Drivers would pay extra to cut carbon emissions

Sep 20, 2013

Most drivers are willing to pay for onboard technology that will reduce carbon emissions, as well as sacrifice some fuel economy and storage space, in order to cut greenhouse gases resulting from combustion engines, say University of Michigan researchers.

In a new online survey of driver opinion about carbon capture in vehicles, researchers at the U-M Transportation Research Institute found that respondents were willing to pay about $100 for a 20-percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and $250 for an 80-percent reduction.

Further, drivers seem willing to accept a 5-percent reduction in and a 10-percent loss in storage space for a 20-percent cut in , and a 10-percent drop in fuel economy and a 16-percent loss in storage for an 80-percent reduction in emissions.

"While most efforts at containing are directed at large-scale stationary producers like coal-fired power plants or other industrial sources, there has also been interest in considering the feasibility of carbon capture from small distributed power plants, like gasoline-fueled internal-combustion engines ubiquitous in transportation," said John Sullivan, an assistant research scientist in UMTRI's Human Factors Group. "Various methods are under development to capture and store these gases before they enter the atmosphere."

One such method is equipping light vehicles with carbon capture and , which would require additional space (possibly in the trunk) and costs (for initial installation and reduced fuel economy).

Sullivan and UMTRI colleagues Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle say that the acceptability of carbon-capture technology depends on driver belief that human activity is associated with global warming.

"Drivers that reported agreement were found to be more accepting of in-vehicle carbon-capture technology and generally more willing to pay more for this technology or to trade storage space and for such technology," said Sivak, a research professor in UMTRI's Human Factors Group and director of Sustainable Worldwide Transportation, a research consortium that addresses major road transportation issues worldwide.

Explore further: Matched 'hybrid' systems may hold key to wider use of renewable energy

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Better fuel economy: Billions and billions saved

Oct 16, 2012

(Phys.org)—As fuel economy of new vehicles improved 18 percent over the past five years, billions of gallons of gas and billions of pounds of emissions have been saved, University of Michigan researchers ...

Fuel economy in the US drops from recent high

May 03, 2013

Fuel economy of new vehicles sold in the U.S. slipped last month for the first time this year, say researchers at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Coal more risky than renewables

Sep 05, 2013

Coal-fired electricity may have little or no economic future in Australia, even if carbon capture and storage becomes commercially available, a new analysis has found.

Fuel economy at all-time high, researchers find

Nov 06, 2012

(Phys.org)—Fuel economy of all new vehicles sold in the United States is at its highest level ever, say researchers at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Recommended for you

Are electric cars greener? Depends on where you live

Nov 25, 2014

Long thought a thing of the future, electric cars are becoming mainstream. Sales in the United States of plug-in, electric vehicles nearly doubled last year. Credible forecasts see the number rising within ...

Building a better battery

Nov 25, 2014

Imagine an electric car with the range of a Tesla Model S - 265 miles - but at one-fifth the $70,000 price of the luxury sedan. Or a battery able to provide many times more energy than today's technology ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
2.4 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2013
Mileage is already low enough, idiots. With present gas prices, I don't want any reduction in mileage.

In fact, I'm willing to pollute more if it increases my mileage, because that's what's practical to me.

If you have to lug around a carbon capture system, the reality is most of what you capture coming out of the exhaust, by volume, is actually going to be water vapor.

Lol.

How many cubic feet of carbon dioxide, and at what pressure, do you expect to capture?

Did you idiots take into account the cost of delivering all this captured CO2 to wherever it's going to be sequestered?

I can see lines of trucks with compressed CO2 on the interstate driving across the country to some location for sequestration, eating up the majority of the difference anyway.
gotkb
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2013
IN fact luxury cars, a french one, incorporate this right now. We have a huge embarrassment in not having our money have real value when we buy cars. The 'premium' tax has been far too high and is imposed by private marketing shortsighted analysis. I've been a critic of the national SEER standard since it went to 10, and it now being regional makes it only more comical. Claims for how much it has saved ignore the fact it has enabled the poor air to air, always on, etc., designs to remain, when they are mutations and should of been instead simply banned for continuously occupied or other then seasonal residential structures.

There is no right to pollute. It should not be affordable to capture your toxins and just dump them problematically. The cost of doing so should instead prompt real innovation like that investment presently inefficiently suffered by individuals being communally created far better- everyone but those entities that are our cancer's winning, companies like G.M.c
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2013
Put up donation boxes at gas stations and see how many will pay extra.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.