have some actual market validation of these paradigms. Looking forward, we should expect to see a significant drop in price with some increase in performance of batteries. The price drop will follow from economies of scale and the usual improvement in the manufacturing technology as the field matures. We will also see a greater variety of battery chemistries and technologies come on-line, e.g., lithium sulfur, sodium-ion, rechargeable zinc-air, nanotube cathodes, etc. This will drive price downward and/or the performance upward.
Additionally, there are some technologies in the outing that will make the range extending ICE lighter, more efficient, and better matched to the EREV concept, eg. Wave disc engines, RadMax engine, small turbine, etc. Not all of these will see the light of day, but the relatively heavy and inefficient piston engine will slowly be phased out.
Finally, we're presently seeing a dramatic shift in the petroleum market as much more natural gas is coming on line. I'd expect to see, long term, more fuels that are derived synthetically from methane becoming available, specifically DME.
In short, it seems to me that the transportation market is at the cusp of a dramatic shift, one in which gasoline or diesel is among a variety of choices to fuel the vehicle. This should make the energy market more dynamic and resiliant, which is something I think we can all look forward to.
honzik
11/02/2009
Posts:9
jmaximus9
11/03/2009
Posts:85
the raven
11/03/2009
Posts:1
Mike_K
11/03/2009
Posts:1
dkohn
11/27/2009
Posts:13
you'd also know that wind already provides 1.3% of our electricity needs - when 5 years ago it was 0.1%.
additionally, you'd understand that wind and natural gas tied in 2008 for most production capacity added, proving that it's easy to add wind power.
wind isn't the solution to all our problems but by 2020 and 2030 it will provide 15-20%+ of our electricity.
us13
11/28/2009
Posts:1
Firstly vehicle's have to be designed to save energy, which means lighter materials, a lower top speed will help as well, a smaller size all counts in getting a better result.
Range is not an issue depending on just what sort of infrastructure is put in place. Everyone is now used to the fuel stations, these will have to change over to cater for the new vehicle types.
The cost of the new age vehicle's will be high as the current projections show that the major players are making very few new vehicle's which are not powered by Petroleum. Thus there has to be an increase in the production which will bring the prices down.
A tax on the old style of production vehicle's or the fuel itself would help in the change over.
Until people can see a real reason to move over very few will pay more to do the right thing.
Most will take the easy option and buy a cheap gas guzzler and then complain about the air,polution and the price of fuel.
We need Petroleum for so much more than just burning it to go get a shopping bag full of goodies or to take the kids to school.
Thaxone
11/03/2009
Posts:4
tl;dr We can completely eliminate our use of gasoline in the US, and replace it with an inherently cleaner fuel sourced from the US. And it works in virtually every internal combustion engine today.
Background
1) Recent engineering discoveries to extract natural gas from shale.
+
2) Recent discoveries of natural gas in PA Shale.
We have the energy
Total US Natural Gas reserves (2200TCF) can eliminate all gasoline consumed in US (equivalent ~17TCF/yr). That's a longer time horizon than oil.
3) USNatural gas works with almost every car, gasoline or diesel. Just adds another fuel tank. For new cars, the cost can be ~$1000. Retrofits done in Europe under $2K.
4) Refuel at home A wall-mounted compressor installed in your garage (mfg cost <$1K) lets you refuel at home, from existing USNatural gas pipelines.
5) No Worries vehicles are dual fuel, so you can always refill with USNatural or unleaded. Run both. Run either. Dual fuel is cool.
6) Cleaner than Hybrids An instant 50% reduction just by switching to USNatural. The Honda Civic Natural Gas is cleaner than the Prius. But even better news: the Gas/Electric hybrids can run on USNatural, making them even cleaner.
7) Cheaper than Gasoline Fuel costs tend to be 30% cheaper, plus lower maintenance costs (fewer oil changes, no spark plug changes) since the source fuel is so clean.
8) Proven technology 15 million vehicles today run cleanly and efficiently on natural gas. This isn't a science project, but a good use of the internal combustion engine.
9) Economic stimulus for US Instead of sending $175B (or more) to OPEC countries every year, keep that money in the US, paying US taxes and making US jobs.
US Natural isn't perfect, but it addresses all of the major challenges and let us switch off gasoline today. We'll need a bit of support from the government that we'll be putting together soon over at usnatural.org
In the meantime, you can see how the Germans are getting behind natural gas to meet fleet emission requirements and lower costs. http://www.erdgasfahrzeuge.de/
Cheers!
USNatural
11/04/2009
Posts:2
Yet we'd probably substitute super tankers of LNG instead of getting it from domestic sources. Wonderful target for terrorists, tankers that with a couple RPGs might become super-torches of the seas, and if in port, super destructors of the port city. (various texas coastal cities are all too familiar with petroleum infernos, even without terrorists)
but it doesn't address the main problem with petroleum, in that if we still dig up fossil fuels no matter what country they come from, and spew the combustion residue into the atmosphere, then we will still have a stinking cesspool of an atmosphere that will destroy the bulk of humanity.
Digging up the carbon laid down underground as fossil fuels in previous eras would multiply the teratonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere by seven times.
You won't be able to see where you are driving, to avoid the ocean inlets that will now be lapping across central US great plains up to montana, and won't have oxygen to breathe when the resulting carbonic acid dissolves in the ocean and keeps plankton that produce 70% of our oxygen from growing.
erbium
11/07/2009
Posts:136
In 2008 the US consumed almost 7.1 billion barrels of oil and about 12% of this came from the Middle Eastern Region. This amounts to roughly 850 million barrels overall.
A barrel of oil can be refined into 19.6 US gallons of gasoline which means we imported and refined almost 16.7 billion gallons of gas – just from the Middle Eastern area.
If you take into account the added costs for the security of these gallons of gasoline you can determine pretty quickly that the price we pay at the pump is far from what the true costs are. If my figures are correct, then the cost to US drivers is over $17.00 per Regular Grade gallon of gasoline.
I don’t have costs for Oil Subsidies, Earmarks and other pork barrel spending tallied in these figures, but they exist too. I don’t wish to pick on our Oil Trading partners directly but it seems to me that investing in new Automotive Technologies and Energy Sources make sense for our country.
Here's the big question:
Like a SMOKER - at what price point are you willing to quit that nasty habit? We have the "trillions" of dollars to develop all sorts of alternatives but lack the fortitude to do anything about it. We know if we continue to rely on fuel sources from an politically unstable region, then those costs will continue to rise.
mkogrady
11/09/2009
Posts:234
Can we also work to 'get beyond' the necessity of roads for anything other than local, non-motorized transport? We could use that land for growing more food, among other things.
For the short term I like some of the ideas to encourage more natural gas usage in vehicles, though this seems designed for local lightweight traffic. Refueling infrastructure is not cheap to build, so it makes sense to take advantage of gas pipelines that already exist.
justahick
11/04/2009
Posts:12
Other fusion reactions (of which fuel is not readily available, e.g. He3 from lunar sources, or have other drawbacks) do not always produce neutrons, hence don't have this problem.
erbium
11/04/2009
Posts:136
saiprasannas...
11/27/2009
Posts:1
The next area of innovation should focus on making commercial aircraft more efficient.
The fuel use and pollution produced by family vehicles is such a drop in the bucket compared to those two things.
aka_mythos
11/30/2009
Posts:6
- Spin the wheels and burn rubber
- Make the engine roar like a den of lions
- Get flames out of the exhaust pipes
- Exercise rebelliousness with their vehicle
- Use a vehicle to promote one's macho over another man
Some of these things will not be done with an EV, not even a Tesla. But if we start changing Hollywood and MTV movies, there is hope.
whitewha1e
11/30/2009
Posts:1