Energy and Transport Future - Multiple Choice

Top-down analysis of national mobility statistics allows governments to understand why diesel cars drive further than gasoline cars

Bottom-up analyses are more cumbersome, but can always reproduce the exact result at the aggregated level

In general, it has been observed that people from countries with different economic conditions (GDP/cap) tend to maintain ............................................ of their trips constant in their daily mobility.

In Switzerland, every year heavy-duty trucks (> 3.5 t) perform more tkm than lighter vans (< 3.5 t) because:

Seasonality affects BEVs’ energy consumption more than in the case of ICEVs

HEVs consume less fuel than ICEVs mostly because of their lighter weight

FCEVs do not need a battery to benefit from brake energy recuperation

In a car, apart from few special cases, no change in velocity implies no fuel consumption

Aerodynamic design plays a more important role when driving on the highway than in the city

Formula 1 engineers try to increase the aerodynamic drag in order to keep the car attached to the track

Driving on a plateau (= high flat plane) reduces the fuel consumption

Given the same driving cycle, trucks experience an increase in every term of the force equation compared to cars.

The human body can be assumed to have an efficiency food→physicalmotionfood→physicalmotion of 10%, while an ICEV has a powertrain efficiency fuel→wheelpowerfuel→wheelpower of about 18%. Considering the trip of a single person from Zurich to Winterthur, which of the two means of transportation uses less input energy ( food,fuelfood,fuel )?

Emissions measured on the dyno (and used for compliance with the norms) are lower than the actual on-road emissions. This is due to the fact that tests are performed in conditions which strongly differ from reality. Given that all the following conditions are true, which is the least important when trying to explain the emissions gap?

It’s accepted that total vkm on Saturdays is the same as other days, but less cars are driven for longer distances. If all cars were electric, the evening charging peak would be higher on Saturdays than on other days.

Station-to-Wheel CO₂ emissions of FCEVs are higher than BEVs.

Ignoring the fuel for take-off, to double the range of a plane the fuelled kerosene must more than double.

Assuming same conditions, if hydrogen is produced with electrolysis, operating a FCEV always requires more primary energy than a BEV.

CO₂-wise, operating a HEV is a better option than operating an ICEV only in countries with green electricity production (CO₂ intensity < 200 g/kWh).

In a country with green electricity production, the longer the distance driven over the lifetime, the lower the overall CO₂ impact of a BEV compared to an ICEV.

Autonomous cars will likely drive longer than conventional cars over their lifetime. Making them electric makes thus sense both economically and environmentally.

In a country whose grid is interconnected with neighbouring countries, the consumption electricity mix is usually (>60%) dirtier than the production mix.

In Switzerland, during daily rush hour, more than 10% of all the cars is moving.

It's accepted that, when looking at the distances driven on a day, 40% of the cars can successfully be converted to BEVs. If you look at yearly mobility, this share would increase (ignore modal shift).

Consider a PFCEV (=FCREV) that ensures the same total driving range of a FCEV, but consumes less hydrogen by replacing it with electricity from the plug. If hydrogen is currently produced through steam methane reforming with fossil natural gas, how would the environmental footprint of the PFCEV be compared to the FCEV?