Cars, Trains, Energy, and Danger

A couple of striking experiences recently crossed paths for me. One was my attendance at the World Oil Conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (See previous posts). The other event was someone dear to me coming within inches of being hit head-on by a moron who pulled out into the oncoming lane of traffic. The conference had already set me to thinking about alternative transportation. The near miss set me to thinking about the absurdity of our dominant mode of transportation, the automobile.

Most people in the U.S. spend an hour or more a day in a ton and a half steel box on wheels, hurtling down a twelve foot wide strip of pavement. They have to maintain constant attention, stretching the limits of their reaction time and intuitive judgement in order to avoid leaving their lane or running into someone else doing the same thing. Last year, six million people failed to do this, causing 43,000 deaths and 2.7 million injuries. The deaths alone are like two commercial jets crashing each week. Would you fly at all if that were happening? But you drive, and so do I.

Our road system came into being at a time when horse drawn carriages were the established technology, running at 5-10 miles per hour. The turning radii, grades, and sight lines were appropriate for those speeds. In many cases we have just paved over these original tracks. Cars started out as modified carriages, with single digit horsepower and top speeds in the teens. As the road surfaces and automotive technologies were improved, the weight and speed of vehicles went up, along with the death toll.

Given a one-second perception/reaction time, a carriage travelling at 6 mph would travel just 8.8 feet before the driver could yank on the reins. At a modern highway speed of 65 mph, a vehicle travels nearly a hundred feet in the same time. The kinetic energy per kilogram of the modern vehicle at highway speed is 100 times that of the carriage. Free-steering vehicles travelling a mile a minute on roads laid out for horses is a recipe for carnage.

There is also an energy problem.

Even with modern materials and design, cars need a certain amount of mass. One big reason is simply for survivability in collisions. The force of an impact on occupants is directly related to how fast the vehicle decelerates, which in turn is related to the relative mass of the vehicle to whatever it runs into. Of course, it takes energy to move this mass around.

Cars need to be much larger than necessary just to contain passengers and their luggage. All cars have extensive crumple zones, for that precious slowing of deceleration and to prevent intrusion into the passenger cabin. This increase in size increases the air drag of the vehicle, and therefore the energy consumption.

What if we abandoned the concept of a two-ton steel box rolling on a twelve foot wide paved lane? What if we went back to first principles and asked “How do we get a person and a few cubic feet of luggage from point A to point B with the least energy and most safety possible?”

Standard passenger rail is much more efficient than driving, but it has physical and social limitations. Tracks are designed for gross weights per car of up to 315,000 pounds, which is absurdly over engineered for passenger travel. A standard Amtrak passenger car weighs in at 1200 lb. per seat. The sheer mass of both rail bed and rail cars adds to the cost of laying track and running the system. The killer for rail, though, is convenience. We are used to having our vehicles wait around for us, rather than us standing around waiting for them. In rural areas there is also the issue of mass transit without mass population. It is difficult to run a transportation system economically with 80 passenger vehicles when you can’t find 80 people going the same place at the same time.

There is another option in between the private steel box and the massive rail coach – Personal Rapid Transit, or PRT. A number of designs have been proposed and some developed, but they all include lightweight, automated vehicles running on rails, each carrying up to four passengers. (See also PPTProject)

Putting a small passenger vehicle on rails would eliminate a lot of problems, foremost among them the possibility of colliding with other vehicles. A fleet of ultralight rail cars all running at a preset speed could neither head-on, rear-end, nor “t-bone” each other. This would eliminate the need for all that mass and crumple space. Rail vehicles make electrification simple, improving efficiency and reducing emissions without the need for onboard battery storage. Most importantly for public acceptance, travelers could walk into a PRT station, buy a ticket, and hop into a vehicle without waiting. Overhead track would be small enough to penetrate into the heart of a downtown commercial district, eliminating the need for separate local public transport. The whole system could be cheaper per mile than repaving an interstate highway. All this at an energy cost per passenger-mile that is a fraction of automobile travel or standard rail.

We are facing a dramatic increase in the price of oil sometime in the next decade. This will increase the cost of fuel, the cost per kilogram of manufacturing a vehicle, and the cost per mile of maintaining roads. PRT is a promising concept for maintaining affordable high speed passenger transportation despite high energy costs.

ASPO Conference – Further notes

I couldn’t resist going back through my notes, and there seems to be a bit of interest, so here is an abbreviated version of the Friday afternoon presentations.

Kelly Sims Gallagher of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government spoke about China and the growth of auto culture. My mention in an earlier post about 13% of those polled in three major Chinese cities intending to buy a car in the next year comes from her presentation. To give a sense of proportion, she pointed out that China –

Has 2/3 of US energy consumption
Produces 61% as much CO2
Uses 1/3 as much oil
Imports 1/3 of its oil, 3.5 mbpd, 3rd after US and Japan
Accounts for 37% of world coal consumption

In 1991 China was producing less than 100,000 cars a year
In 2005 it produced 4 million
China has 25 million cars on the road, compared to 220 million in the US
Cars are now the leading source of urban air pollution in China

China is projected to surpass US in CO2 production in 2015

Those numbers, without any commentary, paint an ominous picture of China’s future effect on world oil consumption and CO2 production.

Michael Klare is the Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies and author of “Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.” He spoke on Peak Oil and Energy Security.

He started out with the obvious and the less obvious points about peak oil. Point one is that oil production peaks and declines. Point two is that the first half of the oil is easy to get and the second half is hard. We will transition from oil fields that are shallow, big, onshore, safe, and close, to fields that are deep, dispersed, offshore, remote, and unsafe.

He pointed out that of all the oil reserves left,
62% is in the Persian Gulf
10% is in Africa, mostly Angola, Libya, and Nigeria
10% is in the FSU, mostly Russia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan
10% in Latin America, mostly Venezuela

Three fourths is in predominantly Muslim countries, and most is in countries that are unstable, corrupt, undemocratic, and ethnically or religiously divided. Historically, oil development increases ethnic and religious violence.

He used Iraq as an example. The Shias and Kurds occupy the major oil regions of Iraq, and all the political maneuvering since the invasion has served to exclude the Sunnis from any control of the oil resources and revenue. Its no surprise, then, that the Sunnis are driving the violence in Iraq.

In Nigeria, likewise, oil development and the unequal sharing of the benefits drives the violence.

The more we pursue their oil, the more they resist.

He concluded that for the U.S., and especially the young people of the U.S., the implications for violence and military action are as important as scarcity. The U.S. military has become an oil field protection service for the oil industry. He considers changing this a moral imperative. We cannot allow oil dependence to bring us into foreign wars.

Cutler Cleveland gave a fascinating talk on energy quality, net energy, and the coming energy transition.

Some historical points:
In 1800, 90% of our energy came from wood and animal feed.
By WWI, coal was dominant.
We made the transition from coal to oil and gas around 1950.

He made the point that from an economic perspective, all BTUs are not equal. Different sources of energy have different economic usefulness, different GDP per joule or BTU.

Quality factors:
Physical characteristics, Chemistry, Economics, Environmental
Cost, Density, Safety, Storage, Conversion Efficiency, Ease of transport
No one factor can adequately reflect quality – it is as much art as science right now.

Gasoline and diesel have a very high volumetric density, making them ideal transportation fuels
Hydrogen has a very low Vol. Density.
Biomass has a very low volumetric and gravimetric density – bulky and heavy for its energy content.

The dollar value of an energy source per BTU generally reflects its quality.

We tend to use the most concentrated sources available – highest watts per square meter (W/m2)

The Energy Return On Investment (EROI) is the ratio between the useful energy obtained from a source divided by all the direct and indirect energy inputs needed to obtain it.

An economy thrives on high EROI sources.

Oil 20:1 (2000)
Coal 80:1 (2000)
Gas 10:1
Corn Ethanol 1:1
Oil Shale Negative to 8:1
Coal Liquefaction Negative to 5:1

Methods of producing electricity (I’ll forgo the “:1” and give the ranges of the first number)
Nuclear 3-10
Coal 5-11
Hydroelectric 6-18, increasing with size
Geothermal 2-14
Wind 5-30, again, increasing with size
Solar Thermal 1-7
PV 2-10, depending on technology

Cleveland noted the drop in EROI between refined petroleum and best case numbers on corn ethanol. At 10:1, it takes 10 exajoules to net 90 useful exajoules. At 1.5:1 for ethanol, it takes 300 ej to net the same 90 ej. As Cleveland put it, if we tried to run our transportation system on corn ethanol, two-thirds of us would be working for Archer Daniels Midland growing and refining the stuff.

Another point he made was about energy concentration. If we compare the average energy draw of a building in units of Watts to its area, we get a W/m2 rating for a home, commercial building, or factory. The W/m2 of our buildings matches the W/m2 of our energy sources. Renewable energy sources tend to have low W/m2. We will run into a problem when we try to run concentrated uses on diffuse sources.

I was very impressed by Cutler Cleveland’s presentation. As we plan, design, and advocate for our energy future, we need to be cognizant of the relative qualities and EROIs of energy sources and their relation to the intended use. Some of the “gee-whiz” technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and ethanol founder on the rocks of quality and EROI.

Charles Hall of SUNY followed, appropriately enough, with a call for a standardized protocol for determining EROI. Presently there is no global standard for defining assumptions, methods, and boundaries on EROI calculations.

He made some disturbing observations about EROI:

There may be a minimum EROI necessary to sustain a technological civilization – 5:1 has been proposed.
While renewable energy is promising, the magnitude of its resource is presently microscopic compared to the need.

Most significantly, the EROI for oil and gas is dropping. As we go for deeper, more difficult to extract deposits, we are spending more energy to explore, drill, and pump. Hall showed a graph of EROI for oil that indicated that the industry would reach a 1:1 ratio for newly discovered resources in 2015-2020. That means that within 10-15 years oil exploration for energy would be useless. We would have to operate on existing reserves as they deplete and approach 1:1 EROI themselves.

Again, it brings me back to lifestyle. Dick Cheney famously (infamously?) said that “the American way of life is not negotiable.” It seems that he is right. Nature will take away our lifestyle without negotiating.

The question is, where on the energy ladder will we be during the last resounding energy crisis? Right now we are balanced on the top rung, unsteady, with a long way to fall. Out in the jungles of Papua New Guinea, there are some hunter-gatherers who will notice that the white men don’t come around much any more, and will get on with their lives. The best we can do is to start the climb down from the top rung before the whole thing goes over.

World ASPO Conference - Final thoughts

I have learned that ASPO-USA will be posting the PowerPoint presentations from the conference in a week, so I will spare myself the labor of transcribing my notes. That is, unless there is a great popular outcry for immediate gratification.

I will, however, offer up some observations about what I heard and saw over those two days.

The ASPO crowd, both presenters and audience, were a heterogeneous lot. I saw a lot of business suits and professional casual, and a few “soul patch” beards and dreadlocks. Some were touting oil shale and coal liquefaction, while others dismissed that and promoted renewable energy. There were contradictory presentations in sequence by Bill Reinert, the president of Toyota USA and Andy Frank of UC Davis on the speed and feasibility of the introduction of plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). Reinert spoke of a slow, difficult development and introduction with a long time before serious market penetration, while Frank said exactly the opposite.

Nevertheless, there was general agreement on some main points. These had a lot to do with the timing of both fossil fuel depletion and the responses to it.

1) There’s not a huge gap between the optimists and the pessimists on peak oil.

The range of predictions for peak oil varied from December of 2005 to 2020, with a cluster around 2012. Robert Kaufmann, one of the old hands of depletion modeling, pointed out that one could vary the number for the amount of oil reserves left by a factor of two and still not shift the peak by more than about six years.

2) Increased exploration and drilling isn’t paying off.

David Hughes, a Canadian Government geologist, along with a number of others, pointed out that the physical and financial efforts around the world to find more gas and oil have been increasing dramatically. Meanwhile, the actual amounts of gas and oil discovered are holding steady or declining. The best case scenario is analogous to the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, running as fast as she can to stay in one place. The oil and gas situation is worse, with companies multiplying their investments for diminishing returns. Quadrupling the number of gas drilling rigs in North America since 1996 has kept the reserve to production ratio (the theoretical “out of natural gas” date) about ten years ahead, with a 3% decline in production.

3) Worldwide demand is increasing despite high prices

Oil is so vital, so interwoven into developed economies, that high price doesn’t destroy demand. In fact, many people in the developing world are trying to get their hands on more of it. In a recent poll, 13% of people in the three largest cities in China intended to buy a car in the next year. At present rates of growth, the number of cars in the world could triple in the next two decades. That is, if there is still enough oil to fuel them. We are cruising towards the peak with the pedal to the metal.

4) The most optimistic assessments keep getting shot down by new data.

For example, the EIA has downgraded its initially optimistic predictions for natural gas production every year since 2001, as new data came in. What was once a healthy graph headed for the sky is now flat.

5) Major oil producers have inflated their reserve numbers, generally by a factor of two.

If you look at a graph of stated reserves for OPEC members, each line, somewhere in the last 25 years, has a sudden jump, with no apparent justification.

6) The alternatives to conventional crude oil are expensive and a long way off.

You can’t pull a coal to oil plant out of your pocket. After all the design and permitting, it still takes about four years to construct and start up. This increases to eight years for an oil shale facility. The cost per barrel is really unknown, except that it will be $70 a barrel and up, with huge upfront capital costs. Likewise, renewable energy sources, although they can deploy quickly, are an infinitesimal part of our present energy picture. Even at breathtaking expansion rates, it would take decades for them to make a significant impact.

7) Many alternatives to conventional oil take too much energy to be practical.

Cutler Cleveland pointed out that even if we take the most optimistic energy profit ratio (EPR, energy used compared to energy gained) for ethanol, it would be impractical to run our present fleet on it. As he put it, “Two thirds of us would be working in the ethanol industry.” The energy profits on oil shale and coal liquefaction are low, as are those for tar sands.

8) The energy profit on fossil fuels is declining

The EPR of newly discovered oil used to be 100:1, that is, it took the energy of one barrel of oil in exploration, equipment, and pumping to get 100 barrels out of the ground. Now newly discovered oil is well below 10:1 and dropping. When we look at numbers for oil reserves, we should consider that the last 20% in the ground might take more energy to extract than it contains, rendering it useless. Some of the new deepwater oil drilling that is being touted as saving us may soon be futile.

9) Market forces won’t work.

The price of oil is so volatile that oil markets can’t get clear signals. Even if they could, these markets hardly ever look more than a couple of years out, and with volatility, even less. Relying on market forces to drive our reaction to oil depletion is like putting an impact sensor on your car’s bumper to tell you that it is time to design and construct a seatbelt. We need a level of forward thinking, hard nosed policy that is now lacking in government at all levels.

10) All the factors above will combine to impose sudden and dramatic lifestyle changes on us.

The effects of fossil fuel depletion and our lack of preparation will have economic, political, military, and social consequences the like of which we have not seen since the first half of the 20th century. We are looking at economic depression, inflation, and rising interest rates, partly due to energy inflation and partly due to the collapse of the dollar as an international reserve currency. We will experience the effects of political unrest at home and abroad. Many of the services, conveniences, and activities we now take for granted will be increasingly expensive. As I have noted in a previous post, some economic models predict that a 4% shortfall in supply would produce a price per barrel of $160. How would you be living if the gasoline that gets you to work, the diesel that grows and delivers your food, and your heating oil all cost $7 a gallon?

The only thing that could change fast enough to make a difference would be human behavior. Likewise, only changes in human behavior can be implemented fast enough to forestall the inevitable shortfall till we are halfway ready for it. The answer lies in the boring inconvenient things: driving less, carpooling, using mass transit, turning the lights off, and easing back on the thermostat, and so on, and so on….

Tragically, it always comes back to our bad habits.

World ASPO Conference, Friday morning, continued

ASPO Conference, Friday morning, continued

Transportation

John Heywood, MIT, Sloan Automotive Lab

The world has a rapidly rising stock of vehicles, especially in the developing world. We could go from 750 million today to three times that number in a few decades, assuming there is fuel for them.

Transportation is 30% of U.S. primary energy use.
Personal transportation is 60% of that, air travel 10%, and freight 30%.
The scale of U.S. transportation fuel use is vast, 550 billion liters a year.
Transportation is dominated by internal combustion engines on land and turbines in the air, both powered by petroleum based fuels.
Scale of use is a big problem.

Over the last 25 years the auto industry has managed a 1% efficiency improvement per year.
Europe has developed high efficiency, high performance diesels, but suffers from the high emissions.
Cheap fuel and emissions regs have discouraged diesel use in the U.S.
If we had used all this efficiency improvement to reduce consumption, we could have achieved 30% savings. Instead, we used it for performance improvements – acceleration and power.

Technical options:
Evolutionary improvements in weight, drag, transmissions, and engines
Alt fuels, both fossil and biofuels, althogh fossil alt fuels have a high CO2 penalty
More radical transitions to new vehicle concepts – lighter, smaller, electric. Fuel cells in the long term only.

Amory Lovins calculated: A car in actual use is only 10% efficient, and the payload is 10% of vehicle weight, so only 1% of the fuel consumed actually moves the payload – you.

There is the possibility of improving the energy eff. of engines and transmissions by 3 by 2025
Given the 17 year life of a car, it would be difficult to achieve more than a 5% market share from 2010 to 2025. Plug in hybrids would be best.
A 10% weight reduction would result in a 5% efficiency improvement.
The problem is that performance competes with efficiency and the market drives for performance.
Technology alone will not work – behavioral change is necessary.

Bill Reinert, President of Toyota USA

Restrictions on fast design change: Product cycle is 5 years. Design is restrained by new requirements for pedestrian safety, rollover protection, and side impact protection. Cars can have a 15 to 20 year life span.

Car designers need to work with urban planners as cities expand.
The Middle East and Asia have a youth population boom – future consumers.

Biofuels have problems:
Biomass feedstock requires bulk transportation
Biomass crops grown mostly over the depleting Oglalla Aquifer

Toyota Approach
Balance impacts with consumer demand
Recognize the need for mass market appeal – there is a lack of consciousness, so a too radical car doesn’t sell
Have a consistent energy policy over time
Multiple path on fuels, but all through a hybrid system

US buyers prefer performance over efficiency

Toyota looks beyond a “well-to-wheels” energy assessment to a life cycle energy assessment
Their engineers have a carbon budget as well as a money and weight budget
Steel vehicles actually have a lower life cycle energy than carbon fiber – CF has very high life cycle CO2
Another CO2 source – precious metals for catalytic converters

Going towards plug-in hybrids, although CO2 impact varies with coal use for electrical generation.

Andrew Frank, UC Davis Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering Dept. and Director of the Hybrid and EV Center

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)as storage for Renewable Energy Sources

15-30 kilowatt hours (kWh) per car for 30-60 mile All Electric Range (AER)
Our current energy infrastructure is the 120 volt outlet and the gas station
Use smart 2-way outlets to provide distributed energy storage, controlled using existing power company technology for water heaters and air conditioners – charge off peak
Average car sits idle 21 hours a day – available to store or provide power

A plug in hybrid has no weight increase – engine size reduced
Design for an AER of 60 miles
Deplete the battery to 20% of charge and then maintain at 20%
Never use engine to recharge the battery
Engine 1/3 the size, made up by electric motor
Vehicle operates on 90% electricity, 10% liquid fuel
1/10 to 1/3 the cost per mile

Solar electricity pays back better when used as substitute for gasoline
A 10 kW array produces the equivalent of a gallon of gas per hour
Gives a 6 year payback instead of 30
A plug in hybrid gives 3-4 times the range per RE kWh vs hydrogen fuel cells

PHEVs can use and store large scale wind power
PHEVs can provide emergency power for a home

A 660cc engine with a 100 hp electric motor and a constant velocity transmission can equal a 3 liter engine with auto tran in performance. The CVT offers a 10:1 parts reduction.

An average PHEV could run on 100 gallons a year, about 1/10 the average fuel consumption of today. Therefore, we could transition to ethanol without an increase in the present supply.

If 10% of the fleet was 40 AER PHEVs, it would reduce US gas consumption by 300 mbpd, 4.5% of US oil use.

There is tremendous excess capacity in the grid for off peak charging. 20% fleet penetration would use less than half of excess capacity. It would improve economics for consumers and power companies.

I took a lot of notes. You'll have to wait till tomorrow for the rest.

World ASPO Conference, Friday Oct. 27

World ASPO Friday Morning

Again, these are rough notes from the conference. Don’t expect well formed prose.

Robert Kaufmann, Director CEES Department at Boston University
“It’s the economy, stupid.”

There are information externalities in the oil market. Investors want to get into alternative market after peak. To be before the curve means that the investor has to wait for return. The peak is unpredictable, so investors hold back. Markets won’t work for transforming the energy economy because they will be too late.

Will OPEC increase production for us? NO. A 3% increase in output resulted in a 10% drop in price. OPEC won’t accept reduced revenues.

The total quantity of oil reserves doesn’t affect the date of peak all that much. A wide variation in total quantity gives a range between 2012 and 2032.

A new Saudi Arabia of capacity will be needed in the next decade to make up for depletion.

William Clark, author, “Petrodollar Warfare”
The Geopolitics of Peak Oil and the Macroeconomics of Multiple Petrocurrencies

Warfare has traditionally been for access to resources. During the 20th century there have been a half dozen wars involving oil resources.

The US dollar had world supremacy from 1945 to 1971. The dollar was backed by gold at $35/ounce and became the world reserve currency. Debt from the Viet Nam war weakened the dollar around 1968-1971. We transferred from the gold standard to the oil standard. Essentially, we horse traded with Saudi Arabia – they sell oil for dollars and we get them more votes with the International Monetary Fund. The petrodollar remained dominant till recently.

Our trade imbalance ($805 billion in 2005) puts petrodollar dominance in jeopardy. International banks, Asian currencies, and commodities may soon move away from dollars. So far we have used coercion and horse trading to keep dollars as the oil currency.

We can export inflation with petrodollars. Middle Eastern nations buy goods from Japan, China, and other Asian countries with dollars. These countries then recycle these dollars by buying U.S. treasury bonds. 45% of our $1 billion a day deficit is funded by petrodollars.

Iraq was proposing to sell oil for Euros – one of the reasons for invading.

The European Central Bank is pushing President Putin of Russia to sell oil for Euros. The EU has a trade surplus with OPEC.

Iran’s President Ahmedinejad points out that the political war is obvious but the economic war is almost undetected.

Sidebar: Iran’s oil production peaked in 1974 at 6.1 mbpd. At that point the Shah of Iran wanted to develop nuclear power – oil was “too precious to burn.” This was approved by the Ford Administration, including his staffers Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

Iran is starting a non-dollar oil bourse (trading operation) on the island of Kish. It would trade upwards of 25 mbpd (out of 84 mbpd worldwide) for a mixture of dollars, Euros, and Iranian Rials. One of the stated purposes is to insulate Iran from U.S. financial problems.

The U.S., having failed on UN financial sanctions, is asking Japan to bar financing transactions with Iran.

China is also opening an oil bourse using a basket of currencies.
These multiple currency oil trading markets have serious implications for the value of the U.S. dollar.

Roger Bezdek, Management Information Services, Inc.
Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Options

The exact date of peak oil is arguable, but the impact would be significant: inflation, unemployment, recession, stagflation, high interest rates.

He notes that Energy Information Agency forecasts on natural gas production are downgraded every year, ending up dramatically lower in 2006 than in 2001. He doubts theiroptimism about long term world oil production.

His firm produced a report in 2006 on liquid fuel mitigation – time required to get conservation and production on line, costs, and economic impacts. It assumed a crash program with as much money as required. It included:

Vehicle efficiency ramp up by 50% in 8 years
3 new coal to liquid fuel plants per year, each producing 100,000 bpd. 4 year delay for construction.
Enhanced oil recovery amounting to 175000 bpd more each year, with a 4 year delay
Oil shale development with an 8-10 year delay

All these options, if fully implemented, would still leave a 5 mbpd gap (25%) in 2025. There would be a decade delay from implementation before initial impact, and two decades for significant impact.

All of this will be costly - $120 up to ??? capital investment per bpd offset. $4-6 trillion capital costs over 20 years. Something like our present military budget every year just for this.

Another problem is labor shortage. The average coal miner is 56 years old. Petroleum industry workers average 45 years old, but there would be an increase of 18% in this labor force.

There would be a large positive local economic impact.

Not cheap, not easy, not quick. Demand destruction is the default solution.

Federal initiatives needed: Higher car mileage standards, substitute liquid fuel programs
State: Smart growth, telecommuting, mass transit
All levels: Educate the public