Study on Transportation Technology to 2050 Calls for Integrated Policy Approach to Achieve Sustainability
05 October 2007
![]() |
Ratings on the environmental acceptability of future powertrain options. The report evaluates sustainability based on the “3As”: Accessibility, Availability and Acceptability. Click to enlarge. |
Successfully tackling the problem of sustainable transportation globally will require the interplay of emerging vehicle technologies with a rational, market-based policy approach, according to a new study by the World Energy Council.
The first pillar for policy making is the energy objective, according to the study, Transport Technologies and Policy Scenarios to 2050. That objective needs to be described in terms of the type of energy to be saved (total energy, fossil energy, petroleum energy, GHG emissions), the numerical target, or the target range and the timeframe.
That policy should not be based on technology alone, the study cautions. Rather, it should be based on an integrated approach which considers transportation technology alongside contributions from other actors in the energy chain, including fuels, governments and consumers.
The approach addresses the behaviour of business and private consumers in purchasing decisions and use of energy, of fuel suppliers in the energy content of their fuels, of equipment manufactures in the efficiency of their products and of governments in their responsibility for the transportation environment. It must be ensured that for all stakeholders a productive market is in place which financially rewards behaviour leading to higher efficiency.
—“Transport Technologies and Policy Scenarios to 2050”
Technologies for Efficiency. The report authors expect that passenger vehicle technology will remain highly dependent on petroleum fuels and internal combustion engines (ICE) for the foreseeable future.
Increasing efficiency of the ICE-based powertrains will come through advanced diesels, new combustion regimes, and hybridization. Diesel and hybrid electric vehicles present a cost effective short-, medium- and long-term method to increase mobility energy efficiency and reduce total mobility energy consumption.
The report also sees plug-in hybrids as a high-potential interim solution due to the petroleum savings provided through pure electric driving in addition to the conventional hybrid regeneration function.
A [US] rollout scenario in the EPA analysis estimates PHEV passenger vehicle sales penetration of 15% by 2030, resulting in 9% of vehicle stock in 2030. In this scenario, nearly 2 billion barrels of gasoline are saved by 2030. Savings in 2030 represent approximately 5.5% of annual consumption. The net costs are calculated to be negative by approximately 2024, through cost reductions with high production volumes and fuel savings.
A few of the other conclusions of the report include:
Second-generation biofuels such as synthetic biomass-to-liquids (BtL), cellulosic ethanol and hydrotreated fats or oils will grow significantly by 2035. The report sees gas-to-liquids (GtL) growing strongly through the next decade. The production of BtL and cellulosic ethanol is, however, accompanied by a significant increase in primary energy consumption due to the energy consumed in their production process. Other advanced biofuels are under development and may present viable long-term options, according to the report.
Due to high greenhouse gas emissions, coal-based fuels such as CTL are not deemed as viable alternatives on large scale, even if some regions with low CO2 concerns are already preparing a step into CTL production today.
By 2050, gasoline and diesel fuels will still play a major role, but their biofuel portion will be significant.
Electric power utilization in transport will also increase, in particular in OECD and richer developing countries. This will be manifested as increased hybridization with a potentially significant element of pure electric vehicles powered by batteries and/or fuel cells.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles offer most of the benefits of electric vehicles, with the convenience of conventional internal combustion engines. The presence of two full powertrains in a plug-in hybrid vehicle means that for this technology to become viable for the mass market, substantial reductions in the cost of the electric powertrain are essential.
Hydrogen fuel and fuel cell vehicles are expected to gain a market foothold by 2035 and grow towards 2050. By 2050, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles may be able to compete with diesel and electric hybrid vehicles in terms of cost efficiency of reduction in energy consumption, but this depends strongly on the source of the fuel.
![]() |
Available demand management measures. |
Transport system efficiency. demand. In addition to the “hard” technology measures for reducing transportation energy consumption, there are “intermediate” measures, including regulations, taxes and pricing measures. A third category of measures are the “soft” technologies, which include those measures that can affect demand for mobility, thereby reducing total travel and therefore energy consumption.
Examples of these intermediate and soft measures include:
Urban planning in existing or growing urban areas.
Demand management through offering viable transport alternatives.
Utilizing modern communications technology to reduce vehicle miles travelled per vehicle (e.g. telecommuting).
Utilizing modern communications technology to improve driving efficiency (e.g. telematics, traffic control).
Offering mass transit systems.
Pricing strategies to encourage less driving or switching to more efficient modes.
Government regulations, which encourage or enforce the use of certain technologies or modes of transport.
Elements of the integrated policy approach. The report lists 10 measures and technologies (levers) and contributors that policy makers can use in an integrated approach to reduce transport energy consumption:
Vehicle Efficiency – Manufacturers
Fuel energy intensity - Fuel suppliers
Efficiency of components - Component suppliers (e.g. air conditioning)
Mode selection - Consumers
Vehicle purchase - Consumers
Travel demand - Consumers
Travel efficiency - Consumers & service providers
Driving style - Drivers (private or public)
Maintenance - Drivers
Transport infrastructure - Governments
The World Energy Council, established in 1923, is a multi-energy organization with autonomous Member Committees in 94 countries, including most of the largest energy-producing and energy consuming countries. The organisation covers all types of energy, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, and renewables, and is UN-accredited, non-governmental, non-commercial and non-aligned.
The report is the product of the WEC’s Transport Specialist Study Group, led by Dr. Simon Godwin of DaimlerChrysler (now Daimler AG). Participants in the study group include representatives from BMW; Cummins; Honda; Insitut Français du Petrole; Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo & Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Japan Energy Association; Nissan; PSA; and Toyota.
Resources:
Hydrogen Spark Ignition Vehicles??? Aren't H2 Combustion Engines incredibly inefficient?
Put that into a well to wheels analysis including
1) hydrogen generation (via electrolysis or reforming)
2) compression and storage
3) transportation (of the H2)
4) combustion in the SI H2 IC
5) Mechanical losses of the car (transmission, friction, wind resistance, ect..)
where does that get us? Rafael Seidl, I'm looking in your direction.
Posted by: Todd | 05 October 2007 at 10:12 AM
Lets ask the auto companies what they want to do about transportation.
The report is the product of the WEC’s Transport Specialist Study Group, led by Dr. Simon Godwin of DaimlerChrysler (now Daimler AG). Participants in the study group include representatives from BMW; Cummins; Honda; Insitut Français du Petrole; Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo & Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Japan Energy Association; Nissan; PSA; and Toyota.
Their answer is
The report authors expect that passenger vehicle technology will remain highly dependent on petroleum fuels and internal combustion engines (ICE) for the foreseeable future.
Duh and Wrong!
If we are going to have chance at mitigating CO2 we need a 95% reduction in fossil fuel use immediately. In order to accomplish this we will need to get our energy from renewable sources and our mobility by electric vehicle. ICE vehicles are so terribly inefficient that they will go the way of the incandescent light bulb as soon as the public realizes that they will get 10 times the miles per dollar with an EV. Either many species will die off or the the auto dinosaurs will die off. Its the peoples choice.
Posted by: Steve Clark | 05 October 2007 at 10:28 AM
@SC
No you don't need a 95% drop immediately. You already are going ot get a drop of 70+% or more in the next decade and half. If you don't do a single thing more.
As Senator Aiken once suggested, on another subject: "Declare Victory"; and get on to real problems.
Indeed you may well be wishing to add GHGs later in the century if the Sun were to go into a protracted cooling cycle.
Please be somewhat realistic. There is no problem of any magnitude for anywhere from several decades, if the Chicken Littles are correct; to several Millennia if the new Science continues to be confirmed.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 05 October 2007 at 12:16 PM
@Stan
The "Chicken Littles" of the IPCC are predicting as sea level rise as low as 18-26cm this century, depending on climate change scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Temperature_and_sea_level_rise_for_each_SRES_scenario_family)
The existing measured rate is already 3cm per decade (so 30cm for the century) and that rate is accelerating as measured by ENVISAT http://television.esa.int/photos/EbS51530.pdf). The observed Greenland ice and Arctic sea ice melting are also significantly above the rates modelled and are surprising even seasoned glaciologists.
The consensus science of the IPCC tends to conservatively dumb down and lag current scientific concerns and measurements. We ought to be paying more attention to observing the 'canaries in the mine' than the predictions of your so called 'Chicken Littles'.
Posted by: Thomas Lankester | 05 October 2007 at 01:38 PM
@Stan
The "Chicken Littles" of the IPCC are predicting as sea level rise as low as 18-26cm this century, depending on climate change scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Temperature_and_sea_level_rise_for_each_SRES_scenario_family)
The existing measured rate is already 3cm per decade (so 30cm for the century) and that rate is accelerating as measured by ENVISAT http://television.esa.int/photos/EbS51530.pdf). The observed Greenland ice and Arctic sea ice melting are also significantly above the rates modelled and are surprising even seasoned glaciologists.
The consensus science of the IPCC tends to conservatively dumb down and lag current scientific concerns and measurements. We ought to be paying more attention to observing the 'canaries in the mine' than the predictions of your so called 'Chicken Littles'.
Posted by: Thomas Lankester | 05 October 2007 at 01:38 PM
@Stan
The "Chicken Littles" of the IPCC are predicting as sea level rise as low as 18-26cm this century, depending on climate change scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Temperature_and_sea_level_rise_for_each_SRES_scenario_family)
The existing measured rate is already 3cm per decade (so 30cm for the century) and that rate is accelerating as measured by ENVISAT http://television.esa.int/photos/EbS51530.pdf). The observed Greenland ice and Arctic sea ice melting are also significantly above the rates modelled and are surprising even seasoned glaciologists.
The consensus science of the IPCC tends to conservatively dumb down and lag current scientific concerns and measurements. We ought to be paying more attention to observing the 'canaries in the mine' than the predictions of your so called 'Chicken Littles'.
Posted by: Thomas Lankester | 05 October 2007 at 01:38 PM
@Stan
The "Chicken Littles" of the IPCC are predicting as sea level rise as low as 18-26cm this century, depending on climate change scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Temperature_and_sea_level_rise_for_each_SRES_scenario_family)
The existing measured rate is already 3cm per decade (so 30cm for the century) and that rate is accelerating as measured by ENVISAT http://television.esa.int/photos/EbS51530.pdf). The observed Greenland ice and Arctic sea ice melting are also significantly above the rates modelled and are surprising even seasoned glaciologists.
The consensus science of the IPCC tends to conservatively dumb down and lag current scientific concerns and measurements. We ought to be paying more attention to observing the 'canaries in the mine' than the predictions of your so called 'Chicken Littles'.
Posted by: Thomas Lankester | 05 October 2007 at 01:38 PM
Woah!
Sorry for the repeat emails. How did that happen?
Tom
Posted by: Thomas Lankeser | 05 October 2007 at 01:40 PM
Stan, tell us more about how you think NO2 is a greenhouse gas. We're so fortunate to have a climate expert such as yourself here to clear our Elmer Gantry minds.
Posted by: jack | 05 October 2007 at 02:48 PM
What's the point of this report? I presume they're trying to influence policy in some way, e.g. let's just continue the status quo... Amusing how they can make predictions four decades into the future. One technological breakthrough or geopolitical crackup could change everything ten years out, much less forty.
And PHEVs not ramping up til 2030? C'mon.
Posted by: George | 05 October 2007 at 08:49 PM
This report relies on the demonstrated unwillingless of the American+ people, too deeply addicted to oil & $$, to supply the efforts required to provoke a quantum change before 2050 and even later.
Considering that acquired attitudes are difficult to change in less than one or two generations, those scenarios may not be that far off.
Anyway, by 2050, we may not have the choice to switch to greener ways because liquid fossil fuels will be running out. What's no longer available will not be used. Unfortunately, coal and tar sands will be around for another century or more...to feed our ongoing addition.
Since our addiction to $$ is stronger than to fossil fuels, taxing all fosil fuels enough to put it out of reach, for the majority, may be the only way to break our addiction to this polluting form of energy. A progressive $100/tonne carbon tax, applied our 10 years, may be a good start.
Posted by: Harvey D | 06 October 2007 at 08:43 AM
When you look at the last picture of car sales beetwen 2000 and 2007 and you see that the sales of light truck with mileages between 15 and 20MPG represent more than 40% of car sales and that the sales have gone up by 5% between 2000 and 2007, you realise that most american don't give a S about global warming or oil addication and all its geopolitical desastreous consequences.
The carbom tax is the right and only way to go, all the serious economists who have looked at it came to the same conclusion : that's the only way to curb our emissions and foster the development of alternative solutions (even the PDG of Ford recently admitted it, that's a sign :)
Posted by: treehogger | 06 October 2007 at 09:54 AM
@ Todd -
I don't have much faith in hydrogen as a transportation fuel, especially if used in ICEs. The environmental and economic costs of production, distribution and on-board storage will always be very high compared to liquid hydrocarbons.
To understand why the report is so bullish on hydrogen, look at the list of contributors: auto makers and oil & gas interests - exactly the ones that profit most from various corporate welfare programs related to the mythical white elephant known as the "hydrogen economy". Note that no EV specialists, no traffic analysts and no urban planners contributed to the compilation of the report. Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 08 October 2007 at 11:01 AM