MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323284951 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044001

Impact of non-petroleum vehicle fuel economy on GHG mitigation potential

2016· article· en· W2323284951 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason M. Luk, Bradley A. Saville, Heather L. MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAUTO21 Network of Centres of ExcellenceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGreen vehicleMiles per gallon gasoline equivalentGasolineGreenhouse gasCompressed natural gasPetroleumAutomotive industryContext (archaeology)Liquefied petroleum gasEnvironmental scienceEconomyFuel efficiencyNatural resource economicsAutomotive engineeringWaste managementEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fuel economy of gasoline vehicles will increase to meet 2025 corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE). However, dedicated compressed natural gas (CNG) and battery electric vehicles (BEV) already exceed future CAFE fuel economy targets because only 15% of non-petroleum energy use is accounted for when determining compliance. This study aims to inform stakeholders about the potential impact of CAFE on life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, should non-petroleum fuel vehicles displace increasingly fuel efficient petroleum vehicles. The well-to-wheel GHG emissions of a set of hypothetical model year 2025 light-duty vehicles are estimated. A reference gasoline vehicle is designed to meet the 2025 fuel economy target within CAFE, and is compared to a set of dedicated CNG vehicles and BEVs with different fuel economy ratings, but all vehicles meet or exceed the fuel economy target due to the policy’s dedicated non-petroleum fuel vehicle incentives. Ownership costs and BEV driving ranges are estimated to provide context, as these can influence automaker and consumer decisions. The results show that CNG vehicles that have lower ownership costs than gasoline vehicles and BEVs with long distance driving ranges can exceed the 2025 CAFE fuel economy target. However, this could lead to lower efficiency CNG vehicles and heavier BEVs that have higher well-to-wheel GHG emissions than gasoline vehicles on a per km basis, even if the non-petroleum energy source is less carbon intensive on an energy equivalent basis. These changes could influence the effectiveness of low carbon fuel standards and are not precluded by the light-duty vehicle GHG emissions standards, which regulate tailpipe but not fuel production emissions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207