TRANSITIONS TO
ALTERNATIVE
VEHICLES
AND FUELS

Committee on Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                          OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE VEHICLES AND FUELS Committee on Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS  500 Fifth Street, NW  Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract DE-DT001481, TO#2, between the National Academy of Sci- ences and the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-26852-3 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-26852-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2013932897 Copies of this report are available Additional copies of this report are available in limited supply, free of charge, from: for sale from: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems The National Academies Press National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW 500 Fifth Street, NW Keck 360 Keck W934 Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20001 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (202) 334-3344 http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTTEE ON TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE VEHICLES AND FUELS DOUGLAS M. CHAPIN, Chair, NAE,1 MPR Associates, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia RALPH BRODD, Broddarp of Nevada, Henderson GARY COWGER, GLC Ventures, LLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan JOHN M. DECICCO, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor GEORGE C. EADS, Charles River Associates (retired), Washington, District of Columbia RAMON ESPINO, University of Virginia, Charlottesville JOHN M. GERMAN, International Council for Clean Transportation, Ann Arbor, Michigan DAVID L. GREENE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Knoxville, Tennessee JUDITH GREENWALD, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Arlington, Virginia L. LOUIS HEGEDUS, NAE, Arkema, Inc. (retired), Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania JOHN HEYWOOD, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge VIRGINIA McCONNELL, Resources for the Future, Washington, District of Columbia STEPHEN J. McGOVERN, PetroTech Consultants LLC, Voorhees, New Jersey GENE NEMANICH, ChevronTexaco Corporation (retired), Scottsdale, Arizona JOHN O’DELL, Edmunds, Inc., Orange, California ROBERT F. SAWYER, NAE, University of California, Berkeley CHRISTINE S. SLOANE, Sloane Solutions, LLC, Kewadin, Michigan WILLIAM H. WALSH, JR., Consultant, McLean, Virginia MICHAEL E. WEBBER, University of Texas at Austin Project Staff ALAN T. CRANE, Senior Scientist and Study Director JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems JONNA HAMILTON, Program Officer (until December 2011) EVONNE TANG, Senior Program Officer (beginning December 2011) DAVID W. COOKE, Associate Program Officer ALICE V. WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant LaNITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator DANA CAINES, Financial Manager Consultants DAN MESZLER, Meszler Engineering Services STEVE PLOTKIN, Argonne National Laboratory MARC MELAINA, Consultant MICHAEL P. RAMAGE, NAE, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired) JAMES R. KATZER, NAE, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired) GARY W. ROGERS, FEV, Inc. DEAN TOMAZIC, FEV, Inc. AARON BIRCKETT, FEV, Inc. 1 NAE   = Member, National Academy of Engineering. v

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ANDREW BROWN, JR., Chair, NAE,1 Delphi Corporation, Troy, Michigan WILLIAM BANHOLZER, NAE, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan MARILYN BROWN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta WILLIAM CAVANAUGH III, Progress Energy (retired), Raleigh, North Carolina PAUL DeCOTIS, Long Island Power Authority, Albany, New York CHRISTINE EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station SHERRI GOODMAN, CNA, Alexandria, Virginia NARAIN HINGORANI, NAE, Independent Consultant, Los Altos Hills, California ROBERT HUGGETT, Independent Consultant, Seaford, Virginia DEBBIE NIEMEIER, University of California, Davis DANIEL NOCERA, NAS,2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey DAN REICHER, Stanford University, Stanford, California BERNARD ROBERTSON, NAE, Daimler-Chrysler (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan GARY ROGERS, FEV, Inc., Auburn Hills, Michigan ALISON SILVERSTEIN, Consultant, Pflugerville, Texas MARK THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego RICHARD WHITE, Oppenheimer & Company, New York City Staff JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director DANA CAINES, Financial Associate DAVID W. COOKE, Associate Program Officer ALAN T. CRANE, Senior Scientist K. JOHN HOLMES, Associate Director LaNITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator ALICE WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Project Assistant 1  National Academy of Engineering. 2  National Academy of Sciences. vi

OCR for page R1
  Preface The U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet is responsible for about half the petroleum consumed in this nation and about 17 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions. Concerns over national security and climate change have increased interest in alternative ways to power the fleet. Many technologies, with widely varying levels of current capability, cost, and com- mercialization, can reduce light-duty vehicle petroleum consumption, and most of these also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, any transition to achieve high levels of reduction is likely to take decades. The timeframe of this study goes out to 2050. Project- ing the cost and performance of technologies out that far entails many uncertainties. The technical issues alone are extraordinarily complex and interrelated. Further, its statement of task also asked the Committee on Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels to consider the related policy options. The committee’s analyses, while exploratory and not definitive, having significant uncer- tainty, indicate that the costs and benefits of large reductions in petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions will both be substantial. Its work also suggests that policy will be an essential element in achieving these reductions. Alternative vehicles and some fuels will be more expensive than their current equivalents, at least for several decades, and advanced technology could be used for increased power or other purposes rather than be focused solely on reducing petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, it is criti- cal to have a clear vision of the options and how they might be implemented if progress is to be made efficiently with a minimum of disruption and a maximum of net benefits. This report explores those options and the related issues, and it sheds light on the decisions the nation may be making. The members of the study committee worked extraordinarily hard on this task. I am very grateful for their efforts. They represent a remarkably broad and accomplished group of experts. Given the complex nature of the task at hand, producing a report that was sat- isfactory in every detail to every member was challenging. Given the difficulty we have had in achieving consensus, I will not attempt to summarize the result here. The report speaks for itself. The committee and I greatly appreciate the efforts made by our highly qualified consul- tants and the many others who contributed directly to our deliberations via presentations and discussions and the many authors on whose work we relied. The committee operated under the auspices of the NRC’s Board on Energy and Envi- ronmental Systems. We owe a special debt of gratitude to James Zucchetto, Alan Crane, Evonne Tang, David Cooke, and Alice Williams of the NRC staff. In spite of what must have vii

OCR for page R1
viii PREFACE seemed like an endless succession of in-person and conference call consultations among the full committee and working groups, meetings to gather information, and revision of the text, their energy and professionalism never wavered. The committee and I personally offer our heartfelt thanks. Douglas M. Chapin, Chair Committee on Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels

OCR for page R1
  Acknowledgments The Committee on Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels is grateful to the many individuals who contributed their time and efforts to this National Research Council (NRC) study. The presentations at committee meetings provided valuable information and insights that enhanced the committee’s understanding of the technologies and barriers involved. The committee thanks the following individuals who provided briefings: Patrick Davis, U.S. Department of Energy, Phillip Patterson, U.S. Department of Energy, Jacob Ward, U.S. Department of Energy, David Howell, U.S. Department of Energy, Jay Braitsch, U.S. Department of Energy, Diana Bauer, U.S. Department of Energy, Sunita Satyapal, U.S. Department of Energy, Fred Joseck, U.S. Department of Energy, David Danielson, ARPA-E, Austin Brown, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Andy Aden, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, David Green, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Steve Plotkin, Argonne National Laboratory, Bill Charmley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert Fri, Consultant, Mike Ramage, Consultant, Robbie Diamond, Electrification Coalition, Mark Finley, BP, Alan Krupnick, Resources for the Future, Virginia McConnell, Resources for the Future, Linda Capuano, Marathon Oil Company, Sascha Simon, Mercedes Benz, Ben Knight, Honda, Dan Sperling, University of California, Davis, and Reiko Takemasa, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The committee owes special thanks to Michael Ramage (NAE) and James Katzer (NAE), who generously volunteered their time and expertise to assist in many complex and difficult issues. This report has benefited greatly from their contributions. The members of the com- mittee and the staff deeply regret the death of Jim Katzer in November 2012. ix

OCR for page R1
x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The committee also appreciates the contributions of the following personel from FEV, Inc., who helped in reviewing the methodology and results of the vehicle analysis: Gary Rogers, Dean Tomazic, and Aaron Birckett. This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspec- tives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of the independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the fol- lowing individuals for their review of this report: Menahem Anderman, Advanced Automotive Batteries, Paul N. Blumberg, NAE,1 Independent Consultant, Andrew Brown, NAE, Delphi Corporation, Lawrence D. Burns, NAE, University of Michigan, Robert Epperly, Independent Consultant, Albert R. George, Cornell University, Chris T. Hendrickson, NAE, Carnegie Mellon University, Jason D. Hill, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Maryann N. Keller, Maryann Keller & Associates, LLC, Joan M. Ogden, University of California, Davis, John M. Reilly, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bernard I. Robertson, NAE, DaimlerChrysler Corporation (retired), Gary W. Rogers, FEV, Inc., and R.R. Stephenson, Independent Consultant. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Elisabeth M. Drake, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (retired), and Trevor O. Jones, NAE, ElectroSonics Medical. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. 1  National Academy of Engineering.

OCR for page R1
  Contents OVERVIEW 1 SUMMARY 2 1 INTRODUCTION 11 1.1 Approach and Content, 12 1.2 References, 14 2 ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES: STATUS, POTENTIAL, AND BARRIERS 15 2.1 Introduction and Overall Framework for Analyses, 15 2.2 Vehicle Fuel Economy and Cost Assessment Methodology, 17 2.2.1 Fuel Economy Estimates, 17 2.2.2 Vehicle Cost Calculations, 18 2.3 Load Reduction (Non-Drivetrain) Technologies, 18 2.3.1 Light Weighting, 19 2.3.2 Reduced Rolling Resistance, 20 2.3.3 Improved Aerodynamics, 21 2.3.4 Improved Accessory Efficiency, 21 2.4 Drivetrain Technologies for Reducing Fuel Consumption, 21 2.4.1 Conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles, 21 2.4.2 Conventional Hybrid Electric Vehicles, 23 2.5 Plug-In Electric Vehicles, 25 2.5.1 Batteries for Plug-In Electric Vehicles, 25 2.5.2 Automotive Battery Packs, 26 2.5.3 Battery Cost Estimates, 26 2.5.4 Battery Technology for Future Applications, 27 2.5.5 Electric Motors, 27 2.5.6 Barriers to the Widespread Adoption of Electric Vehicles, 28 2.6 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, 29 2.6.1 Current Technology for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, 30 2.6.2 FCEV Cost and Efficiency Projections, 32 2.7 Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles, 34 2.7.1 Fuel Storage, 34 2.7.2 Safety, 35 2.7.3 Emissions, 35 2.7.4 Vehicle Costs and Characteristics, 35 xi

OCR for page R1
xii CONTENTS 2.8 Summary of Results, 35 2.8.1 Potential Evolution of a Midsize Car Through 2050, 35 2.8.2 Technology Results, Performance, and Costs, 37 2.9 Comparison of FCEVs with BEVs, 38 2.10 Findings, 39 2.11 References, 40 3 ALTERNATIVE FUELS 42 3.1 Summary Discussion, 42 3.1.1 The Scope of Change Required, 42 3.1.2 Fuel Pathways, 43 3.1.3 Developing Trends in the Fuels Market, 43 3.1.4 Study Methods Used in the Analysis, 43 3.1.5 Costs of Alternative Fuels, 44 3.1.6 Investment Costs for Alternative Fuels, 44 3.1.7 GHG Emissions from the Production and Use of Alternative Fuels, 45 3.2 Biofuels, 46 3.2.1 Current Status, 46 3.2.2 Capabilities, 48 3.2.3 Biomass Availability, 48 3.2.4 Conversion Processes, 48 3.2.5 Costs, 49 3.2.6 Infrastructure Needs, 50 3.2.7 Regional or Local Effects, 50 3.2.8 Safety, 50 3.2.9 Barriers, 50 3.2.10 GHG Reduction Potential, 51 3.3 Electricity as a Fuel for Light-Duty Vehicles, 51 3.3.1 Current Status, 51 3.3.2 Capabilities, 51 3.3.3 Grid Impact of Plug-in Electric Vehicles, 53 3.3.4 Costs, 54 3.3.5 Regional and Local Effects, 54 3.3.6 Safety, 55 3.3.7 Barriers, 55 3.4 Hydrogen as a Fuel, 56 3.4.1 The Attraction of Hydrogen, 56 3.4.2 Major Challenges, 56 3.4.3 Current Status of the Market, 56 3.4.4 Hydrogen Infrastructure Definition, 56 3.4.5 Hydrogen Dispensing Costs and GHGs, 57 3.4.6 Hydrogen Infrastructure Needs and Cost, 58 3.4.7 Recent History, 59 3.4.8 Barriers, 60 3.5 Natural Gas as an Automobile Fuel, 60 3.5.1 Current Status, 60 3.5.2 Capabilities, 61 3.5.3 Costs, 63 3.5.4 Safety of Natural Gas and Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles, 64 3.5.5 Barriers, 64 3.6 Liquid Fuels from Natural Gas, 65 3.6.1 Current Status, 65 3.6.2 Capabilities, 65 3.6.3 Costs, 65 3.6.4 Implementation, 66

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS xiii 3.6.5 Infrastructure Needs, 66 3.6.6 Safety, 66 3.6.7 Barriers, 66 3.7 Liquid Fuels from Coal, 67 3.7.1 Current Status, 67 3.7.2 Capabilities, 67 3.7.3 Costs, 68 3.7.4 Infrastructure Needs, 68 3.7.5 Implementation, 69 3.7.6 Safety, 69 3.7.7 Barriers, 69 3.8 Carbon Capture and Storage, 70 3.8.1 Current Status, 70 3.8.2 Capabilities, 70 3.8.3 Costs, 71 3.8.4 Infrastructure Needs, 71 3.8.5 Barriers, 71 3.9 Resource Needs and Limitations, 71 3.10 References, 74 4 CONSUMER ATTITUDES AND BARRIERS 77 4.1 LDV Purchase Drivers, 78 4.2 What Do Consumers Want, 80 4.3 Factors in Consumers’ Choices, 80 4.4 Subsidies, 81 4.5 ICEVs Still Tops, 81 4.6 How Consumers Value Fuel Economy, 82 4.7 Interest in AVFs Limited, 82 4.8 Barriers, 83 4.9 Peer Influence Critical, 85 4.10 Infrastructure Availability, 85 4.11 Implications, 86 4.12 References, 87 5 MODELING THE TRANSITION TO ALTERNATIVE VEHICLES AND FUELS 89 5.1 Introduction, 89 5.2 Modeling Approach and Tools, 90 5.2.1 VISION Model, 90 5.2.2 LAVE-Trans Model, 90 5.3 Results from Runs of VISION Model, 91 5.3.1 Baseline Cases, 91 5.3.2 VISION Cases, 93 5.3.3 Results of Initial VISION Runs, 95 5.4 LAVE-Trans Model, 97 5.4.1 Comparing LAVE-Trans and VISION Estimates, 98 5.4.2 Analysis of Transition Policy Cases with the LAVE-Trans Model, 103 5.4.3 Energy Efficiency Improvement and Advanced Biofuels, 107 5.4.4 Emphasis on Pricing Policies, 109 5.4.5 Plug-in Electric Vehicles, 110 5.4.6 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Cases, 112 5.4.7 Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles, 113 5.4.8 Plug-in Electric Vehicles and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, 114 5.4.9 Optimistic Technology Scenarios, 115 5.4.10 Summary of Policy Modeling Results, 115

OCR for page R1
xiv CONTENTS 5.5 Comparison to Previous Work, 117 5.6 Adapting Policy to Changes in Technology, 121 5.7 Simulating Uncertainty About the Market’s Response, 125 5.8 Findings, 128 5.9 References, 129 6 POLICIES FOR REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS FROM AND PETROLEUM USE 131 BY LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 6.1 Policies Influencing Automotive Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 131 6.1.1 Land-Use Policy, 131 6.1.2 Transportation Policy, 132 6.1.3 Energy Policy, 132 6.1.4 Environmental Policy, 133 6.1.5 Technology Policy, 134 6.1.6 Decision Making Through the Matrix of Policy Arenas, 134 6.2 Ways to Influence Petroleum Use and GHG Emissions Effects in the LDV Sector, 134 6.3 Policies Aimed at Reducing Vehicle Energy Intensity, 135 6.3.1 Vehicle Energy Efficiency and GHG Emissions Standards, 135 6.3.2 U.S. CAFE Standards, 135 6.3.3 Subsidies for More Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and Fees on Less Fuel-Efficient Vehicles, 137 6.3.4 Motor Fuel Taxes as an Incentive to Purchase More Fuel-Efficient Vehicles, 137 6.3.5 A Price Floor Target for Motor Fuels, 138 6.3.6 Policies to Change the Size and Weight Composition of the LDV Fleet, 139 6.3.7 Assessment of Vehicle Fuel Economy Improvement Strategies, 139 6.4 Policies to Reduce Petroleum Use in or GHG Emissions Impacts of Fuel, 140 6.4.1 Tax Incentives for Fuels and Their Infrastructure, 140 6.4.2 Fuel-Related Regulations, 141 6.4.3 Renewable Fuel Standard, 141 6.4.4 Possible Alternative to RFS2, 142 6.4.5 California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, 142 6.5 Policies to Impact Vehicle Miles Traveled, 143 6.5.1 Historical and Projected Future Growth in LDV VMT, 143 6.5.2 Reducing the Rate of Growth of VMT by Increasing Urban Residential Density, 143 6.5.3 Reducing the Rate of Growth of VMT Through the Use of Pricing Strategies, 144 6.5.4 Reducing the Rate of Growth of VMT Through Other Policies, 144 6.5.5 Summary of the Impact of Policies to Reduce the Rate of Growth of VMT, 144 6.5.6 Policies to Improve the Efficiency of Operation of the LDV Transport Network, 144 6.6 Policies Impacting the Innovation Process, 145 6.6.1 Demonstration, 146 6.6.2 Deployment, 147 6.7 Policies Impacting Public Support, 148 6.8 Adaptive Policies, 148 6.9 References, 149 7 POLICY OPTIONS 152 7.1 Policies to Encourage the Continued Improvement of the Fuel Efficiency of the Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet, 153 7.2 Policies Targeting Petroleum Use, 153 7.3 Policies to Reduce GHG Emissions Associated with LDV Fuels, 154 7.4 Policies to Reduce the Rate of Growth of VMT, 156 7.5 Policies to Encourage Research and Development, Demonstration, and Deployment, 157 7.5.1 Research and Development, 157 7.5.2 Demonstration, 158 7.5.3 Deployment, 158

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS xv 7.6 The Need for an Adaptive Policy Framework, 159 7.7 The Need for Public Information and Education, 160 7.8 References, 160 APPENDIXES1 A Statement of Task 163 B Committee Biographies 164 C Meetings and Presentations 169 D Reports on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections to 2050 171 E Glossary, Conversion Factors, and Acronyms and Abbreviations 207 F Vehicles 218 G Fuels 305 H Modeling 331 1 Note   that Appendixes D through H appear only in the electronic version of this report, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18264.

OCR for page R1
  Select Acronyms and Abbreviations AEO Annual Energy Outlook ICE internal combustion engine AFV alternative fuel vehicle ICEV internal combustion engine vehicle IHUF Indexed Highway User Fee bbl barrel ILUC indirect land-use change bbl/d barrels per day IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change BEV battery electric vehicle Btu British thermal unit LCA life-cycle assessment LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard CAA Clean Air Act LDV light-duty vehicle CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy Li-ion lithium ion CCS carbon capture and storage LT light truck CNG compressed natural gas CNGV compressed natural gas vehicle MMTCO2e million metric ton(s) of CO2 equivalent CO2 carbon dioxide mpg miles per gallon CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent mpgge miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent CTL coal to liquid (fuel) NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable NEMS National Energy Modeling System Energy NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety EIA Energy Information Administration Administration EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of NOx mono-nitrogen oxides, including nitric oxide 2007 (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) EOR enhanced oil recovery EPAct Energy Policy Act PEV plug-in electric vehicle ETA Energy Tax Act PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle FCEV hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle quad quadrillion British thermal units (of energy) FFV flex fuel vehicle RFS Renewable Fuel Standard gge gallon of gasoline equivalent RFS2 Renewable Fuel Standard, as amended by GHG greenhouse gas EISA GREET Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and RIN Renewable Identification Number Energy Use in Transportation model GTL gas to liquid (fuel) tcf trillion(s) of standard cubic feet H2 hydrogen VMT vehicle miles traveled HEV hybrid electric vehicle NOTE: A more complete list of acronyms and abbreviations is given in Appendix E of the electronic version of this report, available at http://www.nap.edu/ catalog.php?record_id=18264. xvi