Understanding Household Preferences For Alternative-Fuel Vehicle Technologies

This report explores consumer preferences among four different alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs): hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) vehicles, and electric vehicles (EVs). Although researchers have been interested in understanding consumer preferences for AFVs for more than three decades, it is important to update our estimates of the trade-offs people are willing to make between cost, environmental performance, vehicle range, and refuel¬ing convenience. We conducted a nationwide, Internet-based survey to assess consumer preferences for AFVs. Respondents participated in a stated-preference ranking exercise in which they ranked a series of five vehicles (four AFVs and a traditional gasoline-fueled vehicle) that differ primarily in fuel type, price, environmental performance, vehicle range, and refueling conve¬nience. Our findings indicate that, in general, gasoline-fueled vehicles are still preferred over AFVs, however there is a strong interest in AFVs. No AFV type is overwhelmingly preferred, although HEVs seem to have an edge. Using a panel rank-ordered mixed logit model, we assessed the trade-offs people make between key AFV characteristics. We found that, in order to leave a person’s utility unchanged, a $1,000 increase in AFV cost needs to be compensated by either: (1) a$300 savings in driving cost over 12,000 miles; (2) a 17.5 mile increase in vehicle range; or (3) a 7.8-minute decrease in total refueling time (e.g. finding a gas station and refueling)

Fuel type based vehicles choice

The aim of the paper is to analyse the researches performed so far on vehicle choice according to the fuel type. There are different reasons to be interested in this theme. Among the most relevant we recall the following: a. increasing costs of conventional fuel; b. development of new fuel types; c. different fuel efficiency; d. higher productivity standards, due to crisis of car corporations; e. Italy’s car fleet has a 30% of vehicles that are ten years or older and also by a strong preference towards buying gasoline and diesel fuelled vehicles. The paper proposes a critical analysis of vehicle choice analysis based on fuel type (e.g. gasoline/diesel, CNG and hybrid). A significant number of studies are centred on the consumer. As noted by Achtnicht (2008) the choice depends on the person’s age, gender and level of schooling. Other authors have inquired the actual gap between the performance of conventional fuels (diesel/gasoline) and that of alternative fuel (hybrid). The lack of a diffused network of refuelling stations, particularly with reference to the CNG (compressed natural gas), has also been highlighted by Achtnicht, Buhler e Hermeling (2009). Several electrical car market development researches, such as the Salerno’s and Zito’s ones (2004), have stressed its high purchasing price and its maintenance costs. We will consider, for the different studies, the methodologies used by the authors, their specific area of research, the results obtained, the criticalities, and eventually the trends and developments.

The Road Ahead for the U.S. Auto Industry

[Excerpt] In 2004, U.S. light vehicle sales were up slightly, reversing a moderate slide that began in 2001. The 1.3 percent gain brought the market total to 16.8 million units, approximately the same level as 2002, and the fourth highest sales on record. The trend, which began in 2001 of offering low or no cost financing along with high rebates has cast a cloud over the otherwise sunny sales outcome for the year. American consumers have continued the long-term shift towards a preference for light trucks over passenger cars. Trucks passed cars in 2001, hitting over half the market for the first time that year. In 2004, light trucks accounted for over 55 percent of the U.S. passenger vehicle market. Light truck sales reached 9.3 million units, up 3.6 percent over 2003. Passenger car sales were down 1.4 percent compared to 2003, reaching only 7.5 million units

Automotive Efficiency: Using Technology to Reduce Energy Use in Passenger Vehicles and Light Trucks

Key facts:- While there have been many advances in vehicle efficiency technology in the past 20 years, US automotive fuel economy peaked at 22.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1987, and has declined to about 21 mpg in 2005, according to the EPA.- This trend has occurred due to increased annual vehicle miles driven, greater horsepower, as well as the recent growth of sport utility vehicle (SUV) and light truck sales. From 1981 -- 2003, the average vehicle has gained 24 percent more weight, has 93 percent more horsepower, and has a 29 percent faster 0-60 mph time. In addition, light trucks accounted for 50 percent of vehicle sales of the 2005 model year, nearly twice their market share in 1985.- Fuel efficient vehicles may reach twice the fuel efficiency of the average automobile. Cutting-edge designs, such as the diesel Mercedes-Benz Bionic Concept Vehicle have achieved four times the current conventional automotive average, as high as 84 mpg for the Bionic Vehicle

Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Far from protecting the environment, most rail transit lines use more energy per passenger mile, and many generate more greenhouse gases, than the average passenger automobile. Rail transit provides no guarantee that a city will save energy or meet greenhouse gas targets. While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder bus operations. Those feeder buses tend to have low ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile. The result is that, when new rail transit lines open, the transit systems as a whole can end up consuming more energy, per passenger mile, than they did before. Even where rail transit operations save a little energy, the construction of rail transit lines consumes huge amounts of energy and emits large volumes of greenhouse gases. In most cases, many decades of energy savings would be needed to repay the energy cost of construction. Rail transit attempts to improve the environment by changing people's behavior so that they drive less. Such behavioral efforts have been far less successful than technical solutions to toxic air pollution and other environmental problems associated with automobiles. Similarly, technical alternatives to rail transit can do far more to reduce energy use and CO2 outputs than rail transit, at a far lower cost. Such alternatives include the following: Powering buses with hybrid-electric motors, biofuels, and -- where it comes from nonfossil fuel sources -- electricity;Concentrating bus service on heavily used routes and using smaller buses during offpeak periods and in areas with low demand for transit service;Building new roads, using variable toll systems, and coordinating traffic signals to relieve the highway congestion that wastes nearly 3 billion gallons of fuel each year;Encouraging people to purchase more fuel-efficient cars. Getting 1 percent of commuters to switch to hybrid-electric cars will cost less and do more to save energy than getting 1 percent to switch to public transit. If oil is truly scarce, rising prices will lead people to buy more fuel-efficient cars. But states and locales that want to save even more energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions will find the above alternatives far superior to rail transit

Keeping the LEDs on and the Electric Motors Running: Clean Tech in Court After Ebay

The recent rise of non-practicing patentees (NPPs) in the clean technology space comes at a time when the international community is debating the role of intellectual property rights in the deployment and implementation of technologies to combat climate change. While the impact of intellectual property rights on the deployment of clean technology has been studied, less attention has been given to the role intellectual property regimes play in maintaining the operation of those technologies already deployed in the fight against global warming. This iBrief focuses on clean technologies that have already achieved substantial market penetration and observes that recent trends in patent law are, to a large extent, allowing those technologies to continue working to reduce carbon emissions. Specifically, the course correction in the law of patent injunctions brought about by eBay v. MercExchange and the endorsement of court-imposed ongoing royalty payments in Paice v. Toyota demonstrate an important shift in patent law that is tempering the impact of clean tech NPPs in Title 35 infringement actions in federal courts. However, these trends have caused a tactical adjustment by clean tech NPPs—namely, filing suits in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), where the remedy of an exclusion order is available. These ITC cases could adversely affect implemented clean technologies