Fuels Institute 2016 Annual Meeting

These initiatives increasingly, and in a short time frame, will become painful to the average person in developed Western nations. Just how receptive will Western society be to such concepts as “do you really need air-conditioning?” Suffering today for some impact that might or might not take place 100 years down the road is going to increasingly become less viable. I base this on a variety of polls I’ve seen over the years that note an unwillingness to sacrifice in any significant way for being green. To the extent that the climate change movement tends to be tied into globalization, the current success of Donald Trump running on what is essentially an anti-globalization platform combined with the very real possibility that Britain will vote itself out of the EU in coming weeks (with serious implications for the long term viability of that construct) further adds to the uncertainty.

 

Fuels Institute 2nd Annual University Case Competition

For the Fuels Institute’s annual University case competition,sponsored by Gilbarco Veeder Root North America, the theme was “Beyond Today: The Future of American Transportation.”  Some 20 teams of three or more students from 11 schools that registered for the competition. The question was asked:

What if you were able to simply press the figurative “reset button” on America’s ground transportation sector? The challenge before you is to envision and create an ideal future transportation (mass transit and consumer vehicles) sector. How will consumers move from point A to point B within an urban, suburban and rural setting? What sustainable fueling options would be used in each area? Who are the stakeholders (automakers, consumers, etc.) in your revised vision? Whatever you envision, how does that affect vehicle ownership, vehicle use and fuel demand?

The three finalists were teams from Duke University, Morgan State University and University of California, Berkeley.

The Duke University team had a model that centered on a smart eHighway that involved autonomous (self driving) vehicles powered by coil energy transmitters embedded in the roadway. While the embedded coil system may sound like science fiction, successful trials have already been conducted.

The capital cost for such a solution would be significant, but the team felt that a range of government incentives, carbon tax subsidies and regulations could be put in place for funding, with cost savings related to time, fuel and the reductions of accidents and death.

The Morgan State University team provided a solution that was more evolutionary than revolutionary. It was basically an autonomous, electric vehicle ride-sharing platform. The team expanded on this to include a range of vehicle and route options, and links to other mass transportation hubs. Their approach was refreshing in that it relied heavily on the free market profitability and private investment for success.

The winning team was from the University of California, Berkeley. They relied on the technology involving absorbed natural gas (using a special porous media that would entrap the natural gas versus energy-intensive compression), which reduces the energy footprint costs associated with CNG. This was centered on public and commercial transportation funded through government incentives and regulation. Private vehicles would largely be electric.

 

“Our vision is motivated by long-term social and economic goals, especially the mitigation of climate change,” Negah Nafisi, Alana Siegner and Mercedes Taylor, the University of California at Berkeley students, noted in their proposal. “Although the most severe consequences of America’s energy issues will occur outside the 30-year time frame of this challenge, adverse climate-driven impacts are already being felt in the U.S. and elsewhere.”

Autonomous Vehicles

Aside from being a central technological component of several of the award presentations, the general developments with autonomous vehicles receive significant discussion. Roger Melen, Senior Advisor, Toyota Infotechnology Center and Coleman Jones, Biofuel Manager, General Motors provided insight from the automakers and noted that while the technology was making some significant strides, particularly with driver assist systems, it would still be some time before fully autonomous travel would be ready for the masses. While current systems would likely be regarded as safe compared to the earliest days of automotive travel, they still come up far short compared to manually driven vehicles today and full autonomy won’t happen until it is just as safe.

However, there is no reason to believe that such a day will not arrive. Which raised some interesting questions.

• If there is an accident, who has the liability?
• While an autonomous vehicle certainly eliminates the drudge associated with tasks such as urban/suburban commuting or long road trips, how does it impact pleasure driving?
• Can you fit a mixture of autonomous and manually steered vehicles onto the same roadway, or will there have to be autonomous only sectors to achieve the potential efficiencies?
• Just how safe will the drivers in manual mode be, if that is an option, when more and more of their total automobile time is spent not actually driving the car? Will everyone become a Sunday driver when they choose to take control?

Perhaps the most provocative question was a counter point to the efficiency angle. In essence: “If I’m in a city and I need to do some shopping, why bother finding a parking place? Why not just have the car drive around until I’m ready to be picked up? With that insight it’s easy to imagine a range of other scenarios where autonomous vehicles could be used for other menial tasks. Similarly, such vehicles could readily eat into air travel or mass transit as tedious long distance driving becomes more relaxing.

Given the regulators seated in the audience, I’m sure such issues will be addressed as needed.