Welcome to Decarbonizing Transportation. Every two weeks (or so) we go deep on one topic and present a roundup of the latest decarbonization news at the bottom of the email.
Thanks for the article! Here's our estimate of all the ways in which AVs save us & cost us more GHG, for an overall estimate of 40% GHG savings vs business as usual, once the US fleet is fully automated (e.g., year 2050 case study, vs a no-AV future): https://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB19EnergyAndEmissions.pdf
My initial and two follow up comments are the first time I've participated in the Decarbonizing Transport forum. I stand behind my claim that PHEV tech offers more potential to reduce CO2 emissions than all-battery BEV and hydrogen fuel cell tech. If that's not contrarian enough, I am certain that AV (at Level 5 "driverless") is impossible and unsafe on the road and in other ways. A household EV should be considered as a safety device in power outage. A household EV is immediately available in any emergency where an AV may arrive too late. A household EV offers the means to more closely monitor and reduce fuel/energy consumption overall, for driving and household electrical devices. My perspective is presented in a 500-word essay "The Walking Communities of 2040" the first in a series of 5 that I hope to complete when it receives more than blank rejection from supposedly environmentally conscientious organizations.
"But they rely heavily on mass adoption of shared services. That seems unlikely. I suspect the more plausible outcome is that most people will continue travel in vehicles that are similar to the ones we use today and that we’ll mostly do it alone, in vehicles we own, even if they’re autonomous." Always nice to see common sense professional expertise reflected in predictions of future situations. The AV scenarios that predict large movements towards shared services or towards abandonment of personal vehicle ownership are based on little more than speculation or preferences for some future state that bears little relationship to consumer behavior today. Anyone who cares to do some simple arithmetic can satisfy themselves that there is no inherent economic advantage to using an AV as a service rather than owning one for most people in most situations, and since having immediate vehicle access has positive utility in most circumstances, it tilts AV ownership strongly towards the current vehicle ownership situation. In which case the sharing scenario is decisively weakened. Of course there will be those who reside in concentrated urban centers--although other trends at work post-COVID are likely to alter the preference gradient for such residential location choices--and for whom shared serial use, and perhaps shared concurrent use (less likely), will be more attractive than ownership of AVs, but 80% plus of urban residents are not in such situations. There are many reasons for hoping that AVs become mainstream over the next 2 decades, but as all vehicle propulsion technologies trend strongly towards electric over this period, it seems logical to conclude that AVs will have little independent effect on the decarbonization of urban transport. Good to see hype counterpoised by informed opinion.
Michael - I had it on the list, but felt like it had gotten a lot of coverage elsewhere. Probably a silly reason not to include it - should have kept it on the list.
I'd like to hear a debate - BEV vs HFCEV vs PHEV - to answer the question, Which of the 3 basic EV drivetrains offers the most benefits, advantages, applications and potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption, emissions AND insane traffic?
Allow me to reiterate an argument by Fredrik: PHEV in Germany are subsidized, lower fleet emissions (on paper), and are good for the image. (They also allow German legacy manufacturers to favorably compare their EV sales figures to BEV-only manufacturers, as German statistics rarely differentiate between BEV and PHEV.) Yet they are rarely charged and run on petrol alone – leading to more real driving emissions than their ICE-only cousins.
For these reasons, I'm hesitant to endorse PHEV – despite their potential.
No EV does anything to reduce traffic, at least as long as vehicle geometry and configuration and use case remains the same. Given the current availability of green hydrogen, I would think that BEV are the best to decarbonize road traffic.
Back to the topic of this post: AV could make shared services more economical and efficient, thus driving traffic and carbon emissions down. AV usually drive more efficiently than humans, but that's within the efficiency gains through automotive automation.
Dirk, I can't agree with "No EV does anything to reduce traffic." PHEV tech can incentivize driving less, moreso I'd argue than BEV. My compromise position on AV is that at Level 3, short of Level 5 "driverless" - most safety features are retained, sans "platooning" or mass tailgating at any level. AV should prevent tailgating.
"Green hydrogen" stores at lower pressure and meters more reliably into an ICEngine plug-in hybrid drivetrain and can get an equivalent 150mpg, as long as their daily drives are kept a minimum, under 20-miles for the Prius, under 50 miles for the Chevy Volt. Thus an incentive to drive less among many advantages PHEV offers than BEV questionably cannot attain.
"AV makes shared services more economical (and efficient?) thus reducing traffic and emissions. AV is more efficient than human drivers with efficiency gains through AV automation." Again, at AV Level 3, all safety features are possible. However, at AV Level 5, the safety feature of a drivers constant attention to roadway conditions and ability to maneuver is LOST. A driver would have no choice but to trust the AV to death. AV at level 5 is a death trap. Ha Ha Ho Ho He He. \^;
Ahh good. My initial comment is there to consider. I would argue at length and in detail that the correct answer - Which EV offers most potential - is PHEV plug-in hybrid. PHEV tech should serve 60% of EV needs. BEV tech serves the remainder mostly in 'lightweight' vehicles and for 'short distance' purposes. HFCEV fuel cell tech only in niche markets. My hope is that this admittedly counter-intuitive claim not be lightly dismissed.
PHEV has a crucial flaw: the battery is small, so the number of charge cycles will be much higher, i.e. shorter life span of the battery.
Other flaws include: higher maintenance costs due to combustion engine & related parts, greater complexity to manufacture, plus there is no way of know if people actually charge them (in Germany it was revealed that lots of people bought them just to access the subsidies, but never actually charged them..)
Thanks Fredrik for the debate. Here's a counter-argument to how small PHEV battery packs will wear down in fewer miles: they cost less to replace, and, they can extend their utility for years as stationary low-power household uses - not as readily possible with larger packs. To counter your other point, an ICEngine in a hybrid drivetrain strictly regulates their speed and load, thus less maintenance than in a standard mechanical drivetrain. Also, ICEngines can utilize near zero 'combustible' hydrogen stored at much lower pressure than for use in a fuel cell EV. My estimation that PHEV would serve 60% of EV needs is based on battery resource distribution. A single BEV freight truck battery pack of 550kwh will wear out in less than 2 years or at 125,000 miles. The small Prius PHEV pack of 5kwh (rated 100+mpg) will last maybe 10 years (plus 5 household use years). Should we direct battery (and recharging) resources to "1" freight truck or as many as "1000" Prius PHEVs? The Chevy Volt PHEV pack of 18kwh is rated 150mpg; thus as many as "350" for the "1" freight truck is possible. Distributing battery resources to Tesla 'S' pack of 85kwh (a broad class to include trucks, vans, SUVs) is "70" BEVs or the "1" freight truck. PHEV has many additional advantages to list if you have other objections that Amazon directors do not want you to learn about.
Thanks for the article! Here's our estimate of all the ways in which AVs save us & cost us more GHG, for an overall estimate of 40% GHG savings vs business as usual, once the US fleet is fully automated (e.g., year 2050 case study, vs a no-AV future): https://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB19EnergyAndEmissions.pdf
Thanks for sharing Kara
My initial and two follow up comments are the first time I've participated in the Decarbonizing Transport forum. I stand behind my claim that PHEV tech offers more potential to reduce CO2 emissions than all-battery BEV and hydrogen fuel cell tech. If that's not contrarian enough, I am certain that AV (at Level 5 "driverless") is impossible and unsafe on the road and in other ways. A household EV should be considered as a safety device in power outage. A household EV is immediately available in any emergency where an AV may arrive too late. A household EV offers the means to more closely monitor and reduce fuel/energy consumption overall, for driving and household electrical devices. My perspective is presented in a 500-word essay "The Walking Communities of 2040" the first in a series of 5 that I hope to complete when it receives more than blank rejection from supposedly environmentally conscientious organizations.
Thanks - interesting as always.
I think AVs can do two important things:
1) massive increase in the utilisation of vehicles, which would decrease the lifetime emissions/km substantially
2) reduce the need to buy a car = fewer cars produced = less emissions
"But they rely heavily on mass adoption of shared services. That seems unlikely. I suspect the more plausible outcome is that most people will continue travel in vehicles that are similar to the ones we use today and that we’ll mostly do it alone, in vehicles we own, even if they’re autonomous." Always nice to see common sense professional expertise reflected in predictions of future situations. The AV scenarios that predict large movements towards shared services or towards abandonment of personal vehicle ownership are based on little more than speculation or preferences for some future state that bears little relationship to consumer behavior today. Anyone who cares to do some simple arithmetic can satisfy themselves that there is no inherent economic advantage to using an AV as a service rather than owning one for most people in most situations, and since having immediate vehicle access has positive utility in most circumstances, it tilts AV ownership strongly towards the current vehicle ownership situation. In which case the sharing scenario is decisively weakened. Of course there will be those who reside in concentrated urban centers--although other trends at work post-COVID are likely to alter the preference gradient for such residential location choices--and for whom shared serial use, and perhaps shared concurrent use (less likely), will be more attractive than ownership of AVs, but 80% plus of urban residents are not in such situations. There are many reasons for hoping that AVs become mainstream over the next 2 decades, but as all vehicle propulsion technologies trend strongly towards electric over this period, it seems logical to conclude that AVs will have little independent effect on the decarbonization of urban transport. Good to see hype counterpoised by informed opinion.
Thanks for the feedback Roger -
I’d love to see a write up or a mention here about the $150 million just raised by Rad Power Bikes.
Michael - I had it on the list, but felt like it had gotten a lot of coverage elsewhere. Probably a silly reason not to include it - should have kept it on the list.
I'd like to hear a debate - BEV vs HFCEV vs PHEV - to answer the question, Which of the 3 basic EV drivetrains offers the most benefits, advantages, applications and potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption, emissions AND insane traffic?
Allow me to reiterate an argument by Fredrik: PHEV in Germany are subsidized, lower fleet emissions (on paper), and are good for the image. (They also allow German legacy manufacturers to favorably compare their EV sales figures to BEV-only manufacturers, as German statistics rarely differentiate between BEV and PHEV.) Yet they are rarely charged and run on petrol alone – leading to more real driving emissions than their ICE-only cousins.
For these reasons, I'm hesitant to endorse PHEV – despite their potential.
No EV does anything to reduce traffic, at least as long as vehicle geometry and configuration and use case remains the same. Given the current availability of green hydrogen, I would think that BEV are the best to decarbonize road traffic.
Back to the topic of this post: AV could make shared services more economical and efficient, thus driving traffic and carbon emissions down. AV usually drive more efficiently than humans, but that's within the efficiency gains through automotive automation.
Dirk, I can't agree with "No EV does anything to reduce traffic." PHEV tech can incentivize driving less, moreso I'd argue than BEV. My compromise position on AV is that at Level 3, short of Level 5 "driverless" - most safety features are retained, sans "platooning" or mass tailgating at any level. AV should prevent tailgating.
"Green hydrogen" stores at lower pressure and meters more reliably into an ICEngine plug-in hybrid drivetrain and can get an equivalent 150mpg, as long as their daily drives are kept a minimum, under 20-miles for the Prius, under 50 miles for the Chevy Volt. Thus an incentive to drive less among many advantages PHEV offers than BEV questionably cannot attain.
"AV makes shared services more economical (and efficient?) thus reducing traffic and emissions. AV is more efficient than human drivers with efficiency gains through AV automation." Again, at AV Level 3, all safety features are possible. However, at AV Level 5, the safety feature of a drivers constant attention to roadway conditions and ability to maneuver is LOST. A driver would have no choice but to trust the AV to death. AV at level 5 is a death trap. Ha Ha Ho Ho He He. \^;
Ahh good. My initial comment is there to consider. I would argue at length and in detail that the correct answer - Which EV offers most potential - is PHEV plug-in hybrid. PHEV tech should serve 60% of EV needs. BEV tech serves the remainder mostly in 'lightweight' vehicles and for 'short distance' purposes. HFCEV fuel cell tech only in niche markets. My hope is that this admittedly counter-intuitive claim not be lightly dismissed.
PHEV has a crucial flaw: the battery is small, so the number of charge cycles will be much higher, i.e. shorter life span of the battery.
Other flaws include: higher maintenance costs due to combustion engine & related parts, greater complexity to manufacture, plus there is no way of know if people actually charge them (in Germany it was revealed that lots of people bought them just to access the subsidies, but never actually charged them..)
Thanks Fredrik for the debate. Here's a counter-argument to how small PHEV battery packs will wear down in fewer miles: they cost less to replace, and, they can extend their utility for years as stationary low-power household uses - not as readily possible with larger packs. To counter your other point, an ICEngine in a hybrid drivetrain strictly regulates their speed and load, thus less maintenance than in a standard mechanical drivetrain. Also, ICEngines can utilize near zero 'combustible' hydrogen stored at much lower pressure than for use in a fuel cell EV. My estimation that PHEV would serve 60% of EV needs is based on battery resource distribution. A single BEV freight truck battery pack of 550kwh will wear out in less than 2 years or at 125,000 miles. The small Prius PHEV pack of 5kwh (rated 100+mpg) will last maybe 10 years (plus 5 household use years). Should we direct battery (and recharging) resources to "1" freight truck or as many as "1000" Prius PHEVs? The Chevy Volt PHEV pack of 18kwh is rated 150mpg; thus as many as "350" for the "1" freight truck is possible. Distributing battery resources to Tesla 'S' pack of 85kwh (a broad class to include trucks, vans, SUVs) is "70" BEVs or the "1" freight truck. PHEV has many additional advantages to list if you have other objections that Amazon directors do not want you to learn about.