Transportation, Energy, and Technology in the 21st Century

GCEP Advanced Transportation Workshop October 10-11, 2005 Stanford University

Andreas SchäferDepartment of Architecture and

Institute for Aviation and the EnvironmentUniversity of Cambridge

as601@cam.ac.uk

STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE ECONOMY

Source: Schäfer A., 2005, Structural Change in Energy Use, Energy Policy, 33(4): 429-437.

Sector shifts due to:1. Different income elasticities for goods and services produced by each of the three sectors2. Competitive advantage for each of the sector’s industries3. Changing needs of society

11 World-Regional Data series: 1971 - 1998

… AND IN THE ENERGY SYSTEM

Source: Schäfer A., 2005, Structural Change in Energy Use, Energy Policy, 33(4): 429-437.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000GDP/cap, US$(1985)

Sha

re in

Fin

al E

nerg

y, %

Residential

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000GDP/cap, US$(1985)

Sha

re in

Fin

al E

nerg

y, %

Agriculture

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000GDP/cap, US$(1985)

Sha

re in

Fin

al E

nerg

y, %

Industry

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000GDP/cap, US$(1985)

Sha

re in

Fin

al E

nerg

y, %

Services

Transportation

Others

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: IDENTITY

GLOBAL TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL

• Driving forces: growth in population and GDP/cap• Schäfer/Victor (2000):

– Historical dataset: 1960 - 1990– Constraints: fixed budgets of money and time, others– Balancing equations of travel time and speeds– Aggregate of urban and intercity transport

• Currently under development:– Historical dataset: 1950 - 2000– Multinominal LOGIT model for mode choice simulation

• Next generation:– Separation of urban and intercity travel– Mixed LOGIT model for mode choice simulation

TRAVEL BUDGETS: MICROMOTIVES …

Travel Time or Money Expenditures,Trip Rate, Trip Distance

% M

obilie

Pop

ulat

ion

… AND MACROBEHAVIOR: TTB

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000GDP/cap, US$(1985)

Trav

el T

ime

Bud

egt,

h/ca

p/d

African Villages in:I Tanzania, 1986II Ghana, 1988

City Surveys: 1 Tianjin (China), 1993 2 Kazanlik (Bulgaria), 1965/66 3 Lima-Callao (Peru), 1965/66 4 Pskov (Former USSR), 1965/66 5 Maribor (Former Yugoslavia), 1965/66 6 Kragujevac (F. Yugoslavia), 1965/66 7 Torun (Poland), 1965/66 8 Gyoer (Hungary), 1965/66 9 Olomouc (Former CSFR), 1965/6610 Hoyerswerde (Former GDR), 1965/6611 Sao Paulo (Brazil), 198712 Sao Paulo (Brazil), 197713 Warsaw (Poland), 199314 6 Cities (France), 1965/6615 Osnabruck (Germany), 1965/6616 44 Cities (USA), 1965/6617 Jackson (USA), 1965/6618 Paris (France), 1976

I II

19 Paris (France), 198320 Paris (France), 199121 Sendai (Japan), 197222 Sapporo (Japan), 197223 Kanazawa (Japan), 197424 Kagoshima (Japan), 197425 Kumamoto (Japan), 197326 Hamamatsu (Japan), 197527 Fukui (Japan), 197728 Niigata (Japan), 197829 Hiroshima (Japan), 197830 Osaka (Japan), 198031 Tokyo (Japan), 198032 Osaka (Japan), 198533 Tokyo (Japan), 198534 Cities No. 21-29 in 198735 Tokyo (Japan), 199036 Osaka (Japan), 1990

National Travel Surveys:A Belgium, 1965/66B Austria, 1983C Great Britain, 1985/86D Germany, 1976E Netherlands, 1979F Great Britain, 1989/91G Finland, 1986H Netherlands, 1987I France, 1984J Germany, 1982K Netherlands, 1989L USA, 1990M Germany, 1989N Switzerland, 1984O Switzerland, 1989P Australia, 1986Q Singapore, 1991R Norway, 1985S Norway, 1992T Japan, 1987

2

1

3 4

57

89 10 14 15

161712

11

136

18 19 20

22 23

2425

26 2728

2930

31

3233

35

36A34

B

C

D

E F

GH

I

J K L

M

N

OP

Q

R ST

21

Source: Schäfer A. and D.G. Victor (2000) The Future Mobility of the World Population, Transportation Research A, 34(3): 171-205

STABILITY OF TRAVEL TIME BUDGET

NOTE: increase in time dedicated to sleep and leisure statistically significant @ 95% confidence, as opposed to change in other time allocations.Data source: Szalai et al.(1972), data from 11 countries, population between 18 and 65 years of age.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5Daily Working Time, h/cap/d

Tim

e de

dica

ted

to m

ajor

Act

iviti

es, h

/cap

/d

Sleep ( )

Eating ( )

Homemaking and childcare ( )

Leisure incl. study, participation, etc. ( )

Personal care ( )

Travel ( )

AGGREGATE TRAVEL BEHAVIOR: TMB

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5000 10000 15000 20000GDP/cap, US$(1985)

Trav

el M

oney

Bud

get,

%

Thailand

TunisiaSri Lanka

Belgium

Denmark

France

FRG

Greece

Ireland

ItalyJapan

NL

Portugal

Spain

UK

USA

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Travel Money Expenditures, % total Expenditures

Shar

e of

Hou

seho

lds,

%

Source: Schäfer A. and D.G. Victor (2000) The Future Mobility of the World Population, Transportation Research A, 34(3): 171-205

GLOBAL MOBILITY TRENDS (1950-2000)

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

GDP/cap, US$(1996)

PKT/

cap

Centrally Planned AsiaLatin AmericaM. East, Nth&Sth AfricaOther Pacific AsiaSub-Saharan Africa

North AmericaPacific OECDWestern EuropeEastern EuropeFormer Soviet Union

South Asia

World

Source: A. Schäfer, Global Passenger Mobility Data Set, Version 1.0, University of Cambridge, Sept. 2005

Hypothetical Target Point at:600 km/h x 1.2 h/d x 365 d/yr = 262,800 km/yr

PUBLIC TRANSPORT (1950-2000)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

PKT/cap

Shar

e of

Pub

lic T

rans

port

Mod

es in

PK

T

Centrally Planned AsiaLatin AmericaM. East, Nth&Sth AfricaOther Pacific AsiaSub-Saharan Africa

North AmericaPacific OECDWestern EuropeEastern EuropeFormer Soviet Union

South Asia

Source: A. Schäfer, Global Passenger Mobility Data Set, Version 1.0, University of Cambridge, Sept. 2005

LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE TRAVEL (1950-2000)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000PKT/cap

Shar

e of

Lig

ht D

uty

Vehi

cles

in P

KT

Centrally Planned AsiaLatin AmericaM. East, Nth&Sth AfricaOther Pacific AsiaSub-Saharan Africa

North AmericaPacific OECDWestern EuropeEastern EuropeFormer Soviet Union

South Asia

Source: A. Schäfer, Global Passenger Mobility Data Set, Version 1.0, University of Cambridge, Sept. 2005

HIGH-SPEED TRANSPORT (1950-2000)

Source: A. Schäfer, Global Passenger Mobility Data Set, Version 1.0, University of Cambridge, Sept. 2005

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

PKT/cap

Sha

re o

f Hig

h-S

peed

Mod

es in

PK

T

Centrally Planned AsiaLatin AmericaM. East, Nth&Sth AfricaOther Pacific AsiaSub-Saharan Africa

North AmericaPacific OECDWestern EuropeEastern EuropeFormer Soviet Union

South Asia

URBAN AND INTERCITY TRAVEL: U.S.

Source: A. Schäfer, Global Passenger Mobility Data Set, Version 1.0, University of Cambridge, Sept. 2005

HOWEVER: More careful separation between urban and intercity travel necessary!

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000PKT/cap (Urban)

Sha

re in

Urb

an P

KT

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000PKT/cap (Intercity)

Sha

re in

Inte

rcity

PK

T

Light-Duty Vehicles

Low-Speed Public Transport

Low-Speed Public Transport

Light-Duty Vehicles

High-Speed Transport

URBAN

INTERCITY

Source: Schäfer A., Victor D.G., 1997, “The Past and Future of Global Mobility”, Scientific American, October 1997, pp. 56–59.

GLOBAL MOBILITY: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE

Based upon a travel time budget of 1.1 h/cap/d

CAN GROWTH IN WORLD PKT ENDURE?

• Availability of high-speed transport technology (⇒ supersonic transport)

• Traffic congestion (⇒ innovation and adaptation)• Transportation substitutes (⇒ complement vs.

substitute)• Energy resources (⇒ geographic location of

reserves)• Environment (⇒ impact of global warming

policies)

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: IDENTITY

TRENDS IN ENERGY INTENSITY

Source: Schäfer A., work in progress

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

PA

X T

rave

l Ene

rgy

Inte

nsity

, MJ/

PKT

France

United States

Germany

Great Britain

OFFSETTING TRENDS+ E/PKTShift toward faster and more energy-intensive modesTrend toward larger and more powerful light-duty vehiclesDeclining occupancy rates in light-duty vehicles

- E/PKTFuel efficiency improve-ments of all modesRising occupancy rates (passenger load factors) in air traffic

Picture credit: http://wpni01.auroraquanta.com/pv/sumo

DETERMINANTS OF LDV ENERGY INTENSITY

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

E/PKTEi/VKTi

VKT/PKT

PKTi/PKT

Ene

rgy

Inte

nsity

, MJ/

PKT

1970-20021970-19791979-19911991-2002

United States

Source: Schäfer A., work in progress

WORLD PAX TRAVEL: CO2 EMISSIONS

Source: Schäfer A., Victor D., 1999, “Global Passenger Travel: Implications for CO2-Emissions”, Energy—The International Journal 24(8): 657-679

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Car

bon

Emis

sion

s, G

tC

High-Speed ModesRailwaysBusesAutomobiles

IndustrializedRegions

DevelopingRegions

ReformingRegions

HOW TO REDUCE LDV ENERGY USE?

• Demand and Supply Management – Car pooling, telecommuting, pricing measures to

induce time and/or mode shift, land-use planning, etc.

– Comparatively small potential, even if combined in packages

• Technology-Solutions– Increase energy efficiency– Single largest potential

LCA OF AUTO TECHNOLOGIES: MIT-STUDIES

Data Source: Weiss M., J.B. Heywood, A. Schäfer, and V. Natarajan (2002) A comparative Assessment of Advanced Fuel Cell Vehicles; Weiss M., J.B. Heywood, E. Drake, A. Schäfer, and F. AuYeung (2000) On the Road in 2020: A Well-to-Wheels Assessment on new Passenger Car Technologies.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Life-Cycle Energy Use, MJ/km

Life

-Cyc

le G

HG

Em

issi

ons,

gCE

/km

Primary Energy: ZERO-CARBON FUELS

2001 Ref. (Gsl.)

2020 Baseline (Gsl.)

2020 Advanced (Gsl.)

2020 Advanced (Dsl.)

2020 Hybrid (CNG)

2020 Hybrid (Gsl.)2020 Hybrid (Dsl.)

2020 Hybrid FC (H2(CH4))

2020 Hybrid FC (Gsl.)

Technologies:Baseline: HSST unibody, advanced ICE, slightly reduced driving resistancesAdvanced: Al-body, advanced ICE,strongly reduced driving re-sistancesHybrid/FC: Al-body, ad-vanced drivetrain,strongly red. driv.resistances

Source: Schäfer A., 2000, “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from World Passenger Transport: Reduction Options”, Transportation Research Record 1738: Energy, Air Quality, and Fuels, paper no. 00-1182, pp. 20-29.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Year

Car

bon

Em

issi

ons,

GtC

ReferenceEmissions

Zero-Carbon Fuels

Drastic Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements and Natural Gas

Drastic Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements

THE PROMISE OF ZERO-CARBON FUELS

BARRIERS TO TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

• Long time scales for “sensible” fleet impact of new, fuel-saving technology (20 – 35 years, depending on technology; 50+ years for zero-carbon fuels)

• High implicit consumer discount rates (≈ 3 year amortization period for fuel-saving technology)

• Thus, need for policy measures: Optimum introduction of technology (U.S. case study)

TECHNOLOGY-DYNAMICS: MODEL SYSTEM

ModalSplit

Models

MARKAL(Technology)

EPPA(Economy)

Substitution Elasticities, AEEI

Tran

spor

t Dem

and

TechnologyDynamics

Technology Data Base

StructuralC

hange

Fuel Prices

Mode Shares

Transport Demand

Simulation Stage

Calibration Stage

Source: Schäfer A., Jacoby H.D., Technology Detail in a Multi-Sector CGE Model: Transport under Climate Policy, Energy Economics, 27(1): 1-24.

MARKAL cost-minimization similar to utility-maximization if vehicle attributes other than energy use and costs don’t change

ALTERNATIVE AUTO-TECHNOLOGIES (US)Tech.Name Characteristic Fuel Efficieny / Use Investments, US$ MPG L/100km Cumulative Annualized+

Gas. Costs Baseline 22.1 10.6 0 0.0 Packaging Improvements 27.2 8.66 -87 -37.8 Engine Management 27.9 8.45 -70 -46.4 Zero-Cost

Lower Cd, RRC 29.0 8.12 -13 -49.2 CVT 32.2 7.30 215 -27.7 Material Substitution, interior 32.6 7.21 244 -23.9 LoCost HSSt, unibody 33.6 7.00 350 -2.8

PowTrain1 Higher Compression Ratio 34.1 6.91 404 9.4 VVLT & Cylinder Deactivation 36.0 6.54 694 82.3 PowTrain2 EPS, Red. of parasitic Losses 36.8 6.39 865 130.3

Alum Al-intensive 42.1 5.58 2102 492.8 VVLT & Cyl. D., no Brake Drag 45.2 5.20 2719 675.6 Hybrid Hybrid Vehicle 53.6 4.39 4342 1168.2

Fuel efficiency based upon real driving conditions, i.e. U.S. FTP-75 Driving Cycle / 1.21 Based upon Capital Recovery Factor of 34%/yr, a gasoline price of U.S.$ 1.20/GAL, and an annual driving distance of 10,960 mi (17,630 km). Data source: Austin T.C., Dulla R.G., Carlson T.R., 1997, Automotive Fuel Economy Improvement Potential Using Cost-Effective Design Changes, Draft #3, prepared for the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Sierra Research, Inc., Sacramento, CA. Austin T.C., Dulla R.G., Carlson T.R.,1999, Alternative and Future Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Road Vehicles, report prepared for the “Transportation Table Subgroup on Road Vehicle Technology and Fuels”, Sierra Research, Inc., Sacramento, CA.

AUTOMOBLE TECHNOLOGY-DYNAMICS

Source: Schäfer A., Jacoby H.D., Technology Detail in a Multi-Sector CGE Model: Transport under Climate Policy, Energy Economics, 27(1): 1-24.

0500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

Pas

seng

er-k

m, b

illion

0500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Pas

seng

er-k

m, b

illio

n

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

95 FltZeroCostLoCostPowTrn1PowTrn2AlumHybridAll

D: Kyoto+ CaseC: Kyoto Case

A: Calibration Case B: Reference Case

Reference Case Automobile Pkm

Kyoto+ Automobile PkmDemand Loss

Reference Case Automobile Pkm

Kyoto Automobile Pkm

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY-DYNAMICS

Source: Schäfer A., Jacoby H.D., Vehicle Technology Dynamics under CO2-Constraint: A General Equilibrium Analysis, forthcoming in: Energy Policy

00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Pas

seng

er-k

m, t

rillio

n

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

95 Flt

ZeroCost

LoCost

PowTrn1PowTrn2

AlumHybrid

Reference Case Automobile Pkm

Loss

Reference Case Automobile Pkm

Total Fleet

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Gas

eolin

e R

etai

l Pric

e, U

S$/

L

Reference Case Kyoto Case Kyoto+ Case

Demand

95 Flt

ZeroCost

Total Fleet

95 Flt

ZeroCost

LoCost PowTrn1

DemandLoss

Total Fleet

Ton-

km, t

rillio

nP

asse

nger

-km

, tril

lion

Total Fleet

Total Fleet

95 Flt 95 FltLoCost

LoCost

PowTrn

Alum

Reference Case Personal Truck Pkm

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ene

rgy

Use

, EJ

A

B

C

D

E

Household Own Supplied Transportation

Purchased Transportation

Household Own Supplied Transportation

Purchased Transportation

Household Own Supplied Transportation

Purchased Transportation

MARKALEPPA

MARKALEPPA

MARKALEPPA

LoCost

Total Fleet

95 Flt

Reference Case Personal Truck Pkm

95 FltLoCost

Advanced

Total FleetTotal Fleet

Advanced

LoCost

95 Flt

Total Fleet

Advanced

95 Flt

LoCost

00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

A BRIEF LOOK AT AIR TRAFFIC

Source: Lee J.J., Lukachko S.P., Waitz I.A., Schäfer A., 2001, “Historical And Future Trends In Aircraft Performance, Cost, and Emissions”, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 2001, 26: 167-200.

ASK: Available Seat-KM

ENERGY INTENSITY VS. DEMAND

Sources: Lee J.J., Lukachko S.P., Waitz I.A., Schäfer A., 2001, “Historical And Future Trends In Aircraft Performance, Cost, and Emissions”, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 2001, 26: 167-200. Jamin S., Schäfer A., Ben-Akiva M.E., Waitz I.A., 2004, Aviation Emissions and Abatement Policies in the United States: A City Pair Analysis, Transportation Research D, 9(4): 294-314.

Projected (global) growth in A/C-PKT: 3 – 12 X yr 2000-level

% Energy intensity change by 2050:

Low High Aircraft Technology † -25 -45 PAX Load Factor -10 -10 High-Speed Rail ‡ -1 -1 Direct Flight Routings 0 -11 TOTAL -33 -56 † Due to fleet turnover, average aircraft technology in 2050 corresponds to average new aircraft technology in 2025 (ultimately dependent on fleet growth) ‡ High-speed rail substitutes 50% of A/C-PKT in 10 U.S. high-density corridors with a cumulative great circle distance of 16,700km

SUMMARY

• As a direct consequence of economic development, transportation is becoming the major final energy consumer and carbon dioxide emitter

• Strong forces in transportation system: rising income translates into rising travel demand and shift toward faster, more energy-intensive modes ⇒ rising significance of air travel

• Decoupling of travel demand from economic growth unlikely, at least during the next decades

• Zero-carbon fuels necessary to decouple carbon emissions from transport demand; however, time scales are 50+ years for significant fleet impact.

SUMMARY, CONTD.

• Significant fuel efficiency improvements are expensive and consumer amortization periods for fuel-saving technology are short ⇒ public policy measures to move more fuel-efficient vehicles into the market.

• If accomplished via fuel price increases (e.g., through a uniform carbon tax across all sectors – the economically most efficient way), then:– Very high fuel prices (taxes) are necessary to achieve a

sensible emission reduction (⇒ public acceptance)– Marginal emission reduction costs may be lower in other

sectors than transportation; thus further increase in the relative importance of transportation in energy use and emissions

– Thus, some combination of policy measures necessary