Technology Review
The president clears away obstacles to reducing U.S. gasoline consumption.
On Monday morning, President Barack Obama signed executive orders that could speed the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles by improving fuel economy and setting stricter emissions standards. While the technology exists to reach the stricter standards, it's not clear that automakers can implement them fast enough. What's more, additional policy measures may be needed to reduce overall fuel consumption.
Obama signed two orders on Monday. One required the Department of Transportation (DOT) to enforce a law that will increase fuel-economy standards to a minimum of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The law was passed in 2007, but detailed rules telling automakers how to comply were never implemented by the Bush administration. The second order signed by the president calls for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revisit a request from the state government of California asking for permission to implement emissions standards that are more strict than federal rules. Those standards call for decreasing carbon-dioxide emissions from new vehicles by 30 percent by 2016; more than a dozen other states have since followed California's example. Under President Bush, that request was denied, but experts say it's likely that the EPA will now approve it.
The orders are meant to reduce both carbon emissions and gasoline consumption, Obama said on Monday. They will help on the country's "journey toward energy independence" and will "spark the innovation needed to ensure that our auto industry keeps pace with competitors around the world," he added.
The technology does exist to make it possible, and much of it is simple. For example, low-rolling resistance tires can help make cars more efficient by reducing the amount of energy lost through waste heat. Reducing the weight of vehicles by using lightweight steels and aluminum can also boost fuel efficiency. And automakers can use smaller engines to improve efficiency, making up for lost power by turbo-charging them. Greater improvements can come from advanced technologies such as plug-in hybrids, which run electricity part of the time. But there may not be enough time "to get the technology out there in the volumes needed," says John Heywood, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.
The California standard's 2016 deadline is "just around the corner," adds David Greene, an energy policy analyst at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Tennessee. He believes the soonest that automakers could make changes based on the new rules would be 2011, and it may be five years beyond that before the companies can modify their entire fleet of vehicles. It will take time to ramp up production of new technologies, in part because of the need for new equipment from other manufacturers, and in part because there aren't enough engineers to redesign a whole fleet faster than that, Greene says. What's more, the automakers don't have abundant resources right now to invest in the necessary changes: many are facing bankruptcy because of very bad sales.
"This will be hard for the manufacturers," says James Sweeney, a senior fellow of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research at Stanford University. "It would have been much better for them to have made the changes five years ago, rather than now. But they fought the changes tooth and nail." The rules may have to be adjusted in light of the recession, he says.
A technology coming to Chrysler vehicles can improve the fuel economy of standard gasoline engines by 25 percent.
Satellite navigation technology is focusing on reducing fuel consumption.
An improved catalyst could help oil refineries get more gasoline out of a barrel of crude petroleum.
CAFE will also result in smaller, lighter cars which are inherently unsafe. The result will be a significant increase in traffic fatalities. If the industry went this way voluntarily anybody want to bet the John Edwards Slip and Sue types won't have a field day?
The US car manufacturing industry lagged behind in safety issues when compared with European and Japanese safety standards. The idea that BIG is safest is erroneous. Of course, a Hummer crashing into a small Toyota Yaris is a no contest but if you had to get a US made Ute to have a head on collision with a European MPV (even a Ford why not) I have no doubt in which vehicle I would want me and my family to be in, the European MPV. Safety and structural integrity of road vehicles has little to do with size or weight. If that was the case modern fighter aircraft would have the survivability of a paper plane when compared to WW II aircraft. Safety and structural integrity of road vehicles depends on innovation, design and application of materials technology. The US car industry were, in my opinion taken for a ride by oil and energy interests. Your new president is taking the US car industry in the right direction. As I've written in another comment on renewable energy, the current economic crisis will be more devastating than any seen by the US in recent wars and for much less pain the US had risen to the challenge, won and lead the world. It is time for the US car industry to rise to the challenge and to aspire to surpass current technology. Falter on this and the consequences are great.
If that was the case modern fighter aircraft would have the survivability of a paper plane when compared to WW II aircraft?
Modern fighter aircraft are much larger and heavier than their WW II counterparts.
If one had to build WW II aircraft with modern materials and use of modern structural engineering the modern version of the aircraft would in fact be much lighter for the same strength. Conversely, for the same weight of modern aircraft to WW II aircraft, modern aircraft are many times stronger. As for size – today’s fighter aircraft are in fact multi role aircraft fulfilling the role of WWII medium bombers - at 3 to 10 times the speed!
Back to cars. US cars use brute structural components rather than engineered safety comparable to a 50's fighter, definitely not to an F-22 Raptor! That is where the US car industry has to go. Unshackled from oil interests, a road-going equivalent of an F-22 could be achieved.
As economist Marty Sullivan wrote this morning on Tax.com
"With our policy of imposing CAFE standards instead of a hefty gas tax, U.S. policy has stupidly contributed to the downfall of U.S. automakers"
I totally agree
Are you old enough to remember the automotive landscape just prior to 1994? This is right before a large percentage of the general public decided they wanted work and agricultural vehicles for daily drivers. We had no issues with vehicle compatibility during collisions. Except for professionally driven commercial vehicles, the majority of consumers drove similarly sized cars. All of these cars were close in weight.
Today, we have 2500 lb cars on one end and 6000 lb + vehicles on the other, being driven by consumers as DAILY DRIVERS. Do you see the problem? If the field is once again leveled, as it was pre-1994, then the simple act of driving a light car won't matter. Odds are you will collide with the same. Now factor in modern crumble zones and 4th gen air bags, items not available 15 years ago, and you have a very safe car.
To those who really need larger vehicles (work), so be it. The real intent of this regulation is to get the average driver into a more sensible vehicle. This group now constitutes a huge number, and altering it will have profound changes in pollution and resource usage, not to mention passenger and property safety.
Foreign Makers already meeting standards in many cases
Detroit made bad decisions, and our Govt., lobbied by Big Oil, enabled those decisions, in one case with tax incentives that encouraged businesses to buy those gargantuan SUVs, which, during the $4/gallon gas crunch, graced the front yards locally wearing prominent For Sale signs.
Meanwhile the Japanese and European makers are eating Detroit's Lunch. Now the whining has started, first to get the bailout dough, and now using the recession as an excuse for still not giving the American Public the vehicles they want, and the clean air we need.
Maybe Detroit would be better served using that bailout money to buy the engineering talent to get the job done. And maybe We The People should seriously consider that Detroit is a bottomless pit for our tax dollars.
This is only the first step, but boy is it a necessary one!
No obstacles have been cleared. Regulations have been added. Government regulatory control of the auto industry has never helped and never will. It simply forces the industry to be inefficient.
"Government regulatory control of the auto industry has never helped and never will. It simply forces the industry to be inefficient."
There is so much wrong with what you said that I don't know where to start. Government regulations to increase safety or reduce our crude oil demand for the most part have been positives. You want to smooth out the demand curve so that we don't have massive roller coaster rides every ten years that severely impact the economy and bankrupt the short-sighted American automakers (that is, unless we actually let them go bankrupt, which is political suicide and as such will never happen even though it should).
It is important to remember that the current downturn was not the result of high commodity prices but the downturn in the housing market. If the housing bubble hadn't occurred, it is highly likely that crude oil prices would still be above $100/barrel. There is a natural limit to production estimated at between 85 million and 100 million barrels per day (the upper limit of which is determined by price levels). Recognizing that this high price situation will occur again in the absence of any proactive program to reduce demand or a massive technological breakthrough (basic economics), government intervention (regulations that increase efficiency standards and create incentives for the more rapid development and commercialization of alternative technologies) is exactly the most efficient and least costly solution.
I can't get into a lengthy economic discussion right now but the basic argument is that reducing our demand for crude oil has direct and indirect benefits that have far larger payoffs than continuing to ride the roller coaster and pray for the best.
Guest (DE)
Well, I bet dd36 would say the exact same about government hampering stem cell research too, then.
Milliki-whatsit hits on something interesting, thought I'm not sure if its what he meant. By forcing them to spend money on one form of EP, we may well strip them of the ability for R and D to come up with environmentaly friendly alternatives. Contrary to popular belief, they don't have endless cash with which to do whatever we command them. If we make them cut their budget to regulate how much steam they produce, what economical and environmentally responsible new developement are we sacrificing?
What are some specific inefficiencies you expect from higher fuel economy standards? Spell out your argument for those who don't agree from the start that all regulations are bad.
One argument for such regulations is that the true cost of using oil isn't reflected at the pump. It doesn't include environmental costs, military costs to keep oil flowing. Raising fuel economy standards will make cars more expensive, but the reduction in oil consumption might be worth it.
If the government chooses to raise the fuel efficiency standards, so be it. It just means the costs will be transferred to the public, just as it has for air bags and any other standards the government has mandated. But you are missing the biggest issue Obama of what wants to do, and that's let the individual states regulate the emissions of the vehicles. Is he that ignorant? It's painfully obvious what that will do for the automakers if they have to try and meet 12 different emission standards. It's no different that what the petroleum industry has to deal with when they have to create so many different blends of gasoline for the different states. We incur the costs for the inefficiencies, and if you live in the midwest, you get to deal with the political issue of more ethanol in your blends. I've seen the large spikes in gas prices just because a certain blend wasn't available and the public wasn't happy! Well, blame it on your government regulations. There is a reason why Europe created the EU, there is a reason the EU create harmonized standards, and it was to eliminate the inefficiencies and difficulties of dealing with the complex regulations of each individual country. Yet this is the path that Obama wants to take with the auto industry. Of course, I would find it extremely humorous if the auto industry got together and decided that they would only sell little 750cc 50mpg cars to California in order to meet their emission standards!
Fuel economy could be greatly reduced by mandatorily reducing HP Most people in North America never use the all the HP that the auto mfg.'s tell them they need. Most people drive in or near cities and have no need for it if they are always stuck in traffic. Unless you need HP for commercial activities then you should pay through the nose for it.
"In other words, if automakers make cars that use less gas or emit less carbon dioxide per mile, drivers will see their gas bills go down and then start driving more, so total gasoline consumption may stay the same. By contrast, a gasoline tax would more directly reduce gasoline consumption by increasing gas bills and encouraging people to drive less."
While seemingly true on a superficial economic level, this notion is patently false, as evidenced by the recent gas price run-up to over $4 per gallon. People only have so much time in a day to drive. They drive to work, to school, to shop, then they stop, get out of their cars, and do other activities. Conversely, people still have to drive a fixed amount to function in this modern world (especially in America, with no viable mass transit in most locales). This amount is inflexible (still have to get to work!), which makes the demand for fuel inflexible as well. The only variable is the efficiency with which the fuel is turned into transport from A to B.
Inflicting increased taxes on the populous will only serve the government's coffers, not the governed, nor will it bring about increased efficiencies in transportation. It will, however, very effectively slow the economy as it reduces transportation of people and goods.
low rolling resistence tire = LESS TRACTION i.e. longer stopping distances, less traction on dry/wet/ice covered roads all LESS SAFE
lighter structures for cars = more money and less safety
the old cafe standard created the SUV to fill demad of the people, what will be created this time?
Folks;
just a couple of observations....
The safest and most rugged aircraft in use by the armed services is the Warthog....it's big,loaded for bear, heavy, armour plated to the hilt, and that's what jocks want to fly. Same for autos, unfortunately. Detroit isn't totally oblivious to american consumer desires...let's be real...they try to make what they think will sell to the US buyers. If the Dems wish to shove global warning down our throats, and the new administration wants to suck up to California standards, and force all automakers to produce a separate vehilcle for Cali, good luck to you.
In the interim, I will enjoy driving my 19mpg H3 for as long as I can afford to. As for asian and eurpoean manufacturers being close to making those standards, we can tell it's been a while since you looked at a new car sticker.....they are not close, and this "order" of new fuel efficiency standards has little to do with the environment, and more to do with forcing the big three into bankrupcy for reasons not entirely clear as yet. Perhaps the government wishes to be in the automobile business as well as in the mortgage, financial, and airline sectors?
They're awful enough at politics, no less industry.
The Warthog or A10 is a heavily armoured aircraft built to fly low and take small and medium arm fire from the ground. It is comparable to an armoured military vehicle and not to a heavy Ute. There is nothing armoured about a US Ute or any of the heavy US saloons on the road. Weight can fair well against a significantly lighter vehicle but there is no escape from the kinetic energy carried along in a heavy vehicle, preventing evasionary manouvers, or stopping in time. Compare a Lotus Elise and a Corvette
Guest (DE)
I'm certainly not driving a Corvette through Colorado's high country off road, and I am certainly not going to take an F150 up to speed on the autoban. BTW, the Warthog has to deal with four tons of stacked recoil from its nose gun- it has to weigh a lot and use a lot of fuel for that. Everything to a purpose- some applications are always going to require more fuel.
When we stop fighting amongst ourselves as a nation and work together creating the future we will regain our lead that we gave up to foreign automakers. While biz fought gov tooth and nail Toyota worked on hybrids and others created fuel efficient compacts. You did not see European or Japanese or Korean car companies begging for handouts on capital hill. The big three were there because in the past they would rather drag their fleet (Pun intended)than innovate like the rest of the world.
1)Stop the sugar embargo, replace it with a corn for sugar swap program. Our climate can grow corn ans soy. Brazil's is better at sugarcane. win win for both. Only use ethanol in cities that need to lower pollution. This is the only good reason to use ethanol, period.
2)New technology is expensive to role out. subsidize fuel efficient technology and light weight manufacturing techniques as the report suggest leveling fees on gas guzzlers and give it back as rebates to the gas sippers based on models not on who manufactures them. This will pit manufacturers against each other to role out the most fuel efficient cars. The most efficient car companies will have the most efficiency rebates increasing their sales and profits.
start immediately with a symbolic level say 15 or 20% levels of fee's/rebates. Have it increase slowly for say 3 years (or the time for proactive car companies to get technology onto the production floor)then jump the last 50% over two years at 25% to the full 100% fee/rebate level.
3)Change insurance policies so that people can have an extra vehicle hold onto a big vehicle (if they need it, like families, soccer moms, etc. One SUV taking 3 families kids to practice is more fuel efficient and more GDP positive (other parents can stay at work longer) than each family driving their kids individually even with fuel efficient cars.) Both parents can have super efficient new vehicles (pick your size and flavor) and drive the older big all ready depreciated vehicle only when needed.
4)Tax incentives for fuel efficiency retrofits for existing vehicles. Must be independently verified by government or government certified testing facilities to get tax credits. Efficeincy snake oil salepeople only hurt the industry reputation and slow legitamate products.
5) 4) can save more fuel quicker because it takes a long time for new products to be created, produced and replace the old existing fleets.
Many Americans just don't have the economic means to buy the new cars that will come out and will continue to drive 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand vehicles.
6) Hey Detroit before you have my legs broken for suggesting this, the sooner Americans get economically solvent the sooner they can buy one of your new fuel efficient cars. Every 3 dollars they save on gas is 3 dollars they can pay down their debt (upside down car loan or not)and is 2 dollars not leaving the country. Also, 3) helps hold up car values helping the debt created from excessive deprecation.
7) All the above helps our country get back to a healthy economy ASAP, lower CO2 emissions, and dollar depreciation via lower oil imports.
Green-is-now
Guest (DE)
The minute we stop bickering among eachother is the minute we stop progressing. Nations were not formed from sympathy.
Its just cheaper to have a fuel efficiant car, country, whatever. But the chief end of 'less people drive, the more fuel efficiant the nation' may be a touch naive. We shouldn't be encouraging people to drive less because its easier- not everyone will be able to afford that. We need to focus on tech.
Its NOT, however, a good idea to force another nation into a given market, say, a single export in agriculture. That would be counter-intuitive to a peaceful mindset. It would definately help in the whole 'bickering' department, though.
one misguided effort after another
The Obama program will be ineffective, irritating and expensive to the consumer. People who buy SUV's are not stupid or venal or non-green. They have balanced cost, versatility, and patriotism. A fully loaded SUV costs 35,000 to 55,000 USD. If it is driven for 100,000 miles at 12.5 miles to the gallon it will use about 8000 gallons of gas - $16,000 at $2.00 a gallon and $32,000 at $4.00 per gallon. That includes about $.50 per gallon in taxes or $4000 over the life of the vehicle. Fuel costs and savings are not and probably never will be the main determinant for buying a car and the failure of cafe over the last twenty years is proof. It hasn't reduced fuel usage and it has misdirected billions of R and D funds and given lawyers and accountants millions of man-hours working around useless and destructive rules. And now we are going to get more.
The Democrats want to do it again - tell everyone how to spend their money. And why? So we won't have foreign oil? Forget it. WE are 60% dependent on foreign oil and that physically can't change for decades and probably never if you are sensible about buying from the cheapest source of transport fuel. Carbon dioxide relief is a fool's errand and everyone who is honest about it knows the only real way to reduce co2 is to switch from coal to nuclear for power generation.
This is a truly sad waste of government authority and the resources and financial assets of the US population.
Re: one misguided effort after another
From what page of the Ultra Conservative Me-First Manifesto did you lift your rubber stamp argument from?
Guest (DE)
Re: one misguided effort after another
What a progressive rebuttle. You definately contributed to the discussion here, laser.
Raise gasoline taxes and force the US population to telecommute where possible.
RAISE taxes? FORCE the public? Why not, heck it worked so well for England a couple hundred years ago, it should work the same way for this administration, at least I hope so!
Guest (DE)
Where do you think awesome websites like MIT's Tech Review come from? Social and ecenomic stagnation? How many people will you make homeless to feel better about your economic policy? Force people to telecommute... that smells of old money.
Good luck with that. The Grabbing hand of the State vs the Invisible Hand of the market always has the market winning.
If the State trys to direct outcomes, the market will respond, usually in ways the State does not anticipate or intend; American consumers chose SUV's and light trucks precicely because they were not burdened by regulatory requirements.
When US automakers are forced to conform to new regulatory burdens, they will be offering a product the market does not want, and consumers will go with the product or service which comes closest to fulfilling their wants (hint, not the Chevy Volt).
Of course, there is no need to look to bloggers to see the essential truth of the matter; simply look at the history of the former USSR, or even the inability of the Russian successor state to maintain much less raise their people's standard of living (despite being endowed with a fantastic natural resource base), and the failure of the Obama administration's plans will be evident.
mkogrady has it right.
when the fuel price shot up to $4.00, and US auto makers were caught with their pants down. They couldn't respond fast enough for the shift in consumer demand. We at F couldn't build Focus and HEV Escapes fast enough. There is pretty much a 1 to 1 relationship of fuel price and the FE of vehicles bought on a month by month basis, while we in the industry move on 36 month schedule for new product. How can we plan?
The fed should regulate the consumer fuel price and make it stable. $3.00/gal this year, and $3.xx in X years. That way, consumers and business and make intelligent choices and business can get handle on a variable cost that was previously out of their control.
With a stable price of $3-4+/gal, it will create a stable demand for efficient cars. It makes CAFE a regulation of the past. It also doesn't force anyone to do drive any type of vehicle. Business who need vehicles to tow can still get them, and the fuel price will be baked into the price of the final good/service.
Guest (DE)
Definately. Lets throw all our energy industry under the buss so we have NO fuel. Imagine how low our carbon foot print will be when we live in the new stone age!! Wooohooo!
Here is a simple principle tying market forces to environmental sustainability. The price of production must include the cost of controlling environmental impacts, whether you are a chicken farmer, a coal plant operator, or an automobile manufacturer. If you cannot sell your product at a price which includes this cost of doing business, then you must find another business. If your product is essential enough, then people will pay the higher price for it, and the environment is protected. If people cannot or will not pay for your product at this higher price, then clearly it is not essential, and the environment will benefit from reduced production of disposable trash. The idea that the environment is an inexhaustible industrial toilet free for the using is centuries out of date. If the price that we paid for consumer goods from energy to plastic widgets, to cars, included the cost of environmental protection, paid at every source point of pollution along the way, we might find that it wasn't practical to produce vast amounts of disposable trash: efficiency, conservation and quality production would become a market driven necessity rather than a political luxury. If fossil fueled energy industries were required to account for the cost of environmental damage, they would lose the economic advantage which currently stifles the development of sustainable energy technologies. No micromanagement of industry is required, we just need to enforce a simple, common sense law; zero tolerance for pollution of the air, the water or any other public resource. Pay for cleanup as you go, add the price to the product you are selling, and if it makes the product too expensive, then don't make it. For every business that fails, another one will come out of the woodwork to replace its function, but operating in a sustainable fashion. Green technologies will be seen as the competitive, sustainable alternatives that they are, when they are not weighed against falsely inexpensive, polluting industries which are allowed to shift the cost of environmental cleanup to the tax paying public. Business will thrive, jobs will be created in sustainable industries, the environment will benefit, and the people who consume the most, will pay the most for their impact upon the planet that we all live on. Those who work to reduce their impact upon the planet by consuming less, will pay less. Fair for everyone, and we might just find a way out of the hole we have dug ourselves into.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
RD
211 Comments
Dump Ethanol for better fuel efficiency
Ethanol lowers fuel efficiency AND damages fuel systems AND damages the environment AND costs our economy. Get rid of it and see improvements across the board (except for you corn growers and politicians on the take).
Reply
Guest (abk)
Re: Dump Ethanol for better fuel efficiency
You might be missing the point!
When the world economy recovers, the Oil Cartel will be looking forward to the return of the $150/barrel of oil again.
The answer is to find ways to *drastically* reduce the use of imported oil. Brazil runs their cars with 90% of bio-fuels.
So, it can be done.
Of course, making ethanol out of corn is yet another matter. That needs to be fixed too.
Reply
gabrielg01
450 Comments
Re: Dump Ethanol for better fuel efficiency
"abk" perhaps you are the one missing the point. In order to make ethanol from corn, the way it is grown in the US, one must consume more oil than the ethanol was supposed to replace. Intensive farming with heavily mechanized methods requires tremendous amounts of fuel, fertilizers (made from oil) and pesticides (made from oil).
So, the perversion of this method is that our oil dependence does not decrease at all. And we just added to the oil lobby the agri business lobby, so they can syphon off as much tax payer money as never before.
Your comparison to Brazil is flawed. This country produces ethanol via natural methods, simply because it has the right climate. The US cannot repeat the Brazilian experience, unless we find a way to make sugarcane grow in our cold climate.
Reply
Guest (JarVan)
Re: Dump Ethanol for better fuel efficiency
In about 50 years we should be able to grow sugarcane in the lower Midwest (global warming). Until then we can use other crops to make cellulose based ethanol. The problem is legislative. King Corn rules the Midwestern lobbies and Congress. Obama is knee deep in this pork. Hopefully he can break out and fund the research and pilot projects to get us beyond corn ethanol.
Reply
Guest (DE)
Re: Dump Ethanol for better fuel efficiency
As Ben Stein put it, congressional ethanol mandates have managed the miracle of turning high fuel prices into high food prices. Its a feel good policy that does nothing if not hamper progress.
Speaking of feel good and progress, why does all energy conservation and environmental protection have to be about global warming? Why can't it just be because it costs less and makes sense? Do people really need to feel like they are saving the planet that badly? Let's try to improve our technology base in industry out of economy, not fear. It may just work out better, and we won't need to fork out 50 billion a year for the big bright green pleasure machine.
Reply