FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

This FAQ page provides answers to some of the more obvious questions about the ENTRANS concepts. Whilst most of these points have been explained in the text, they are also emphasised here for greater clarity.

Who is this site written by?

The author Stephen Latham was trained as a professional Engineer in vehicle design, has a post graduate degree in Energy Conservation and the Environment from Cranfield University, and has since spent 23 years working in both the private and public sector as an Environmental Transport Consultant and Researcher. He has published work for government funded projects in a variety of peer reviewed science journals and contributes to popular science and engineering magazines.

Web Header Page and Introduction

Has anthropogenic (human generated) global warming been proven?

This study accepts the findings of the mainstream scientific community and more than 97% of climate scientists that human produced greenhouse gases are almost certainly the cause of the rise in global temperatures seen over the last century. Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

Can the cost of technical measures be justified?

Whilst the extent of future warming cannot be predicted to any degree of certainty, and the effect of this on economies and ecology even less so, there is little doubt that low cost methods of reducing greenhouse gases are worthwhile for both environmental and resource reasons. Even the more costly methods help to insure us against the worst case scenarios of climate change which would be ruinously expensive in both monetary, ecological and human terms. However, the majority of concepts discussed in this study have potentially zero or negative costs and could probably be justified independent of any environmental benefits.

Surely we can’t rely on technical developments to achieve sustainable growth, we need more fundamental lifestyle changes and abandon growth altogether.

It is undoubtedly true that without moderating extravagance, waste and world population, it is unlikely that technical developments alone can provide the required long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions required to stabilise global temperatures.  However, there is no reason why technical developments cannot simultaneously support these culture changes, providing we don’t become over reliant on them.

With regard to transport, travellers require viable alternatives to fossil fuelled cars, but will be reluctant to use anything less convenient. Rather than reiterate the outdated traditional arguments regarding the need for traditional public transport and rail systems, this study establishes how these concepts can be modified and incorporated in a way that meets the needs of decentralised economies and a modern society.

The problems of mitigating climate change are so great we actually need all the ‘armoury’ we can muster so as to make a big enough difference.  It is important that we don’t let political ideologies obstruct this reality.

Is it worth focusing on transport since stationary energy sources produce the bulk of the worlds greenhouse gases,?

Although road transport is not the highest emitter of greenhouse gases, it exhibits 50% of the net warming from all industrial sectors since nearly all the emissions it produces lead to net positive forcing. Conversely other significant emitters of greenhouse gases such as the power and industry sectors also produce significant amounts of sulphates which cool the atmosphere. This inadvertently helps to mitigate the warming effect of their greenhouse gases. However, sulphates are serious pollutants in their own right and these will be reduced further in the future causing these sectors to become greater contributors to net global warming. Therefore, on a sector by sector basis, it is suggested that reducing or limiting road transport would be an effective short term global warming mitigation strategy, whilst limiting emissions from sectors such as power generation and industry will become more important over the longer term


COAST

Isn’t COAST just the same as ‘dial and ride’ or shared taxi systems?

It is vastly different to ‘dial and ride’, but incorporates certain elements of shared taxi schemes.

To be competitive in terms of time, convenience and cost with the private car, public transport requires a more or less continuous and diverse supply of journeys so passengers can be transported nearly anywhere in the locality at short notice. Only the mass use of private motorists effectively acting as public transport operators as described in the COAST system can realistically achieve this.  Other methods are either costly or require long waiting times and are unlikely to be used in preference to  the private car.

What’s wrong with conventional public transport?

Buses and Trains are grossly inefficient methods of transport outside peak times and popular routes due to the low number of people carried in relation to the weight and size of vehicle used.

Outside the most populated regions, the already inadequate public transport system will require ever greater financial subsidies to provide basic services as more people qualify and choose to drive. Increasing the number of passengers carried in private cars through the COAST system can substantially improve the convenience and efficiency of public transport to counter this trend.

Conversely, buses and light rail systems are relatively efficient modes of travel in high demand situations such as in city rush-hour traffic.  However, the COAST and INITIATE concepts could be used in conjunction with these modes to bolster inefficient services when demand is less intensive.

Why would vehicle manufacturers install COAST?

It is not absolutely necessary.  The COAST interface and communication module could be little more than a modified Satellite Navigation system which could be retrofitted. However, these systems would be best embedded into the instrument panel on assembly to enable easy use and avoid theft.

One option suggested in the text, is that manufacturers should be required to meet CO2 standards defined in terms of grams/passenger km (where passenger patronage is determined through surveys). This will compel them to equip their vehicles with a COAST type logistics package so they will share passengers as much as possible.

Would COAST compromise privacy and data protection rights?

Motorists should be given the option to disengage COAST so their location is not continuously monitored. Whilst there are legal issues with all recorded data, similar information is already recorded on the location of handsets by mobile phone operators so this doesn’t appear to create any fundamental new precedents.
 
Would COAST be safe due to sharing unknown drivers and passengers?

All users using the COAST system should be identifiable and vetted, so the location of everyone is known at any one time, this is not usually an option offered to taxi and public transport customers. In addition, further restrictions on the gender of drivers and passengers could be used in particular circumstances, although this would reduce the efficiency of service.

Would COAST be reliable using the general public?

The COAST vetting procedure should aid reliability, although this could be enhanced via financial incentives and penalties for all users. Unreliable users could eventually be excluded from using the COAST system.


LOCI

Is it realistic to expect the public to share or use such small vehicles

It’s unlikely that any motorists would chose to use much smaller vehicles without any incentives. Therefore, a preferential transport infrastructure is required, using side lanes, parallel roads, underpasses and traffic priority schemes to allow faster transit times, as well as making the driver feel safer in smaller, lower vehicles.  LOCI vehicles could also be hired out free for a trial period, with licences issued to drivers a year prior before qualifying to drive larger vehicles so the advantages become well known .

Would it be safe to drive much smaller cars?

Statistics suggest that light quadricycles (the nearest category to that envisaged here) have an accident rate per vehicle km intermediate between heavier cars and mopeds. However, LOCI provides a degree of lane separation and the design suggested should make the vehicle highly visible which may improve this record. The safety of pedestrians, other drivers and the victims of pollution and climate change should benefit from the replacement of large cars with smaller ones.  When safety is redefined to include these stakeholders, LOCI could prove to be safer than most other vehicle types overall.

Is there enough room at junctions to allow priority schemes?

It’s difficult to provide priority schemes at junctions without sufficient road width capacity. In these situations there are probably two alternatives, either or introduce a road pricing differential, so private cars are discouraged in preference to COAST and LOCI systems or exclude private cars altogether at busy locations and at congested times.  If a viable alternative transport system is provided this would make the latter option more politically acceptable, at least around city centres.


ELECAT

Would using electric cars in preference to fossil fuelled cars simply transfer CO2 from the tailpipe to the power station?

Studies suggest that a transition to electric cars from petroleum will substantially reduce carbon emissions in the UK case. Similar studies have been made in other countries. Providing the electric generating system is not powered by predominantly oil and coal, this is likely to remain the case. Moreover, electric cars have many other advantages, for example health impairing pollutants are moved away from busy streets thereby improving air quality. However, the main advantage of moving the energy source to the power station would be to allow a larger range of low carbon generating methods, through renewable's, nuclear and carbon sequestration. It is only in this way we can achieve a near zero carbon transport system.

Where does all the spare electricity come from to charge the electric vehicles?

The move to a low carbon economy may require countries to increase their nuclear component.  Most nuclear stations have to be run constantly without load changes which leads to overcapacity during the night when electricity demand is low, so electric car charging should be encouraged during this period to take up the excess capacity. Renewable energy sources such as wind could play an important role with electric cars and battery banks could acting as energy stores to balance out differences between electricity supply and demand in the grid throughout the day. Carbon Capture and Sequestration should also play an important longer term role.

Even if a quick transition to a low carbon economy isn’t possible, the petroleum used to power vehicles at present could be used to fuel generators to provide electricity.  This is a more efficient energy route than petroleum fuelled IC engines, especially for urban driving. Such generators may be necessary anyway to supplement renewable sources when these cannot provide the electricity demand.  Whilst this is not a long term solution it would still be feasible as an interim option.

Would lead acid batteries be durable enough and require a specialised charging regime?

The specifications used for the sample calculation is obtained from a commercial lead acid battery with a guarantee of 5 years. This also states the batteries are suitable for electric vehicles amongst many other applications.  

Whilst is is possible that this lifespan is optimistic assuming the tough environmental demands of an electric car, it demonstrates that cheaper batteries are within the range of costs and energy densities which can be used in conjunction with the ELECAT concept for practical journeys. A wide range of battery technologies are being investigated at present, including more durable forms of lead-acid battery which may prove to be more appropriate. Whilst advanced battery technologies cannot not ruled out for the future, they are beyond widespread commercial practicality at present.

Would the extra weight of the transporter offset any CO2 or energy saving?

This is extensively dealt with in the text and ELECAT worksheet of the spreadsheet 2.  

The main purpose of the transporter is to enable the practical use of electric vehicles by extending their range, not to achieve more efficient operation when actually conveying them. Of course the electric car would result in a net reduction in CO2 emissions relative to the petroleum fuelled version over the entire range of operations. However, calculations suggest that across a large range of potential drag coefficients the ELECAT may offer a slight advantage in CO2/fuel efficiency over that of driving the cars individually.

Where do all the extra ELECAT drivers come from?

The ELECAT concept requires heavy vehicle drivers, so some degree of reallocation from INITIATE could be used if both methods are used.  In addition car drivers could be easily  trained to drive the ELECAT due to it’s restriction to highway use.


INITIATE

Would moving from steel tyres (on conventional trains) to pneumatic tyres (on trucks)  increase rolling friction and therefore overall energy consumption?

This will certainly increase the rolling friction component, but this will be offset by the means for trucks being able to tow multiple trailers on the INITIATE network which is more energy efficient.  Any net benefit is calculated in spreadsheet 5 which calculates the change in CO2/energy from moving to INITIATE as a proportion of freight already carried by conventional rail and the amount of road freight which can be amalgamated into trains using the INITIATE network.

For most situations, INITIATE is uses slightly less CO2/energy, assuming petroleum is used as the energy source. However, the main issue is that INITIATE allows electrification of haulage movements along with the other environmental advantages this offers.  Therefore, the potential de-carbonisation of the freight network will use less energy and provide additional environmental advantages in many situations. For countries which use rail extensively for long distance freight movements, conventional rail is likely to be more efficient and some segregation of INITIATE lines would be beneficial, although the possibility of using hybrid tyres is another option worth consideration.

Would introducing INITIATE and the rail ELECAT just convert the rail infrastructure into a road and the road  infrastructure into rail respectively?

This is a misleading way to think about it. Both freight and cars (through the rail ELECAT) use a guided rail. This enables these vehicles to be amalgamated into trains which increases capacity and efficiency and allows their batteries to be charged which extends their range, and allows the potential for zero sources of carbon to be used. The rail ELECAT is intended to be an advanced, high speed, high capacity, long term transport option which may be able to utilise new streams of zero carbon energy such as fusion, which is at present beyond our time horizon.

Would moving freight from roads onto INITIATE create congestion at the junctions?

It is envisaged that a combination of convoying and intelligent speed control would be used so vehicles can pass at the junctions without stopping. There will be less vehicle ‘units’ overall than on the road since trailers could be joined into ‘trains’ on the INITIATE network reducing the necessary track space required.

Would linking trailers reduce the number of haulage drivers required?

The ELECAT concept requires heavy vehicle drivers, so some degree of reallocation from INITIATE may be possible if both methods are used.