Verified answer

A study by MIT researchers concludes that marketing programs and subsidies will need to be in place for decades in order for the adoption and long-term market penetration of alternative fuel vehicles to become significant and self-sustaining.

Jeroen Struben and John Sterman of MIT’s Sloan School are developing a behavioral, dynamic model to explore the possible transition from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) such as hybrids, plug-in hybrids, natural gas vehicles, flex-fuel vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Results show that there is a tipping point in the diffusion of AFVs: successful adoption of alternative vehicles requires policies, such as subsidies for alternative vehicles and fueling infrastructure, that persist long enough to push the AFV installed base over a critical threshold. Efforts falling short of the tipping point will not lead to sustained adoption. We show that the time required to achieve self-sustaining adoption is long—on the order of several decades—primarily due to the long life of vehicles.

Current alternative fuel vehicle technologies face a number of significant challenges that the gasoline internal combustion engine did not when it emerged in the market more than a century ago in competition with steam and electric vehicles.

The current enormous size of the automobile industry and support infrastructure creates a wide range of powerful positive feedback processes, including vehicle improvements and cost reductions driven by scale economies; R&D; and improving vehicle performance, sometimes through the spillover of innovations developed for alternative fuel vehicles to the dominant ICE platform.

More subtly, the current low functionality and high cost of alternatives, and low gasoline taxes, are endogenous consequences of the dominance of the internal combustion engine and the petroleum industry, transport networks, settlement patterns, technologies, and institutions with which it has co-evolved. The success of internal combustion suppresses the emergence of alternatives, maintaining the dominance of ICE.

These feedbacks mean, as we argue here, that achieving self-sustaining adoption would be difficult even if AFV performance equaled that of ICE today. The challenge facing policymakers seeking to promote a transition to sustainable alternative vehicles is how to overcome the barriers created by these feedbacks.

The researchers suggest that the potential for self-sustaining adoption of AFVs may be greater in developing markets such as China and India where the installed base of ICE vehicles is smaller and growth is faster. Growth in the total vehicle market speeds adoption of AFVs.

The mature markets of US, Europe and Japan, however, face greater challenges, especially given the long life of vehicles. Policies aimed at removing older ICE vehicles from the market therefore could have high leverage, the authors suggest. A sustained increase in the price of oil might stimulate sufficient adoption of AFVs to push past the tipping point, they note.

The long time required for the AFV market to develop in the simulations, however, suggests that a successful transition to AFVs will likely require policies that raise the real price of gasoline to levels that reflect its fully internalized cost, thus providing the persistent incentive favoring AFVs needed to reach the tipping point

Combustion free is a great idea and in time I think that solar, electric or whatever will be a viable fuel. But in the near future we just can’t do it. The technology just isn’t there for it to work; the car would be too heavy and under powered from the solar panels or the batteries. Also there would have to be charging stations like we have gas stations now and the cost for that to occur is just too great. That is why to me Bio fuels are the next step; it can be created with no affect on the food market with oil made from algae (check out a company called valcent). I hope this was helpful, and in the future I think combustion free will be a good fuel I just think technology limits its use now

Follow the money. A lot of vested interests are receiving generous subsidies for biofuels even though they contribute nothing to the energy supply.

As for "combustion-free" energy, the only large-scale sources of energy that do not involve combustion are hydro and nuclear. The other sources (wind, tides, geothermal, solar) simply don't produce enough to meet our needs. With transportation there's also the issue of portability- liquid combustion fuels are the easiest and densest portable energy storage media available.

This is turning into a very popular lie. We are NOT running out of food or cropland. The price rises are due to greed and speculation. And once AGAIN, corn is the WORST POSSIBLE MEANS of creating ethanol. Termites and yeast can do the same thing with agricultural waste!

Zero point energy isn't quite ready, but will eventually be a nearly perfect energy source. Wind and solar are great for small scale and distributed systems, not popular with the big power companies. Hydro is hard on the ecosystem and NO dam can last for centuries. And of course, nuclear energy only makes our progeny pay for our energy with mutation and death.

the only important impact on arising option fuels is the unfastened industry. if somebody can and does advance a low in value option to utilizing oil and organic gas, then the industry will quite be there for it. opposition constantly brings with reference to the superb selections. government mandates will do little to sway the minds of folk. in case you tell me I ought to purchase a hybrid, i maximum quite wont. yet once you produce a motor vehicle that operates the two as properly as mine on hydrogen or batteries at a aggressive cost, then identity have an interest.

There is absolutely no need. However, things just don't go that easy. These are some combustion free stuff.

horses

Electric

people

hydro power

solar power

wind power

Hope this helps,

Bunnie Bones

Would you care to list these ways to produce energy that don't involve burning fuel as well as their potential if fully developed. Be sure to also detail the total cost of developing these sources.

combustion free vehicles are still a pipe dream, even though there are a number of electric vehicles and ev conversions on the market today. i agree that pure electric vehicles are an excellent way to go, but until you can replace a 747 with something that will carry as much cargo, and as many people, as efficiently, we will still need some sort of fuel to burn in jet engines. perhaps one day a transporter device like that used on star trek will become the mode of transport in the future, but until then we need fuel.

in the lds book doctrine and covenants, the lord gives a revelation about water! it is quoted ( and thus it can be said: thus saith the lord) * i think. "there is enough, and plenty to spare...."

if water is has enough abundance to supply the world, then it might also have enough to supply hydrogen and energy.

the scriptures say that the earth will still be around until the oceans "dry" up.

there was also a new release not too long ago about oil found in the 1950's which holds 500 billion barrels. at present rate of consumption thats a hundred years of oil. so there is enough oil and "to spare" ( my opinion) as well.

this is economic hype. They can charge us more money for oil now so they can build more refineries tomarrow. at least thats one way of seeing this in an honest way. its also a way to build up "profits" to control resources and wealth.

secret combinations seek to gain wealth and power.

combustion free?! do you have 30 grand for everyone so we can buy a new car?!