31 July 2009
Advanced Cars Will Save the Day, and Fuel, Eventually
Improvements in conventional autos offer greatest savings in near-term
This is the second article in a two-part series on transportation and advanced vehicles.
Washington — Who is more environmentally conscious: someone who owns a large sport utility vehicle or someone who has a compact car in his garage? That is the question Rob Farrington asks his audiences when he lectures. The answer is … it depends.
A sport utility vehicle whose owner takes a bus to work and drives only on weekends uses less gasoline and produces fewer greenhouse gases than does a compact car used by its owner for a daily commute to work. Farrington, who heads the advanced vehicle group at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, usually walks or bicycles 5.6 kilometers to work, or when necessary, drives a 1988 Nissan Sentra.
But he believes that in the debate about how to reduce consumption of petroleum-based fuels and emissions produced by vehicles, there are no easy answers. Drivers’ behavior matters. A typical driver can increase fuel efficiency of his or her car by about 10 percent by following common-sense practices, such as avoiding unnecessary idling and removing unnecessary weight from it, according to David Greene of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Technology does not provide straightforward solutions to transportation problems. A major 2008 study on auto technologies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is full of “but”s, “if”s and “or”s. But technological advances can go a long way in addressing those problems, analysts say.
The MIT study concludes that for the next two decades, improvements to internal-combustion engines and transmission systems of conventional vehicles, such as improved combustion and electric air conditioning, have the greatest potential for fuel savings and emission reductions.
Reducing vehicles’ mass, decreasing aerodynamic drag and lessening rolling resistance can significantly improve the performance of all autos, Farrington said.
Gasoline-electric hybrids are “promising” in the medium term, according to the MIT study. The investment bank J.P. Morgan forecasts that by 2020 such vehicles will account for close to 20 percent of total sales compared to 3 percent today. With a combination of improved conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles and gasoline hybrids, the United States can achieve a 30 percent to 50 percent reduction in the fuel consumption of new passenger cars and light trucks over 20–30 years, the study said.
Plug-in gasoline electric hybrids that can be recharged at home or at service stations are unlikely to be commercially successful until lithium-ion batteries that power their electric engines have significantly higher capacity and considerably lower costs, according to analysts. They say such a development may take decades. Hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles and all-electric autos are likely to enter the automotive mainstream in the even more distant future.
For the more immediate future, President Obama’s administration has pushed automakers to commit to meeting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 — four years earlier than current law mandates. This will produce a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and a 40 percent increase in fuel economy from today’s levels, according to government sources.
Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, calls these goals “extremely challenging,” not least because of the costs involved at a time when all manufacturers are registering falling sales and U.S. carmakers are struggling for survival. The government is chipping in though. In late June, the Obama administration granted $8 billion in loans to three companies to support their planned production of more fuel-efficient vehicles. The funds come from a loan program created by Congress in 2007.
Even if automakers succeed in developing the needed technologies, they are uncertain whether consumers will be willing to pay higher prices for “greener” cars. Meeting the CAFE standards will add $1,300 to the cost of an average vehicle, according to government sources. Vehicles with more advanced technologies will cost even more. On the plus side, buyers will be able to recoup some or all added costs over time through fuel savings, depending on gasoline prices.
So far, fuel efficiency has not been among car buyers’ priorities and they have been unwilling to pay premiums for it. Only when gasoline prices spiked significantly in the first half of 2008 did consumers show greater interest in smaller and more-fuel-efficient cars, including hybrids.
Some analysts have proposed higher gasoline taxes that set a floor for the price of carbon-based fuel, something that the auto industry supports as a way to convince consumers that the transition to fuel-efficient vehicles is necessary and inevitable. So far, this proposition has been politically unacceptable.
John Heywood, professor of mechanical engineering at MIT and co-author of MIT’s study, said that both the government and manufacturers can sweeten the deal for potential buyers of fuel-efficient cars. The government already has offered tax rebates for “green” vehicle purchases and vouchers to those who trade in gas-guzzling cars for more fuel-efficient models, and may consider other incentives in the future. Producers promise to make autos more attractive by enhancing their safety and drivability, mostly through further vehicle computerization.
The full text of MIT’s report is available on an MIT Web site.
