REDUCING THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF AUTOMOBILE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The Clean Air Act of 1970 is one step towards cleaning up the environment from the negative effects, i.e. by the automobile industry. Compliance from the transportation sector was expected by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), which created the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), specifying 90 percent reductions in tailpipe emissions for new 1975 and 1976 automobiles. This meant huge challenges for automakers in terms of technical and economic aspects (Gerard Lave 2003).Guidelines for the development of transportation control measure, emission inventories and local ordinances were also undertaken by EPA (Belden 23).
Sustainability in terms of energy and environmental resources pose the greatest threats. Specifically, issues and concerns of global warming, global unelectrified poverty, and electricity shortages dictate the rate at which the current fuel choice will change from gasoline to hydrogen and alternative fuels. The oil crisis experienced in 1970 provided the other major push towards gasoline substitution. In highly developed areas such as California and coastal China, the worsening conditions demand personal, economic, and political cooperation worldwide.
The most explicit example of energy expenditure is oil. It now accounts for 40 percent of world commercial energy supplies In 2020, it is expected to represent 37 percent of total energy supply (Cooper Layard 103). In addition, oil together with gas is deemed as uncertain forms of energy such that their price, supply, and demand are unpredictable. This then results to difficulty in generating future plans based on calculations and predictions.
In order to combat urban air pollution and energy dependence on the worlds primary oil producers, Middle East and Eastern Bloc nations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Energy Commission have promoted the substitution of gasoline as a main fuel powering most types of vehicles. The substitutes include the alcohols ethanol and methanol, either neat (alone) or as blends with gasoline compressed or liquefied natural gas (CNG or LNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which is largely propane, hydrogen and electricity (Replacing gasoline alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles 23).
ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Among the popular alternative fuels include electric batteries, natural gas, methanol, ethanol, and hydrogen. While the former features the highest energy efficiency (since batteries can be recycled) and the lowest environmental impacts, it also presents the biggest problem on range and cost. Range and retail sales infrastructure are some common barriers to natural gas. Methanol on the other hand can be easily stored and distributed but is more toxic. Ethanol (the most expensive alternative highway fuel) production may displace crop lands and cause soil erosion a major reason for this is the fuels main source corn. Both of these alcohols pose a problem on long-range distribution. In the book Replacing Gasoline Alternative Fuels for Light-Duty Vehicles, it is said that,
In the U.S., nearly a billion gallonsyear of ethanol are used fleet in gasohol, a 10 percent blend with gasoline while methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) manufacture account for the 1.7 billion gallons of methanol use. Natural gas users abound in Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S LPG powers some 30, 000 vehicles in the former as well (23).
Battery-operated vehicles that run on natural gas still present problems on domestic supply limitations and greenhouse gas emissions. Fueling hybrid vehicles with methanol or hydrogen that is derived from organic waste offers the best solution to this. The simplicity in chemical structures of these alternative fuels overcomes the complex and nonuniform blend of hydrocarbons in gasoline, thus providing better integration and manipulation in vehicles.
In the long run, electric vehicle technology will slowly develop safe, affordable, and economically and operationally competitive battery-operated andor fuel-cell-powered cars, buses, and trucks that will reduce transport energy costs and environmental pollution, and gradually displace many internal-combustion engine-powered vehicles, particularly in oil-importing poor countries (Cooper Layard 95).
Several car companies have adapted the substitution or combination of gasoline with other alternative fuels. Ford Flexible Fuel vehicle, an adaptation from a regular production Taurus, will operate on methanol, ethanol, and gasoline, or any combination of these fuels (Replacing gasoline alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles 25).
The greatest competition between gasoline and these alternative fuels is the ready availability of the former such that the latter might be geographically limited during the first few years of its inception. Although there is no consensus as to the best alternative fuel, specifically when it comes to economic considerations, hydrogen has somehow proved to be the most promising in terms of infrastructure development and long-term advantages.
HYDROGEN AS AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL TO GASOLINE
One of the major alternative fuels to gasoline is hydrogen. Experimental hydrogen-fueled vehicles have been developed in Germany and Japan (Replacing gasoline alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles 23). Weighed against the problems presented by gasoline-powered vehicles, hydrogen is technically and economically feasible. The possibility of hydrogen as an alternative fuel stems from its versatility in terms of production. It can be produced from various domestic sources, including renewable sources (Lokke 6). Other sustained sources of hydrogen include municipal waste (derived from thermochemical) and electrolysis using wind and solar electricity. The latter is however, more environmentally friendly.
Other advantages of hydrogen-powered vehicles include maintained performance, safe storage and transport as well as rapid refueling. The vehicles combustion allows for engines to run leaner and at a higher compression ratio than they do with hydrocarbon fuels (Lokke 6).
Hydrogen is the most environmental-friendly of all the alternative fuels. There is reduced-to-zero emission such that the only emissions include water vapor and small amounts of nitrogen oxide. The latter could be further eliminated by using fuel-celled-powered electric vehicles (Replacing gasoline alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles 23). Specifically, the reduction is less than one-tenth the California ultralow-emission vehicle standards of 0.20 grams per mile (0.12 grams per kilometer) (Lokke 9). Hydrogen-powered vehicles are further characterized by a nonfossil means of generating large quantities of electricity (e.g. nuclear, hydro) (Replacing gasoline alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles 20). The possible reduction in urban ozone and greenhouse emissions far exceed the high cost of hydrogen as opposed to the price of gasoline. Close competition between the two begins when gasoline prices increase by about 50 percent (Replacing gasoline alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles 22).
According to the book, Replacing Gasoline Alternative Fuels for Light-Duty Vehicles, battery replacement is one of the main problems of electric- and hydrogen-powered vehicles (20).Other barriers to the complete substitution of hydrogen as a commercial fuel also arise from the unavailability of a reliable supply infrastructure and efficient distribution chain and sufficient market demand in general. Specifically, the cost of manufacturing hydrogen is another setback. The availability of a suitable vehicle that can efficiently house a hydrogen-powered engine is still lacking. There is also a need for higher efficiency drive trains to address the problem of energy efficiency. Lokke explained a possible solution to this the hybrid-electric drive train.
The electrical energy converted from chemical energy by the piston engine attached to an electrical generator can be stored in different ways. These include an advanced battery, an ultracapacitor, or an electromechanical battery (EMB) (or a flywheel battery). Hydrogen-powered vehicles expect a unique feature of regenerative braking. This means that kinetic energy is stored when not in use, i.e. when brakes are applied.
Experts are very positive of the capability of hydrogen to compete with gasoline and other alternative fuels on the transportation market. The foreseen move towards mass production and delivery systems of hydrogen-powered vehicles can start from the development of small-scale, local hydrogen production facilities for individual consumers, vehicle fleets, and fuel stations with very few infrastructure requirements. The type of production referred is that from off-peak electrolysis or by steam reforming at filling stations.
Successful market integration can be likewise possible once the low-emission, long-range vehicle is able to utilize a hydrogen internal combustion engine. Problems on effective distribution and marketability of hydrogen-powered vehicles and its power fuel can be addressed by using the fuel at the point of use as well as the existing electric and natural gas networks (Lokke 8). Reducing the costs of fuel cells, which is utilized by these types of vehicles, can jumpstart mass market and infrastructure.
The most cost effective and efficient of all distribution methods is liquid hydrogen. The introduction to heavy-duty vehicles as well as aircrafts and planes is also possible. Hydrogen-powered aircraft and intercity trucking is believed to become operational after 2010 (Cooper Layard 95).
The production of hydrogen in the U.S. in 1993 was 15.8 million kilograms per day, theoretically enough to power 44 million hybrid-electric vehicles (Lokke 10). Major allotment is made for petroleum refining or ammonia manufacturing.
Even hydrogen that is transported called merchant hydrogen, comprising only a small amount of the total, is believed to be able to fuel vehicles for the first four or five years (100,000 new hydrogen-powered vehicles per year) liquid hydrogen could likewise drive 60, 000 vehicles (using 10 of North American liquid hydrogen capacity) without additional infrastructure (Lokke 10).
A HYDROGEN HYBRID CONCEPT VEHICLE
A hydrogen hybrid concept vehicle was developed by the Lawrence Livermore (LLNL), Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories. It was designed to meet Clinton Administrations Partnership for New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) guidelines of 80 miles per gallon (34 kilometers per liter) of a gasoline-powered vehicle on the combined city-highway driving cycle (Lokke 6). Some basic specifications and calculated performance for this vehicle is tabulated below.
Table 1. Some basic specifications and calculated performance for the LLNL hydrogen hybrid vehicle (Lokke 7).
General Description
Five passenger, engine-flywheel hybrid vehicle
Hydrogen internal combustion engine
Cryogenic or pressurized hydrogen-storage system
Principal accessory air conditioning Selected Vehicle Characteristics
Vehicle empty total weight
Power-train weight
Fuel-tank capacity
Liquid-hydrogen tank volume 100 psi
Liquid-hydrogen tank weight 100 psi
Pressurized-hydrogen tank volume 5000 psi
Pressurized-hydrogen tank weight 5000 psi
Aerodynamic-drag coefficient
Rolling-friction coefficient
Electric motor
Maximum continuous torque
Maximum speed motor
Transmission efficiency
Hydrogen-engine efficiency
2.508 lb (1, 140 kg)
578.6 lb (263 kg)
10.45 lb (4.75 kg) of hydrogen
28 gal (106 L)
79 lb (36 kg)
62 gal (235 L)
141 lb (64 kg)
0.24
0.007
100 Nm
11000 rpm
95
46Calculated Performance
Combined 55 urban, 45 highway gasoline-equivalent
mileage
Driving range
Time to reach 96 kmh (60 mph)
-80 mpg (34 kmL)
380 mi (608 km)
9.7 s The concept car developed would run on burned hydrogen powering a generator that charges an electric storage system, which in turn would drive the electric motor. Energy efficiency is exhibited through the engine, which only runs (at optimum speed and maximum efficiency) as needed to charge the storage system. In addition, this car is guided by the hybrid vehicle evaluation code (HVEC) and has both cruising and climbing capacities.
The most difficult problem encountered by the LLNL team in its hydrogen hybrid vehicle is onboard fuel storage such that the need for either cryogenic or high-pressure tank for liquid hydrogen and hydrogen gas, respectively imply the need for larger tanks. This will result to decreased range, performance, and space. Also, the team aimed at generating 42 electrical energy efficiency, 95 generator efficiency, and 46 engine efficiency (Lokke 7).
PRODUCTION OF AUTOMOBILES
The efforts toward environmentally sound and efficient automobiles start from birth until its disposal. This means that environmentally-conscious manufacturers consider raw and recycled materials for use in the production and design of their cars. This can be done by the choice of environmentally-friendly and easy-to-recycle substances, reduction in the materials used (high degree of recycled materials) as well as the maximization of a products life span (so it can be used longer). Therefore, proper identification of materials used is necessary.
Possible sources of recycled materials are flax, cotton, leather, coconut fibers, etc. (Gruden 170). The use of plastic as a raw material (although it is lighter than steel and other metals) is discouraged because its disposal is still reliant on landfill (Davies 1). Textile industries are utilizing fiber composites in place of the heavier metals. In line with this, the use of hazardous materials like cadmium, mercury, CFC, asbestos, lead, and chromium (VI) compounds have been banned in the automotive industry (Gruden 170).
It has been legislated that 85 percent of the material by weight of the car must be recyclable with no more than 15 percent to go to landfill by 2015, it will increase to 95 and 5 percent, respectively (Fung Hardcastle 254). In Europe, the automotive manufacturers and suppliers aim to increase the current recycling rate of 75 to 85 percent by 2006 and 95 percent by the year 2015 (Gruden 169).
PRIVATE VERSUS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The car is a symbol of affluence for both the developed and developing world and car ownership is steadily increasing, but rises in living standards in general to produce more pollution, summarized by the equation of Meadows and co-workers,
Impact on Environment Population x Affluence x Technology (Fung Hardcastle 255).
The equation implies that the more the world clings to and relies on the mentality, the issues on environmental degradation is far from being eliminated. However, the increasing advancement in technology is creating a world wherein the car is no longer necessary. The principal reasons, which are for transport and displacement, can be compensated by increase in communication gadgets, networks, and systems. Nowadays, contacting somebody, whether in the next town, country, or continent is very easy. Internet chatting, video calling and multimedia messaging have offered very convenient ways of keeping close connections of the people around the world.
The advantages and disadvantages of public and private transportation present massive debates coming not only from the transportation authorities and systems but also from private individuals. Public transportation, which is part of a balanced transportation system like walkways, bicycle paths, air service and roads, have been instrumental in the provision and sustenance of 47, 500 jobs (Wortman Yee 4). Physical activity in people is likewise enhanced through public transporting. People patronizing the public utility vehicles show equal patronage to traffic relief as well as environment stability. Vehicle congestion, specifically during peak hours, accounts for 46 hoursyear delay, 63.2 (nation) and 1, 160 billion (individuals) for wasted time and fuel a full rail car removes 200 cars while a full bus takes away 60 cars from the road (Wortman Yee 7).
The high dependence of people on private transportation is environmentally degrading. It is twice degrading in terms of fuel efficiency. According to Wortman Yee, if Americans commute more often just like the Europeans, for roughly 10 percent of their daily needs, the former would reduce dependence on foreign oil by more than 40 percent, or nearly the amount imported from Saudi Arabia each year (7).
People in the year 2030 will live with the consequences of alternative-fuel decisions made today (Lokke 11). There are many problems associated with the introduction of alternative fuels. Among them are large capital investments required, government interference in markets, increased consumer expenditures on transportation, and for most fuels, some decrease in consumer satisfaction (Replacing Gasoline alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles 25) but it is believed that hydrogen and electricity would dominate the transportation fuel market by 2020-2030.
In principle, the benefits and costs should be compared and balanced at the margin such that firms should undertake prevention as long as the marginal costs are smaller than the marginal benefits (Faure Skogh 21). Saving the environment is tantamount to saving the lives of people around the world. Manufacturers, suppliers as well as users of automobiles worldwide should be aware of the consequences of their decisions not only to the immediate next generations but to the far ones as well.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment