Natural Resources

FORUM
PERGAMON Natural Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
www .elsevier.codocatdnatresfor

Cars and fuels for tomorrow: a comparative assessment

Max h m a n , Lars J. Nilsson, Bengt Johansson
Uepurtment of Environmenfal and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University. Lund,Sweden.
E-mail: mnr.uhman@miljo.lth.se (M. Ahman)

Abstract
Light duty vehicles, i.e. passenger cars and light trucks, account for approximately half of global transportation energy
demand and, thus, a major share of carbon dioxide and other emissions from the transport sector. Energy consumption in the
transport sector is expected to grow in the future, especially in developing countries. Cars with alternative powertrains to
internal combustion engines (notably battery, hybrid and fuel-cell powertrains), in combination with potentially low carbon
electricity or alternative fuels (notably hydrogen and methanol), can reduce energy demand by at least 50%, and carbon
dioxide and regulated emissions much further. This article presents a comparative technical and economic assessment of
promising future fuelhehicle combinations. There are several promising technologies but no obvious winners. However, the
electric drivetrain is a common denominator in the alternative powertrains and continued cost reductions are important for
widespread deployment in future vehicles. Development paths from current fossil fuel based systems to future carbon-neutral
supply systems appear to be jlexible and a gradual phasing-in of new powertrains and carbon-neutral jluid fuels or electricity
is technically possible. Technology development drivers and vehicle manufacturers are found mainly in industrialised coun-
tries, but developing countries represent a growing market and may have an increasingly important role in shaping the future.
0 2001 United Nations. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Energy efficiency; Vehicles; Alternative fuels; Sustainable transport; Energy secunty

1. Introduction
Mobility and transport play a central role in achieving
social and economic development goals in most countries.
The growth of the transport sector has, however, also
resulted in increasing negative impacts on the environment
[such as emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides
(NO,), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO) and
carbon dioxide (CO,)], congestion and noise. A near total
dependence on oil makes the transportation sector vulner-
able to fluctuations in the petroleum fuel market. Concerns
for energy security and environmental protection have been
the main driving forces for research and development efforts
into new vehicle technology and new fuels, but economic
restrictions and market trends have so far, in most countries,
hindered the introduction and diffusion of fundamentally
new vehicle technologies and alternative fuels.
While limited oil reserves have motivated the search for
alternative fuels for many decitdes, it was the 1973 and 1979
oil crises that focused the world’s attention on the issue of
oil dependence. In OECD countries, 97% of the transport
sector uses petroleum-based fuels. This sector alone
accounts for 54% of the OECD’s overall oil use (Peake
0165-0203/01/$20.00 0 2001 United Nations. Published by Elsevier Science I,td. All rights reserved.
PtI: S 0 16 5 - 020 3 ( 0 0 )0 0 04 8 - 9
and Schipper, 1997). Light duty vehicles use 49% of the
total transport energy demand, trucking uses another 30%,
with the remaining 21% divided equally among air, rail and
maritime transport (World Energy Council, 1998).
North American, Western European and Pacific OECD
countries accounted for 64% of the total world energy
demand for transport in 1995 (WEC, 1998). By 2020, this
fraction is expected to decrease to 53%, with a growing
share taken up by non-OECD countries in Asia and the
Pacific (WEC, 1998). The major growth in energy demand
for transport is projected to come from developing countries
(see, for example, Schafer and Victor, 1999).
The two oil crises brought about policy interventions in
most countries, either in the form of fuel taxes or raised fuel
efficiency standards for vehicles, such as the corporate aver-
age fuel economy (CAFE) standard in the United States,
aimed at improving fuel economy. Considerable research
and development efforts were devoted to the development
of, for example, electric vehicles and alcohol-based fuels.
Studies into possible future scenarios conducted at the time
of the oil crises suggested that large-scale exploitation of
unconventional oil resources (e.g. tar sands and oil shales)
and coal liquefaction technology would become necessary
I10 M. Ahman et ul. / N u t u r d Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
in 2030 to meet projected demand for liquid transportation
fuels (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,
1981).
In the mid-I980s, with the fall of oil prices, the focus of
transport energy policy shifted somewhat from security of
supply and fuel economy to environmental concerns. One
manifestation of this shift is the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) 1990 mandate for various low- and zero-
emission vehicles in response to local air-quality concerns.
The climate change issue was effectively put on the global
political agenda at the I992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
and has since received increased attention. The need to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has promoted
increased efforts to develop low-carbon emitting transporta-
tion systems, although policy initiatives have occurred
mainly in response to industrial competitiveness and a desire
to reduce dependence on petroleum fuels (Chapman, 1998).
In the last two to three decades, the automotive industry
has substantially reduced exhaust emissions in new vehicles
for regulated pollutants, such as CO, HC, NO,, PM and lead,
in response to progressively tighter environmental regula-
tions. However, these gains have been partly offset by
increases in total transport demand. Thus, between 1970
and 1997, freight and passenger transport doubled in Europe
(European Conference of Ministers of Transport, 1999).
Between 1980 and 1995, fuel intensity normalised to engine
power in new cars fell by approximately 40%, but new
automobile fuel economy remained roughly constant, as
the efficiency improvements were largely absorbed by
more powerful engines and heavier cars (Schipper and
Marie-Lilliu, 1999; Greene and DeCicco, 2000).
Future transportation systems must be compatible with
multiple policy objectives, including reliability, safety,
clean air, low-carbon emissions and affordable prices. Thus,
increasingly stringent environmental regulations are to be
expected, as exemplified by the forthcoming TIER I1 require-
ments issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The automotive industry must also meet consumer
demands and preferences for performance and comfort.
Priorities and needs vary between countries and regions. In
low-income developing countries, affordable public transport
is essential for increasing access to markets and other
amenities for the poor, not least women (World Bank, 1996;
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency,
1999). Cities in rapidly motorising countries, notably Mexico
City and Bangkok, are among the most polluted in the world,
although vehicle ownership is significantly lower than in
industrialised countries (World Bank, 1996). Several coun-
tries in the fast motorising regions in the developing world,
e.g. Mexico, Brazil and Chile, have in recent years adopted
stricter emissions standards for new vehicles and established
inspection and maintenance programmes for older vehicles, to
protect their fast deteriorating air quality (Faiz et al., 1996).
Stricter emission standards, closer to standards used in certain
industrialised countries, will be necessary in developing coun-
tries in the future if air quality is to be improved. Reducing air
pollution is a goal for both industrialised and developing coun-
tries, although in industrialised countries the focus is currently
shifting towards COZ mitigation to a greater extent than in
developing countries. A shift from today’s internal combus-
tion engine vehicles (ICEV) to a new generation of vehicles,
including battery-powered electric vehicles (BPEV), hybrid
electric vehicles (HEV) and fuel-cell electric vehicles
(FCEV), in combination with low-carbon electricity and
other fuels, can make a substantial contribution towards meet-
ing these goals.
2. Framework for analysing future options
The need to reduce health and environmental impacts from
transportation is taken as a starting point for the analysis
presented here. In particular, transport is an important source
of air pollution through engine and evaporative emissions of
C02, CO, HC, NO.,, PM and lead. In addition, there are emis-
sions from upstream vehicle manufacture and fuel supply.
Other impacts include land use, noise, accidents, etc. Focus-
ing here on vehicle emissions, including greenhouse gases,
there are essentially six strategies for reducing emissions:
using demand management to reduce transportation needs
(e.g. through regional and city planning and communica-
tions technology);
increasing the relative use of low-polluting transport
modes (e.g. rail vs road transport);
increasing utilisation factors (i.e. number of passengers or
tonnes of goods per vehicle);
improving driving behaviour and vehicle maintenance;
increasing the usage of more energy-efficient and low-
polluting vehicles; and
using alternative fuels or electricity.
These strategies are to some extent interdependent. For
example, road planning measures, such as speed bumps and
roundabouts instead of crossings, influence driving beha-
viour, reduce emissions, and improve safety (Ericsson,
2000). The analysis presented in this article, as illustrated in
Fig. 1, focuses on an assessment of energy-efficient and low-
polluting future vehicles in combination with alternative fuels
and electricity as final energy, thus concentrating on the last
two strategies above.
2. I. Anulysing future vehicles und fuels
Several fuel-vehicle combinations are technically possible
(see Fig. I). Options analysed should be comparable in terms
of performance. A reasonable benchmark is to meet future
safety requirements, noise limitations, and consumer prefer-
ences in terms of speed, acceleration, size and comfort. The
prospect of meeting these requirements is important when
assessing the long-term potential for the different combina-
tions of fuels and vehicles. Energy use and the associated
potential greenhouse gas emissions are the critical factors
 M. Ahman et ul. /Nutural Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
-<------> Primary electricity
Fig. 1. Possible pathways for energy from primary resource to final end use.
Note: solid lines represent analysed vehicle and fuel combinations. Dotted
lines indicate combinations that are possible but not analysed here, for
example, feeding grid electricity to HEV and FCEV.
from a resource, environmental and technology perspective
and consequently at the centre of the analysis. Not only are
hard technical measures important, such as performance,
emissions, and efficiency, but it is also important to assess
the viability of implementation, which depends on factors
such as cost effectiveness, development path, energy security
and other socio-economic aspects.
Fuel supply, from primary energy source to final energy,
can be analysed with respect to energy conversion efficien-
cies, technology development prospects, and resource
constraints. For biomass, important features are high yields
per hectare and low inputs of energy in cultivation and
harvesting. Local environmental impact of biomass utilisa-
tion, such as nutrient leakage, soil degradation, and erosion,
are also important factors when assessing biomass options.
Further, the fuel produced should be suitable for use in
highly efficient and low polluting powertrains.
When comparing BPEVs with other transportation tech-
nologies, the environmental impact and cost of the electri-
city supply can be calculated using current average power
mix, current marginal power or similar mixes from an
assumed future power system. To analyse the effect of
significant long-term changes in the system, it is reasonable
to use a marginal perspective and assume that the electricity
consumption, emissions and cost resulting from the use of
BPEVs are the difference in electricity demand, emissions
I I
WD 4
Energy system
WC
I4 Vehicle
Losses during: Losses from:
fuel production idling, heating etc.
& distribution Benefits of
regenerative braking
I I
Fig. 2. Definitions of primary energy efficiency, vehicle efficiency and drivetrain efficiency.
111
and cost between an electricity system which includes
supply to electric vehicles and a system without this supply
(Johansson and Mktensson, 2000). This does not, however,
mean that each consumer should be responsible for emis-
sions or cost from marginal production as the development
of the electricity system depends not only on the introduc-
tion of electric vehicles but on the increased use of other
electric devices in society and the implementation of (or the
reluctance to implement) energy efficiency technologies.
2.2. Energy eficiency and emissions
Vehicles produce a number of emissions, such as NO,,
HC, CO and PM, which are regulated pollutants in most
countries due to their effect on air quality. C 0 2 emissions
are currently not regulated anywhere, in a strict sense. The
emissions of regulated pollutants are an important factor
when assessing future fuel-vehicle combinations. Present
C 0 2 emissions are inherently linked to the use of petrol and
thus also become linked to the overall energy resource
policy. From a fueltvehicle technology perspective, energy
efficiency is a key strategy for mitigating C 0 2 emissions.
Energy efficiency can be analysed at three different levels:
powertrain, vehicle, and primary energy efficiency (Fig. 2).
W, is the primary energy, WC is the energy supplied to the
vehicle, WBis the energy supplied to the powertrain, and WA
is the useful energy at the wheels.
Powertrain efficiency Vpowenmin = WA/WB
Vehicle efficiency qvehicle = WAIWC
Primary energy efficiency = WA/W,
qprimary
The powertrain efficiency is calculated from the
efficiencies of the different components included in the
powertrain. To calculate the vehicle efficiency, the power-
train efficiency is corrected for losses due to the power
required for heating and for the benefits when no energy
is required during idling and the use of regenerative braking.
The primary energy efficiency includes the energy used for
energy extraction, conversion, distribution and storage. The
energy embodied in plants, buildings and vehicles was not
included in the calculations for this article.
Most studies analysing the benefits of alternative power-
trains have compared only one of the alternatives with the
WE ,/
TI
Powertrain
Losses due to:
I
I12 M . Ahman et al. / N a t u r a l Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
conventional powertrain. When comparing powertrains
using the same energy carrier (petrol) there is no need to
consider the primary energy efficiency (see, for example,
Cuddy and Wipke, 1997; Amann, 1998; comparing HEVs
with ICEVs, focusing on fuel economy). When different
energy carriers with different losses in fuel production and
distribution are used, analysing the energy losses all the way
from the well to the wheel becomes necessary (see, for
example, DeLuchi and Ogden, 1993; Ecotraffic, 1992;
Wang and DeLuchi, 1992).
Further improvements in energy efficiency can also be
made by reducing road loads, in addition to increasing
powertrain efficiency. Road loads are comprised of approxi-
mately one-third each of aerodynamic drag resistance (fric-
tion from air proportional to speed squared), rolling
resistance (friction between the wheels and the ground
proportional to speed), and kinetic energy, being mainly
energy losses from braking proportional to speed squared
and a function of the driving cycle (see, for example,
Amann, 1998; DeCicco and Ross, 1993).
2.3. Cost effectiveness
When analysing the cost effectiveness of different technol-
ogies within the transportation sector, life-cycle costs or cost
per passenger-km or cost per vehicle-km become relevant
measures (Johansson, 1999). These indicators should prefer-
ably include not only direct vehicle and fuel costs but also
indirect costs, such as environmental costs. Furthermore,
when designing environmental policies across different
sectors, it is important to relate the cost to the environmental
impact of the strategy, for example, by using cost per unit of
CO? reduction as an indicator. If the measures have an impact
on several environmental problems, methods have to be used
that include all these impacts.
2.4. Resource constraints and environmental risks
The risk of creating a new problem while solving another
should be borne in mind. Large-scale use of a new technol-
ogy may deplete resources not in demand today or create
new environmental problems caused by the circulation of
new materials in the technosphere (Karlsson et al., 1996).
The consequences of new flows of materials due to new
technologies have to be analysed as well as the risks
involved in depleting scarce resources.
2.5. Development paths
The perceived potential for attaining specified goals
usually determines which technology is to be developed.
For actors on a free market, future business opportunities
are crucial, but for governments, other issues, such as global
environment, air quality, social equity and energy security
are equally important, calling for careful policy interven-
tions to monitor development. Available development paths
need to be thoroughly understood and evaluated, including
their consequences for policy and technology. In particular,
the risk of lock-in effects and the consequences of path-
dependence need to be taken into account (Cowan and
Hultin, 1996). New vehicles and fuels may eventually
exclude other technologies, especially in terms of the choice
of fuel infrastructure. Technology flexibility will be impor-
tant in order to meet and anticipate new knowledge, techni-
cal breakthroughs and changing consumer preferences.
2.6. Energy security
Security of supply has been the main driver in the search
for alternative fuels, based on primary energy sources other
than oil. Import dependence is a major issue, not least in
developing countries, where oil imports as a share of export
earnings may be 20-40% or even higher (Rogner and
Popescu, 2000). From the perspective of security of supply,
new fuels should not rely on a single primary resource,
especially if this resource is geographically concentrated,
if it tends to increase import dependence, or if it is sensitive
to environmental changes or other risks.
3. Primary energy sources and future conversion and
vehicle technologies
3.1. Primary energy and conversion technologies
The shift away from oil as the dominant primary resource
for transportation fuels is not likely to be driven by resource
constraints. A reserve to consumption ratio of about 45 years
is often cited, but if the total resource base is taken into
account, including oil shale, tar sands and heavy crude oil,
and divided by present consumption, the ratio is about 230
years. Thus, occurrences of oil already known and under
exploitation can cover the total global demand likely to
occur in the 21st century (Rogner, 2000). Although oil is
the primary resource for nearly all transportation fuels
today, natural gas and coal can also be used. A shift away
from these fuels is not likely to be resource driven either. The
total resource base divided by present consumption is close to
600 years for gas and more than 2000 years for coal. Although
these potentials may be reduced by economic, security and
environmental considerations, they start out at a high level.
Fossil fuels can be converted to attractive energy carriers
(such as dimethyl ether, methane, methanol, hydrogen and
electricity) for future vehicles, facilitating near-zero or zero
tailpipe emissions of regulated pollutants. In particular,
near-zero emission of both regulated pollutants and green-
house gases can be achieved with electricity and hydrogen
as energy carriers i n BPEVs and FCEVs respectively.
Although several uncertainties remain, it is technically
possible to recover and use the energy content of fossil-
fuels while preventing carbon dioxide from being released
into the atmosphere. This can be done by separating out the
carbon dioxide and sequestering it, for example, in geo-
logical formations or in the deep ocean (Williams, 2000).
 M.Ahman et al. /Natural
Renewable energy sources supplied 1I - 16% of world
energy use in 1998. Traditional use of biomass, often in
inefficient and polluting ways, account for about three-quar-
ters of this total. The available flow of renewable energy is
several thousand times greater than present global energy
use. It follows, therefore, that there is no primary resource
constraint on increasing its use, although the potentials may
be constrained by competition over land use or environmen-
tal, economic and other considerations. Modem renewable
energy technologies can convert these flows into attractive
fuid fuels and electricity for transportation. Conversion of
solar energy to electricity in photovoltaics and electrolysis
of water to produce hydrogen is often advanced as a promis-
ing option. However, producing hydrogen through electro-
lysis of water using primary electricity from renewables (for
example, hydropower, wind, or solar), or nuclear power, is
likely to be more expensive, at least in the foreseeable
future, than making it from fossil fuels, even with carbon
sequestration (Williams, 2000). One reason is that electro-
lysis and subsequent transport and storage involve consider-
able conversion losses.
The most promising renewable source of primary energy
for fluid transportation fuels is biomass. The potential long-
term contribution from biomass to world energy is high: on
the order of 300 exajoules per year, corresponding to 75% of
present global energy use or more (Roper, 2000). Biomass
can be converted into electricity, and various liquid and
gaseous hydrocarbons suitable for transportation. Biogas
(i.e. methane from anaerobic digestion) from various
organic wastes is a promising fuel, but it depends on the
availability of relatively limited waste streams since using
dedicated crops for biogas production is less efficient and
less economical than pursuing other conversion routes. Low
or negative cost biomass in various waste streams are likely
to be used first, before more costly dedicated energy planta-
tions arc widely used. In addition, cultivating perennial
cellulosic energy crops typically results in lesser environ-
mental impacts than annual crop cultivation, and may even
ofler environmental benefits in terms of reducing nitrogen
run-off, etc (Borjesson, 1998).
In order to be competitive, biomass-based transportation
fuels should be produced with efficient processes that use, as
a feedstock, residues or biomass produced with high yields
per hectare and low inputs of energy in cultivation and
harvesting. Further, the fuel produced should be suitable
for use in highly efficient and low polluting powertrains.
Esters from oil-rich plants, such as rape seed, typically
have less favourable energy balances (i.e. energy output as
fuel divided by energy input in cultivation etc.) than other
biomass-based fuels, partly due to the intensive farming
required (Johansson, 1996). In addition, the resulting fuel
offers few advantages over diesel in terms of efficiency and
emissions.
Ethanol from sugar-rich or starch-rich plants is a well-
established technology, but thc economics and energy yields
are not convincing, particularly in the case of typical starch-
Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120 I13
rich plants suitable for temperate climates. Ethanol from
sugar cane in favourable climate conditions is more promis-
ing, as illustrated by the Brazilian PRO-ALCOOL
programme. Ethanol production from cellulosic biomass
(e.g. wood) through hydrolysis techniques may also become
cost competitive in the future (Wyman et al., 1993). Ethanol
was not included as a potential fuel in this comparative
analysis since it has no clear cost or efficiency advantages
over methanol; also it is less flexible i n terms of its primary
resource, and less suitable for use in FCEVs (Johansson,
1996).
Thermal gasification offers a relatively high efficiency
conversion route from cellulosic biomass to methanol and
hydrogen; fuels that can be used in efficient and low-pollut-
ing thermal engines or fuel cells. The gasification process is
relatively insensitive to the quality of the feedstock. Metha-
nol and hydrogen are perhaps the most promising biomass-
based fluid transportation fuels that can be considered and
are the only ones included in the present analysis. In addi-
tion, they can be produced from a variety of feedstocks,
including fossil fuels, offering the advantage of flexibility
concerning primary resource, thus facilitating a gradual
phase-in process.
3.2. Vehicle technology
Future powertrain technologies for BPEVs, HEVs and
FCEVs are analysed for typical medium-size passenger
cars that, in principle, offer the same performance as present
conventional cars in terms of speed, acceleration, size and
comfort. An analysis of the potential future performance of
ICEVs is included for comparison.
The common denominator for all alternative powertrains
studied here is the electric drivetrain, consisting of an elec-
tric motor and power electronics for control. The electric
drivetrain has attained the technical requirements for market
introduction, but its cost remains a major barrier (Chan and
Chau, 1997; Xu, 1999). Cost targets for market introduction
differ between US$11-2O/kW (Donitz, 1998; National
Research Council, 1999). Medium-term cost projections
suggest large-scale production costs for currently advanced
electric drivetrain technology at US$20-25/kW (Delucchi,
1999; NRC, 1999). The lower cost targets seem unrealistic
unless technical breakthroughs make new production tech-
nologies available (NRC, 1999).
3.2.1. Internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV)
There are a number of possible options for improving the
mean efficiency in an ICEV, such as variable valve timing,
shut off during idling, higher compression ratio, variable
displacement and continuously variable transmission
(DeCicco and Ross, 1993). HEVs with an IC-engine can
also benefit from most of these efficiency gains. The only
option not to be fully utilised in a HEV is variable compres-
sion, targeted at improving efficiency at partial load. Most of
the improvements listed above are well known technologies
114 M . Ahman et al. /Natural Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
and could become available on the market with the next
generation of vehicles.
3.2.2. Battery powered electric vehicle (BPEV)
The BPEV consist of an electric drivetrain with a battery
as energy storage. One of the major advantages of the BPEV
is that it produces no tailpipe emissions, as emissions are
produced at the power plant. The main barrier to introduc-
tion of the BPEV is that the range attained with currently
available batteries is too short and the price is too high for
this technology to be competitive on the market. New
battery technology, e.g. lithium-ion, lithium metal-polymer
and NiMH batteries, could give the BPEV enough range,
150 miles, for introduction on the market, but the question
remains whether batteries will reach the cost target of
US$lSO/kWh (NRC, 1998a). Leadacid batteries are rela-
tively cheap, but have poor energy storing capacity and
could provide an interim solution until long-term lithium
or NiMH batteries become cost-competitive. Future projec-
tions for NiMH currently project a large-scale production
cost at US$200-250/kWh (Lipman, 1999). The only
batteries thought to have a possible long-term potential
below US$lSO/kWh are leadacid and lithium metal-poly-
mer batteries (Rand et al., 1998; St Pierre et al., 1999), but
the realisation of this technology is highly uncertain. Large-
scale use of BPEVs would require a new electric infrastruc-
ture, such as home charging appliances and public fast-char-
ging stations. The cost of this infrastructure could be high,
but it can be introduced gradually; California Air Resources
Board (CARB) (2000) does not consider cost a major obsta-
cle to an eventual large-scale BPEV deployment in Califor-
nia. BPEVs may also be integrated into the electricity grid
and used for load management (Kempton, 1997).
3.2.3. Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV)
In the HEV, an electric drivetrain and a battery are
combined with a generator, an internal combustion engine,
IC-engine, and a fuel tank. The IC-engine charges the
battery, or takes over the drive from the electric drivetrain
when the battery is discharged. The technology for HEVs
with advanced and energy efficient TC-engines is available
on the market today, examples are Toyota Prius and Honda
Insight.
New IC-engines will have to manage both low emissions
and high efficiency which might, in the future, exclude
diesel engines as an alternative (NRC, 2000). The actual
cost of HEVs are not disclosed, but it is a fair assumption
that the HEVs available on the market today are not yet
profitable for the companies producing them. Toyota claims
that the company will make no loss at the end of the Prius
production series, but admits initial losses of US$lS,OOO-
20,000 per vehicle (Amstock, 1999). The HEV uses petrol,
but can easily use methanol or ethanol, and with some effort
also hydrogen. This fuel flexibility is a benefit as is the fact
that the vehicle uses the same fuel infrastructure as the
ICEVs. However, large-scale use of methanol or ethanol
would require a partly new fuel infrastructure (Wang et
al., 1997).
3.2.4. Fuet-cell electric vehicle (FCEV)
The main advantage of the FCEV is its potential for high-
energy efficiency and tailpipe emissions consisting only of
water vapour. The most interesting fuel cell for automotive
purposes is the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell.
Advances in recent years have made the PEM fuel cell
technically competitive; however, some further develop-
ment is needed to integrate the system (Kalhammer et al.,
1998). Serial production based on current state-of-the-art
FCEVs will begin at the earliest in 2004 (Daimler-Chrysler,
1999), but serial production of developed FCEVs, fully
exploiting their potential, could probably not start until
2010. An important barrier to FCEV development is the
long-term cost of the fuel cell itself. Cost projections for
long-term, large-scale production of the fuel-cell system
range between US$50-300/kW (James et al., 1997; Kalham-
mer et al., 1998; Rogner, 1998; NRC, 2000). The fuel cell
still needs considerable development in order to bring costs
down to a competitive level of US$SO/kW (NRC, 1998a;
Appleby, 1999). An important feature of the fuel-cell
system is that it uses pure hydrogen for fuel, which requires
a new fuel infrastructure and a complicated hydrogen
storage facility on board the vehicle. In order to be able to
use existing infrastructure and storage technology, a ‘hydro-
gen carrier’, like methanol or even petrol, can be reformed
and used on board the vehicle instead. Using a ‘hydrogen
carrier’ lowers the energy efficiency and adds to the weight
and cost of the vehicle. So far, auto manufacturers prefer
reforming methanol or petrol on board the vehicle instead of
using hydrogen directly (see conclusions in Kalhammer et
al., 1998). Petrol, methanol or natural gas can be used as
transitional ‘hydrogen carriers’ during the interim before a
hydrogen infrastructure has been established. ’
3.3. Energy ejiciency and emissions
Studies show that future vehicles can meet more stringent
emission standards, such as Tier I1 (Egeback et al., 1997;
Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc., 1997). The stan-
dard of the California zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) can only
be met by BPEVs and FCEVs. It is reasonable to assume
that all vehicles studied here can meet future standards as
exemplified by Tier 11, and therefore controlling C 0 2 emis-
sions will be the key challenge to developing a sustainable
transportation system.
3.3.1. Powertrain and vehicle ejiciency
Powertrain and vehicle efficiencies are given in Fig. 3.
The battery driven powertrain reaches the highest efficiency.
The two hybrid powertrains and the fuel-cell powertrain
driven by methanol have approximately the same efficiency.
’ See Ogden (1999) for a more elaborate discussion of this aspect.
 M. Ahman et al. /Natural Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
60
50
40
30
20
10
Fig. 3. Powertrain and vehicle efficiencies.
Source: Derived from h m a n (1 999).
The fuel-cell powertrain is about 20% more efficient when
fuelled with pure hydrogen gas than with methanol. Further-
more, there is considerable potential for improvement in the
conventional powertrain.
There is only a minor difference between vehicle effi-
ciency und powertrain efficiency (see Fig. 3), but vehicles
using electric drivetrains show a small relative advantage
cornpared with vehicles using conventional powertrains, as
they incur no idling losses and benefit from regenerative
braking. A disadvantage for the electric drivetrain is the
use of electricity for accessories, e.g. interior heating, as
vehicles using alternative powertrains can only partially
utilise engine heat losses for this purpose. This aspect is
included in the present evaluation.
3.3.2. Primary energy eficiericy
Primary energy efficiencies for energy carriers based on
fossil fuels are given in Fig. 4. The fossil fuels used are
assumed to be crude oil or natural gas for fluid fuels and
natural gas for marginal electricity generation.
Of the alternatives studied, the BPEV has the highest
primary energy efficiency in the long term. The advan-
tage with regard to the emission of COz is even higher
due to lower carbon contcnt per unit of energy for
natural gas compared to petrol. HEVs with advanced
IC-engines are twice as efficient as the conventional
vehicles of today. FCEVs have lower efficiencies than
HEVs due to losses when converting natural gas to
hydrogen or methanol.
The primary energy efficiencies for vehicles using energy
carriers based on biomass tire given in Fig. 5. The BPEV has
the highest potential for primary energy efficiency. One
reason for this, apart from the high BPEV efficiency, is
the conversion loss when producing liquid and gaseous
1 I5
30 -
25
20
7
BFossil fuels
15
10
5
0
Fig. 4. Primary energy efficiency from fossil fuels. BPEV fuelled with
electricity from natural gas powerplant, HEV with ICE, FCEV with hydro-
gen derived from natural gas.
Source: Derived from Ahman (1999).
fuels from biomass. The various HEVs and FCEVs all
have similar efficiencies.
Finally, the primary energy efficiencies for vehicles using
primary electricity are given in Fig. 6. In this case only
BPEVs and FCEVs were considered. Hydrogen for the
fuel cell is produced through electrolysis of water. The effi-
ciency of producing primary electricity is set to 100% for all
the alternatives.
About 30% of the energy is lost when converting elec-
tricity to hydrogen and back to electricity again in the
FCEV. For this reason, the most efficient alternative
would be to use the electricity directly in a BPEV. Hydrogen
is, however, easier to store than electricity and may be a
more practical energy carrier than electricity in a very long-
term scenario, using hydrogen produced with solar energy.
Further efficiency improvements, not affecting the choice
of future fuel-vehicle combinations, can be achieved by
reducing road loads. The principal strategies for this involve
diminishing the vehicle’s frontal area and the use of aero-
dynamic designs, slimmer wheels, and lighter vehicle over-
all weight. Such measures can reduce road loads by roughly
30-40% compared to standard ICEVs today, while main-
taining overall comfort and vehicle performance, resulting
in approximately the same reductions in fuel consumption
(Ahman, 1999). Much larger reductions may be possible in
the longer term (Lovins, 1996).
3.4. Cost effectiveness
Alternative fossil fuels, such as natural gas, are already
economically competitive to petrol and diesel today in city
traffic, if environmental costs are considered (Johansson,
1999).
The future cost of biofuels is principally governed by the
price of the feedstock (Pilo, 1996). The most competitive,
I16 M . Ahmun et ul. / N u t u r d Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
30%1
1 to lower energy and environmental costs (Johansson and
Fig. 5. Primary energy efficiency from biomass. HEVs fuelled with metha-
nol and FCEVs fuelled with hydrogen derived from biomass.
Source: Derived from Ahman (1999).
60 1 I
50
Primary
40 electricity
30
20
10
0 costs is, however, not sufficient to allow for more than a few
Fig. 6. Primary energy efficiencies from primary electricity. FCEV fuelled
with hydrogen derived from electrolysis of water.
Source: Derived from Ahman (1999).
for most OECD countries, are cellulosic feedstocks (Reddy
et al., 1997; International Energy Agency/Automotive Fuels
Information Service, 1999). However, in order for biomass-
based fuels from cellulosic feedstocks to become really
competitive, an increased valuation of C 0 2 emissions in
combination with the development of more cost-effective
fuel production will be required (Johansson, 1999; Intema-
tional Energy Agency/Automotive Fuels Information
Service, 1999). In countries where biomass can be produced
at a lower cost, the cost-effectiveness of renewable fuels is
generally better and other feedstocks can compete with
cel ~ o s e* .
Renewable electricity in BPEVs provides an opportunity
Mhtensson, 2000), but the high battery cost is a major
barrier. Even with major cost reductions, it seems very diffi-
cult for BPEVs to compete economically with ICEVs or
HEVs (Johansson and Ahman, 2000). The same goes for
fossil-based electricity, since the difference in production
costs between fossil fuel based electricity and renewable
electricity (a difference that continues to decrease) has
only a minor effect on the life-cycle costs of BPEVs.
Solar electricity has enormous global potential, but major
cost reductions are necessary for it to become competitive.
The conversion of electricity to hydrogen causes both effi-
ciency losses (Fig. 6) and extra costs. Solar hydrogen will,
even with major cost reductions in all technologies
involved, be significantly more expensive than hydrogen
or other fuels from biomass and fossil fuels (Ogden and
Nitsch, 1994; Grondalen, 1998).
It is assumed that alternative powertrains will only come
on the market if they meet commercial cost criteria. Cited
cost targets for crucial components, such as fuel-cell- and
electric battery drivetrains, used in this analysis are mainly
those stated by PNGV' and USABC4 The commercialisa-
tion targets are cost reductions considered necessary by auto
manufacturers and analysts in order to make market intro-
duction possible. Long-term cost targets are based on life-
cycle cost analysis considering that the higher purchase
price is offset by a lower per mile energy price (National
Research Council (NRC), 1998b). However, the cost targets
have been criticised for not being ambitious enough, thus
making further cost reductions necessary in order for alter-
native vehicles to become fully competitive (Delucchi,
1999).
Both HEVs and FCEVs will have lower energy and
environmental costs than ICEVs, as their energy efficiency
is higher and emissions are lower. The value of these lower
percent (less than 10%) increase in investment costs for
such vehicles (Johansson and Ahman, 1999). Thus, cost
reductions are necessary for all alternative powertrains
today. Maintenance costs and length of serviceable life are
other important factors that affect life-cycle costs. Some
studies suggest that these factors will act to the advantage
of HEVs, BPEVs and FCEVs (DeLuchi and Ogden, 1993).
However, final conclusions regarding these effects are diffi-
cult to draw at present since only a small number of alter-
native powertrain vehicles are on the road in normal use.
'For production of ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil, see, for example,
Reddy et al. (1997).
'PNGV: Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
'USABC: United States Advanced Battery Consortium.
 M. Ahman et al. /Natural Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
3.5. Resource constraints and environmental risks
Many of the components in alternative powertrains
contain rare or toxic metals. From this perspective, the
most sensitive technologies are the batteries for BPEVs
and the fuel cells. Lithium, leadacid or NiMH batteries
may come into large-scale production if they meet targeted
performance; this would utilise large quantities of lithium,
lead and nickel respectively. Fuel cells currently require
relatively large amounts of platinum, which is a scarce
metal. However, if the metal intensities estimated for cost-
competitive solutions are reached, then there seems to be no
long-term resource constraint for platinum for fuel cells
(Ride, 2000) or for lithium and nickel for batteries (Ride
and Anderson, in press).
In thc mid-1990s there was a heated debate as to whether
large-scale introduction of BPEVs would cause environ-
mental damage from circulating into the technosphere
large amounts of lead, assumed to be used in the leadacid
batteries (see, for example, Kellog, 1995; Lave et al., 1995;
Socolow and Thomas, 1997). The problems with metal leak-
age etc, seem to be manageable, but the debate has empha-
sised the importance of recycling systems for large-scale use
of metals (Socolow and Thomas, 1997). This issue has also
received increased attention due to the high cost of scarce
metals.
3.6. Development paths
The rationale for developing alternative powertrains is
the search for high energy efficiency, low or even zero
tailpipe emissions, and energy-resource flexibility. The
ICEV does not have the same potential for high energy
efficiency, but it can achieve very low tailpipe emissions
and it i s relatively flexible with respect to fuels. Future
cost reductions, and to some extent technical break-
throughs (notably for the BPEV), will determine whether
alternative powertrains will become competitive with the
ICEV.
The buy-down of cost for the electric drivetrain, the
common denominator for these alternative powertrains,
through development and deployment, is the key factor to
the success of alternative vehicles. Currently, the least
costly way of deploying the electric drivetrain is in HEVs
with IC-engines. Major battery manufacturers today are
shifting their focus away from BPEV batteries to HEV
batteries, as they see a greatcr and more immediate market
potential (Anderman et al., 2000).
For HEVs, l e a d k i d battcries could be the lowest-cost
alternative, with NiMH, lithium-ion or lithium-polymer
batteries as long-term options. NiMH can fulfil the require-
ments of an HEV, but it is not an attractive long-term option
for a BPEV and has only smnll benefits over leadacid as an
HEV battery in the medium term. However, leaaacid,
NiMH or lithium batteries may well fulfil the requirements
for smaller sized BPEVs with limited range, e.g. neighbour-
117
hood electric vehicles (NEVs), which would provide a start-
up market for batteries (CARB, 2000). The current HEVs
have a relatively large IC-engine with a small battery
because of high battery cost. As both batteries and electric
drivetrains become less expensive, the IC-engine can be
reduced in size from 60 kW to optimally 20-35 kW; this
would transfer more load variations to the electric drivetrain
and thus increase vehicle efficiency.
HEVs with petrol or alcohol fuels can meet Califor-
nia’s SULEV5 requirements (e.g. Honda Insight), but
zero tail-pipe emission can only be met by BPEVs and
FCEVs. If California and other states maintain the ZEV
(zero-emission vehicle) mandate, this may force BPEVs
or FCEVs onto the market. BPEVs have a somewhat
higher overall primary energy efficiency than FCEVs,
but the difference is small except when energy comes
from primary electricity (Fig. 6 ) . It is uncertain which
technology will eventually have the greatest potential
for market breakthrough. Both the FCEV and the
BPEV need further research before wide-scale market
introduction will be possible. It is thus reasonable to
keep the door open for both alternatives. For commercial
competitiveness, the BPEV depends on a low-cost battery
with high specific energy. Developing such a battery
requires further basic research. The only batteries that
at present seem likely are the lithium based ones, i n
particular the lithium-polymer battery. The FCEV is in
a slightly different position. The PEM fuel cell is
expected to be technically competitive within a couple
of years, with a major challenge being cost reduction.
The most transparent cost assessments suggest that it is
possible to reach a competitive cost, provided that critical
technical improvements or breakthroughs are made, such
as reducing the need for platinum.
The gradual shift from oil to renewable energy as a domi-
nant source of fuel for transportation involves phasing in
new fuels and new vehicles at the same time. Preferably,
fuels should be flexible with respect to primary energy
source and suitable for use in vehicles developed in both
the near and long terms, thereby avoiding lock-in effects
determined by fuel characteristics. Methanol and hydrogen
are fuels that can be used in ICEVs and in many thermal
engines for HEVs as well as in FCEVs.
The different powertrains will compete with each other
but can also be seen as complementary, sharing critical
components, on a trajectory towards new vehicles with
high primary energy efficiency, low emissions and resource
and technological flexibility.
3.7. Energy security and socio-economic considerations.
New vehicle fuels, or electricity, can be based on domestic
resources in many countries. Even if imported, they are less
likely to suffer from the price volatility seen for oil-based
SULEV: Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle.
I18 M . Ahniun et al. /Natural Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
transportation fuels. Similarly, improvements in energy effi-
ciency reduce dependence on imported oil. A viable domestic
fuel industry can also serve rural communities, and its devel-
opment can thus be consistent with other social goals, as
illustrated by the case of Brazil (Moreira, 2000). Countries
may require different strategies, due to variations in geogra-
phy, climate and other conditions. However, methanolhydro-
gen and electricity are relatively flexible energy carriers with
respect to the primary resource.
4. Discussion
Communications, mobility and transport are central to
socio-economic development, facilitating the flow of
information, goods and people. New vehicle technolo-
gies and alternative fuels can help reduce emissions and
energy use, although they d o not offer a solution to the
many non-technical problems facing the transportation
sector. The importance and urgency of regional and
city planning, public transport and other non-vehicle
measures may be greater in developing countries,
having less developed infrastructures, than in industria-
lised countries. Cars infringe on the quality of other
modes of transportation, such as public transport and
bicycles, by creating congestion and pollution and
may effectively crowd out these options. Nevertheless,
car ownership is often seen as a token of high social
status, and thus at the top of the wish list as people
move up the income ladder, even if the car ends up in
gridlock.
The main drivers (markets, regulation and other poli-
cies) and resources (technical and economic) for develop-
ing new vehicle technologies are found in the industrialised
world: notably, North America, Europe and Japan. The
manufacturers are also based in these regions.
Currently, new vehicle technology is developed mainly to
meet increasing demands of comfort, speed and accelera-
tion. However, high oil prices and increasing environmental
concerns, together with strategic competitive thinking are
pushing car manufacturers and governments in the US,
Japan and EU to develop vehicles that use non-petroleum
based fuels, dramatically cut emissions and reduce energy
demand. Alternative powertrains are able to achieve this
while maintaining vehicle size, speed, acceleration and
comfort. Most likely, alternative vehicles will cost more
than ICEVs and will therefore first be deployed in rich
countries, rather than poor countries.
In India, for example, the market share for domesti-
cally produced two and three wheelers represents 65%
of the total vehicle market (Faiz and Aloisi de Larderel,
1993). The situation is similar in many developing
countries with a large share of various types of vehicles
being either produced or assembled domestically or
regionally at low cost for a mass market. The market
for technically more advanced and low-polluting vehi-
cles is found mainly in urban areas, where purchasing
power is higher and air-quality problems greater than in
rural areas. Although much of the advanced technology
may be too costly for deployment in developing coun-
tries, lower demands for range, speed and acceleration
may help speed the introduction of technologies such as
the electric drivetrain. Domestically produced battery
powered two- and three wheelers could thus replace
high polluting two-stroke engines.6 Policies aimed at
reducing vehicle emissions could be linked to industrial
development, encouraging domestic producers to adopt
more advanced technologies, thus increasing indigenous
capacity. Developing countries may leap-frog the devel-
opment in industrialised countries and avoid a depen-
dence on diesel/petrol infrastructure by promoting
alternative fuels, e.g. alcohol or natural gas. These
fuels may be used first in buses, taxis, and other fleet
vehicles.
The projected growth in car ownership in developing
countries shows that these countries will constitute increas-
ingly important markets in the future. As a growing and
possibly strategically important market for several car
manufacturers and fuel distributors, developing countries
could formulate demands that will help shape technologies
suitable to their specific needs.
5. Conclusions
Combinations of new vehicle technologies and fuels, as
analysed here, represent a nexus of technical measures that
can reduce air pollution and energy use in the transport
sector. Electricity or alternative fuels such as methanol or
hydrogen, from either renewable or fossil sources, are
promising energy camers for future vehicles. Vehicles
with new powertrains using alternative fuels can cut energy
use in half and reach low or near-zero emissions of carbon
dioxide and regulated pollutants. The electric drivetrain is a
common denominator for hybrid, fuel-cell, and battery
powered electric vehicles, but substantial cost reductions
are needed for widespread deployment. It appears that a
flexible transition with a gradual phase-in of new vehicle
technologies and alternative fuels is technically possible
and, it seems, economically within reach. The main drivers
and early markets for new vehicles and alternative fuels are
found in industrialised countries, where suppliers are facing
increasingly tight regulations or other political incentives.
Historical improvements in vehicle technology have been
invested mainly in more powerful engines and bigger cars.
Developing countries represent an increasing share of the
market for vehicles and fuels, and this puts them in a posi-
tion to exert increasing pressure on suppliers to offer tech-
nical solutions that may better address their needs and
priorities.
' See Moulton and Cohen (1998) for an example from Nepal.
 M.Ahman et al. /Natural Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
References
Ahman, M., 1999. Teknik for energieffektiva personbilar (Technology for
energy efficient passenger cars). KFB-meddelande I999:22 Swedish
Cominunications Research Board, Stockholm.
Amann, C.H., 1998. The stretch for better passenger car fuel economy: a
criticril look, Part 1 & 2. Automotive Engineering International, Febur-
q. 305-313 and March 71-76.
Amstock, M., 1999. Behind the scenes of Prius launch-an interview with
Mark Amstock, Bill Moore, http://evworld.com/interviews2/
amstock.html. 2000.
Anderman, M., Kalhammer, F.R. et al., 2000. Advanced batteries for
electric vehicles: an assessment of performance, cost, and availabil-
ity. Draft. California Air Resources Board (CARB), Sacramento,
CA.
Appleby, A,, 1999. The electrochctnical engine for vehicles. Scientific
American 281 (1). 74-79.
Bojesson, P.L., 1998. Biomass in a sustainable energy system. Doctoral
dissertation, Environmental and Energy Systems Studies. Lund Univer-
sity.
California Air Resources Board (CAM), 2000. Staff report-2000 zero
emission vehicle program biennial review. State of California Air
Resources Board, CA.
Chan, C.C., Chau, K.T., 1997. An overview of power electronics in electric
vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 44 (I), 3-17.
Chapman, R.M., 1998. The machine that could. PNGV, a government-
industry partnership. RAND’S Critical Technologies Institute, Santa
Monica, CA, USA
Cowan, I<., Hulttn, S., 1996. Escaping lock-in: the case of the electric
vehicle. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53, 61 -79.
Cuddy, M.R., Wipke, K.B., 1997. Analysis of the fuel economy benefit of
drivetrain hybridization. SAE-technical paper 970258 Society of Auto-
motive Engineers, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, USA.
Daimler-Chrysler. 1999.http://www3.daimlerchrysler.com, 17 May.
DeCicco, J., Ross, M., 1993. An updated assessment of the near-term
potential for improving automotive fuel economy. American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington DC
Delucchi, M.A., 1999. Electric and gasoline-vehicle lifecycle costs and
energy use model. Report: UCD-ITS-RR-99-4. University of Califor-
nia, Davis, CA, USA.
DeLuchi, M.A., Ogden, J.M., 1993. Solar-hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.
Transportation Research-Part A 27A (3), 255-275.
Donitz, W.. 1998. Fuel cells for mobile applications, status, requirements
and future application potential. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 23 (7), 611-615.
Ecotraffic. 1992. The life of fuels. Stockholm.
Egeback, K.-E., Ahlvik. P. et al., 1997. Emissionsfaktorer for fordon drivna
med fossila respektive alternativa branslen. The Swedish Communica-
tions Research Board, KFB, Stockholm.
Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. (EEA), 1997. Benefits and Cost of
Potential Tier 2 Emission Reduction Technologies. Energy and Envir-
onmental Analysis Inc, Arlington, VA.
Ericsson. E., 2000. Urban driving patterns-characterisation, variability
and cnvironmental implications. Department of Technology and
Society, Lund University, Lund.
European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), 1999. Trends in
the Transport Sector. ECMT, Paris.
Faiz, A,. Aloisi de Larderel, J., 1993. Automotive air pollution in develop-
ing countries: outlook and control strategies. The Science of the Total
Environment 134, 325-334.
Faiz, A., Weaver, C., Walsh, M., 1996. Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles.
The World Bank, Washington, I X .
Greene, D., DeCicco, J., 2000. Engineering-Economic Analyses of Auto-
motive Fuel Economy Potentiul in the United States. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. Tennessee.
Grondalen, 0..1998. Vate-framtidens energibkue (Hydrogen-the
119
energy carrier of the future). Elforsk AB (Swedish power industry
research institue), Stockholm.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (ITASA), 1981. Energy
in a Finite World. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA.
International Energy Agency/Automotive Fuels Information Service ( E N
AFIS), 1999. Automotive Fuels for the Future-The Search for Alter-
natives. OECDIIEA, Paris.
James, B.D., Lomax, F.D., et al., 1997. PEM fuel cell power system cost
estimates: sulfur-free gasoline partial oxidation and compressed direct
hydrogen. Report, Directed Technologies Inc., Arlington, Virginia,
USA.
Johansson, B., 1996. Transportation fuels from Swedish biomass - environ-
mental and cost aspects. Transportation Research Part D I (1). 47-62.
Johansson, B., 1999. The economy of alternative fuels when including the
cost of air pollution. Transportation Research Part D 4, 91-108.
Johansson, B., Ahman, M., 2000. Koldioxidneutrala transportsystem-en
studie av energieffektiva fordon och fornybar energi. (Carbon neutral
transport systems), Swedish Communications Research Board, KFB
report 2000:28., Stockholm
Johansson, B., Mirtensson, A,, 2000. Energy and Environmental costs for
electric vehicles using CO,-neutral electricity in Sweden. Energy 25,
777-792.
Kalhammer, F.R., Prokopius, P.R.,et al., 1998. Status and Prospects of Fuel
Cells as Automobile Engines. State of California Air Resources Board
(CARB), Sacramento, CA.
Karlsson, S., Berndes, G.R., et al., 1996. Material flows and sustainabil-
ity-global biomass requirement. Sustainable use of lead? The Institute
of Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology and
Gothenburg University, Gothenburg.
Kellog, J.L., 1995. Flawed analy the Carnegie Mellon study of electric
vehicles. The Environmental Impacts and Safety of Electric Vehicles,
Report No 1. The International Center for Technology Assessment,
Washington, DC.
Kempton, W., 1997. Electric vehicles as a new power source for electric
utilities. Transportation Research D 2 (3), 157-175.
Lave, L.B., Hendrickson, C.T., Mcmichael, F.C., 1995. Environmental
implications of electric cars. Science 268 (5213). 993-995.
Lipman, T., 1999. The Cost of Manufacturing Electric Vehicle Batteries.
University of California, Davis, CA.
Lovins, A.B., 1996. Hypercars: the next industrial revolution. Proceedings
Electric Vehicle Symposium 13,4-6 November 1996, Osaka, Japan.
Moreira, J.R., 2000. Sugarcane for energy-recent results and progress in
Brazil. Energy for Sustainable Development 4(3), 43-54.
Moulton, P., Cohen, M., 1998. Introducing electric vehicles in the devel-
oping world. Proceedings, Electric Vehicle Symposium 14, 1 1 - I7
December, Orlando, Florida, USA.
National Research Council (NRC), 1998. Review of the partnership for a
new generation of vehicles. Fourth report. National Research Council,
Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRC), 1998. Effectiveness of the United States
Advanced Battery Consortium as a Government-Industry Partnership.
National Research Council, Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRC), 1999. Review of the research program
of the partnership for a new generation of vehicles. Fifth report.
National Resarch Council, Washington, DC
National Research Council (NRC), 2000. Review of the partnership of a
new generation of vehicles. Sixth report. National Research Council,
Washington, DC
Ogden, J.M., 1999. Developing an infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles: a
southern California case study. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 24 (8). 709-730.
Peake, S., Schipper, L., 1997. Transport, Energy and Climate Change.
OECD/IEA, Paris.
Pilo, C., 1996. Biofuels for transportation: from R&D to market. Report:
R96: 18 Swedish Board for Industrial and Technical Development
(NUTEK), Stockholm.
120 M. Ahman et al. /Natural Resources Forum 25 (2001) 109-120
Ride. I., Andersson, B.R.A., 2001. Requirements for metals of electric
vehicle batteries. Journal of Power Sources 93 (1 -2). 55-71.
Rgde, I., 2000. Institute of Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University
of Technology. Sweden. Personal communication, September.
Rand, D.A.J., Woods, R., et al.. 1998. Batteries for Electric Vehicles.
Research Studies Press Ltd, Exeter.
Reddy, A.K.N., Williams, R.H., et al., 1997. Energy after Rio. United
Nations, New York.
Rogner, H.-H., 1998. Hydrogen technologies and the technology learning
curve. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 23 (9). 833-840.
Rogner, H.H., Popescu, A., 2000. An introduction to energy. In UNDP,
UNDESA, WEC, World Energy Assessment. New York.
Rogner. H.H. (Ed.), 2000. Energy resources. In: World Energy Assessment.
UNDP. UNIDESA, WEC, New York.
Schafer, A,. Victor, D.G., 1999. Global passenger travel: implications for
carbon dioxide emissions. Energy 24, 657-679.
Schipper, L., Marie-Lilliu, C., 1999. Carbon dioxide emissions from IEA
countries.KFB:meddelande 1999:11 Swedish Communications
Research Board, KFB, Stockholm.
Socolow, R.. Thomas, V., 1997. The industrial ecology of lead and electric
vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology I (I), 13-36.
St Pierre, C.. Rouillard, R., et al., 1999. Lithium polymer battery for electric
vehicle and hybrid vehicle applications. Electric Vehicle Symposium
16. Beijing.
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), 1999.
Urban Transport in Swedish Development Cooperation. SIDA, Stock-
holm.
Wang, Q.. DeLuchi, M.A., 1992. Impacts of electric vehicles on primary
energy consumption and petroleum displacement. Energy 17 (4). 35 1-
366.
Wang, M., Stork. L., et al., Phase I . Report: 1997. Additional Capital Needs
and Fuel-cycle Energy and Emissions Impacts. Assessment of PNGV
fuels infrastructure, ANL/ESD/TM- 140 Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Illinois, USA.
Williams, R., 2000. Advanced energy technologies. In World Energy
Assessment. UNDP, UNDESA and WEC, New York.
World Energy Council (WEC), 1998. Global Transport and Energy
Development. The Scope of Change. World Energy Council,
London.
World Bank, The, 1996. Sustainable Transport: Priorities for Policy Sector
Reform. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Wyman, C., Bain, R., et al., 1993. Ethanol and methanol from cellu-
losic biomass. In: Johansson, T.B., Kelly, H., Reddy, A.K.,
Williams, R., et al. (Eds.). Renewable Energy. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Xu, X., 1999. Automotive power Electronics-opportunities and chal-
lenges. International Electric Machines and Drives Conference,
IEMD’99.9-I2 May, Seattle, Washington, USA.