TR Editors' blog

Better Fuel Economy On the Way

Long-awaited improvements to fuel-economy standards will likely be enacted soon.

Kevin Bullis 12/17/2007

  • 17 Comments

After a long wait--more than 20 years--significant new fuel-economy standards look as though they'll finally be signed into law. The Senate has passed a bill, which President Bush has indicated that he'll sign, that would raise the standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. But while this is a welcome development, it could take decades before the changes make much of an impact on fuel consumption and prices. Indeed, by that time, we'll likely be burning more gas than we do today, even with the new fuel standards, because more people will be driving. Near-term changes will require measures that encourage consumers to use less gas.

One option is to mandate the use of biofuels--something that's included in the current bill--which could offset gasoline consumption with ethanol. But increased use of ethanol could have unintended consequences, including damage to the environment and increased food prices. And until new technology is developed for converting biomass into ethanol, the fuel will only replace a small fraction of the gasoline used in the United States. What's more, it could be just as expensive as, or more expensive than, gas, since rising demand for corn to make ethanol drives up prices.

A better way to cut gasoline consumption in the near term could be the use of incentives to get people to drive less. John Heywood, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, who studies transportation issues, suggests that a combination of cameras for monitoring speed violations and education programs to encourage driving styles that use less gasoline could make a significant impact. Heywood is planning to study just how much people could save by easing up on the gas pedal. He also suggests that a system of fees added to the purchase price of gas guzzlers and rebates for efficient vehicles could help drive down fuel consumption.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

lasertekk

146 Comments

  • 1519 Days Ago
  • 12/17/2007

Too little somewhat late

Over 20 years for the government to change it's ways?  Is that mismanagement or what?  But this is better than nothing.  In the here and now, conserve, don't consume.

Reply

venessa123

1 Comment

  • 1288 Days Ago
  • 08/04/2008

Re: Too little somewhat late

This is rightly said. Conservation is the key to have more in the days to come. We definitely need to save for the future generation to save ourselves from being responsible for their loss.
-------------------------
Vanessa
NEW, NEW, NEW

Reply

artcraft

1 Comment

  • 1518 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2007

My Old Metro 50 mpg

My old 1998 Chevy Metro is still getting a faithful 50 mpg even after 156,000 trouble free miles.

I bought it new for around $10,000 and its 3 cylinder with around 50 horsepower hits 80 mph on the interstate if needed, plus I can park where others can't due to size. Going up a steep hill with more than two passengers (it holds 4) does require down shifting - especially with its A/C on, but it is a remarkable piece of low emission automobile. The technology for the low mpg economy car exists, but they stopped producing the Metro around 2000. No, it is not for sale! Find your own!
artcraft

Reply

caffeinepowered

1 Comment

  • 1518 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2007

Re: My Old Metro 50 mpg

  My wife and I have two cars. She drives a Ford station wagon to work and on trips, I drive an electric converted Honda Civic to work and errands around town. I save more than 6 gallons a week driving the EV. But I save fuel in the gas guzzler too, just because my driving habits have changed.
  We will get fuel efficient cars when we start choosing cars for their fuel efficiency.

Reply

ronwagn

33 Comments

  • 1473 Days Ago
  • 02/01/2008

Re: My Old Metro 50 mpg

How many miles do you have on it? What kind of repair record?

I think the big auto companies want to sell whatever vehicles they can make the profit on per unit. They are not interested in what the frugal or poor buyer wants. The Tata Nano would be perfect for many people. It is being sold in India for $2,500. We need to make it available here, and create new regulations that allow such vehicles nationally.

Reply

Thaddeus

1 Comment

  • 1428 Days Ago
  • 03/17/2008

Re: My Old Metro 50 mpg

Unfortunately, legislation is often proposed to reward people who buy cars that burn less gasoline.  However, no rewards exist for people who cease to burn gasoline.  For example, I get quite a bit better than 50 mpg on my recumbent bicycle, for my 16 mile roundtrip to work.

Of course, my recumbent-ride has its own rewards, which is why I am not waiting for congress to recognize my efforts with a check!

Reply

kentgreen

2 Comments

  • 1518 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2007

Pay as you drive insurance - The elephant in the room!

The challenge of lowering fuel useuge must be tackled on every front not just one, and an easy way to get some significant reductions in fuel use that requires zero new technology is to enable pay as you go car insurance. ie. you pay for your insurance by the mile.

Pilot projects using various implementations of PAYD schemes have already been tried and based on these trials transport experts have estimated that by the simple expedient of knowing that the more you drive, the more it costs, will have a small but significant effect on miles driven.

Furthermore even if you still drive the same number of miles, another equally or more important fuel saving comes as people realize that they can keep their SUV or Mini-van to drive for the few times they actually need a large vehicle, and purchase a small fuel efficient car for the bulk of their driving needs.(The SUV will last for 20 years if it is only need for a few thousand miles a year) If you don't believe this, just do the math including capital costs for 20 years worth of SUV plus 2 or three small vehicles, total insurance cost, plus fuel saved. The saving is LARGE

So with Pay as you go insurance, less miles will be driven, and most of those can be driven in a fuel efficient vehicle

Check out transport expert Todd Littmans excellent Pay as you go backgrounder at http://www.vtpi.org/paydbc.pdf

Although it may take forever to get administrators and polititians to put policies and laws in place so that insurance compamies can make money at this, this is a fairly simple and "do-able" idea folks! 10 to 15% fuel reductions now!

Reply

Advertisement

dmm

270 Comments

  • 1518 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2007

Re: Pay as you drive insurance - The elephant in the room!

Great idea!  I wish they could do it by driver, though.  My teen wants to drive, just for the occasional short shopping trip or movie outing, but he would pay the same insurance whether he drives 1K per year or 50K per year.  So guys like him are forced to subsidize teens who commute every day to school and to their after-school job.  So unfair!  BUT, if PAYD just used car miles, then I'd wind up paying the teenager rate for all of my miles.  Unfair again.

Reply

olmon

32 Comments

  • 1518 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2007

only 35 mpg !  When we should hav e this ! !

http://www.4engr.com/press/catalog/1968/index.html

100+MPG AND more performance - - easily doable with present technology, materials and fuel.  Not only that but similar versions to this have been patented and could have been available since the mid 1970s.

Reply

wf

14 Comments

  • 1518 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2007

Incentivize Localization to Reduce Gas Consumption

Given that commuting between home and workplace accounts for a significant proportion of total miles driven, wouldn't it make sense to provide incentives (such as tax credits) to people who choose to live close to their workplace (e.g., within 2-3 miles)?

Reply

dmm

270 Comments

  • 1518 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2007

Easy solution but no political will

Stop subsidizing the cost of energy from the general account.  Lower income taxes, and raise taxes on ALL fuels -- not just gasoline, but oil, gas, coal, etc.

This is the only fair way to induce people to conserve energy.  Most other schemes single out one particular energy-wasting activity or device, and make it the whipping boy.

Consider:

A gas-guzzling SUV driven 2 miles to work is preferable to a gas-sipping hybrid driven 20 miles.  But the SUV gets the bad rap.

An incandescent bulb used only as needed is preferable to a compact fluorescent left on all the time.  But the incandescent gets the bad rap.

A large house with good insulation kept at 68 F in winter is preferable to a small drafty house kept at a toasty 74 F.  But the large house gets the bad rap.

These are only a few of many, many examples.  Politicians want to pass legislation that restricts our choices, because it's easy to attack the bogeyman.  But the real problem is too much overall energy consumption by the average consumer WHO IS NOT BEING FORCED TO PAY THE TRUE COST FOR THAT ENERGY.  Or, rather, he pays the cost, but it is hidden in his income taxes, and he pays for subsidizing the energy whether he uses it or not.  So of course he uses it!

Reply

jaggspb

10 Comments

  • 1517 Days Ago
  • 12/19/2007

Re: Easy solution but no political will

All of your examples are true and it does depend on the circumstance.  Although I do believe that in general the things that get the "bad rap" get them because they truly are misused.

Energy has definitely become a focal point of our house.  We have switched all to CFL's and are more mindful of turning out un-needed lights.  I finally figured out our programmable thermostat to turn down our gas water boiler at night to 64 F and come back to only 66 F during the day (surprisingly it isn't as cold as I thought).  And we have researched the on-demand hot water tankless heater for when our current tank one gives out (should be within the next year or so).

Reply

westernmine

2 Comments

  • 1515 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2007

plug in electric

People need to think more about the plug in electric car.  When there is disruption like hurricane Katrina every home is a fueling station.  Not everyone running out of gas 50 miles from disaster and all lining up at shell, chevron, etc... Electric is purchased from the supplier of your choice.  Electric is transmitted through same existing lines except you pay the rates of the supplier you choose.  All exhaust is then centrally located. Buy electric cars or hybrids only! Don't let GM back out of GM Volt if oil prices come down!

Reply

MrPrez

2 Comments

  • 1505 Days Ago
  • 12/31/2007

Re: plug in electric

Yes, plug in electric cars would be a great idea. However, where does the electricity come from to power these cars? By replacing all of our cars on the electrical grid we would just be creating more pollution. Yes we could drive farther with cleaner cars, but we would have to create more coal plants which are as we all know massive polluters. Biofuel from algae could be an answer, until hydrogen technology is affordable.

Reply

Advertisement

nibbircii

2 Comments

  • 1505 Days Ago
  • 12/31/2007

Why is tyranny the answer

Why do I continue to see posts that call for the government to force us to live our lives according to what they believe is an acceptable standard
What we can drive , how we can drive?What the punishment will be if we don't.
What is wrong with you drive what you want and i'll drive what I want.

Reply

GaryB

119 Comments

  • 1505 Days Ago
  • 12/31/2007

Re: Why is tyranny the answer

You are right, as long as you bear the cost of your decisions ... and don't drive a poorly designed nuclear fueled car etc. and pay for polluting *my* air etc.  We always need a pull towards a maximally free society, but it can never be achieved. 

I think we should tax carbon to realistically and not punitively pay for carbon based fuel's military and environmental costs (take out the "commons" from oil) and then add on enough to fund our way out of oil since oil is imposing bad security costs on us by funding some nasty enemies. 

Government is quite capable of creating new economies by direct investment.  That's why we have microchips (Gov bought them at $1000 per) and that's why we have the internet and highway system.  With about half a trillion, we could already move decisively to solar, see:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

Beyond that, you should be allowed to drive what you can afford.  Moreover, I think the energy planning including efficiency should account for decisively higher level of wealth/fun ... just pull for efficient devices and clean energy.  Tax the carbon, guarantee a market for solar and you can leave people alone beyond that.  Also, I think the solar plan is the real way to "win" the war on terror: It defunds the bad guys and will allow us to get out of their faces.

Reply

shopa

10 Comments

  • 1209 Days Ago
  • 10/22/2008

Japanese Kei cars

Many Americans want low cost, fuel efficient cars.
Kei cars are a special class of cars in Japan. They are limited to an engine size of 660cc and have vehicle size, but not weight, restrictions. They are made by many different Japanese car companies and they are mature designs that are reliable, and get up to 60 mpg. They can cost less than $10,000.

However, they cannot be driven in the U.S. because they don't meet collision safety requirements.

I believe that adding my crumple box invention to a Kei car will allow it to pass U.S. collision safety requirements. Then they could be driven in the U.S.

Some American auto companies have ties to Kei car
manufacture. They could make these cars.

Please help me promote this idea.

See my website  www.safersmallcars.com

Reply

About

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Subscribe to the TR Editors' blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement