ACHIEVING SOCIETAL BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH ALTERNATIVE FUEL SUBSIDIES: THE CASE OF PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES Samir M. Nazir MS Candidate Science, Technology, and Public Policy – 2010 BS Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas - 2001 Under the faculty guidance of James Winebrake, PhD: Chair STS/Public Policy Dept
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ACHIEVING SOCIETAL BENEFITS ASSOCIATED
WITH ALTERNATIVE FUEL SUBSIDIES: THE
CASE OF PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Samir M. Nazir
MS Candidate Science, Technology, and Public Policy – 2010
BS Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas - 2001
Under the faculty guidance of James Winebrake, PhD:
Chair STS/Public Policy Dept
HIGHLIGHTS
Research Question
Background
Methodology
Results
Implications and Conclusions
RESEARCH QUESTION
How do the societal benefits of PHEV deployment vary
across counties in the US?
HIGHLIGHTS
Research Question
Background
Methodology
Results
Implications and Conclusions
BACKGROUND
PHEVs
Vehicle Characteristics
Charging From Grid and Consequences
Potential Benefits of PHEVs
Reduced Emissions
Reduced Health Impacts/Ozone
Energy Security
The Science and Technology Policy Issue
Technology, market, economy, environment, and policy
HIGHLIGHTS
Research Question
Background
Methodology
Results
Implications and Conclusions
METHODOLOGY
Develop and test methods for ranking locations
within the continental US based on social benefits
of PHEV use
Identify proxy variables that get at key benefits
Apply normalized, weighted score by county
Key Variable Proxy
Market acceleration through network
effects
Population density
Health benefits Unit risk assessment for O3
Energy security VMT per capita
Market acceleration through policy Existing state and local policies
Climate change CO2 emissions per MWhr generated
METHODOLOGY
i: attribute, j: metric
a: attribute metric
n: normalized score
w: weight of attribute
s: county score
METHODOLOGY
Does HEV ownership coincide with where the
social benefits of HEV deployment are maximized?
Difference in analysis from PHEV analysis
Distribution of HEV ownership
HIGHLIGHTS
Research Question
Background
Methodology
Results
Implications and Conclusions
RESULTS
Geographic AreaFIPS
Codes
Pop Est
(7/1/2008)
Area
(Square
Miles)
Population
DensityNormal Rank
..Autauga County 01001 50,364 594 84.7 0.00118 997
..Baldwin County 01003 174,439 1,590 109.7 0.001529 798
..Barbour County 01005 29,309 885 33.1 0.000461 1847
..Bibb County 01007 21,629 623 34.7 0.000484 1806
..Blount County 01009 57,441 645 89.1 0.001241 953
..Bullock County 01011 10,796 623 17.3 0.000241 2338
..Butler County 01013 20,090 777 25.9 0.00036 2053
..Calhoun County 01015 113,419 606 187.3 0.002609 552
..Chambers County 01017 34,424 597 57.7 0.000804 1318
..Cherokee County 01019 24,545 554 44.3 0.000617 1572
..Chilton County 01021 42,444 693 61.3 0.000853 1260
RESULTS
pop 0.2 health 0.2 VMT 0.2 policy 0.2 CO2 0.2 overall 1
normal rank normal rank normal rank normal rank normal rank total rank FIPS County
0.034 47 1.000 1 0.012 2946 1.000 1 0.702 144 0.549 1 6037 Los Angeles