| This thesis reports life cycle inventories of internal combustion engine automobiles with feasible near term fuel/engine combinations. These combinations include unleaded gasoline, California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline, alcohol and gasoline blends (85 percent methanol or ethanol combined with 15 percent gasoline), and compressed natural gas in spark ignition direct and indirect injection engines. Additionally, I consider neat methanol and neat ethanol in spark ignition direct injection engines and diesel fuel in compression ignition direct and indirect injection engines.; I investigate the potential of the above options to have a lower environmental impact than conventional gasoline-fueled automobiles, while still retaining comparable pricing and consumer benefits. More broadly, the objective is to assess whether the use of any of the alternative systems will help to lead to the goal of a more sustainable personal transportation system. The principal tool is the Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis model which includes inventories of economic data, environmental discharges, and resource use. I develop a life cycle assessment framework to assemble the array of data generated by the model into three aggregate assessment parameters; economics, externalities, and vehicle attributes.; The first step is to develop a set of 'comparable cars' with the alternative fuel/engine combinations, based on characteristics of a conventional 1998 gasoline-fueled Ford Taurus sedan, the baseline vehicle for the analyses. I calculate the assessment parameters assuming that these comparable cars can attain the potential thermal efficiencies estimated by experts for each fuel/engine combination. To a first approximation, there are no significant differences in the assessment parameters for the vehicle manufacture, service, fixed costs, and the end-of-life for any of the options. However, there are differences in the vehicle operation life cycle components and the state of technology development for the combinations.; Overall, none of the alternatives emerges as a clear winner, lowering the externalities and improving sustainability, while considering technology issues and vehicle attributes. The majority of the alternatives are not likely to displace the baseline automobile. However, the attractiveness of the alternatives depends on the focus of future regulations, government priorities, and technology development.; If long-term global sustainability is the principal concern, then improvements in fuel economy alone will not provide the level of reduction in impact required. A switch to renewable fuels (e.g., alcohols or diesel produced from biomass) to power the vehicles will likely be necessary. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)... |
