Long-awaited improvements to fuel-economy standards will likely be enacted soon.
Monday, December 17, 2007
By Kevin Bullis
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.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
lasertekk on 12/17/2007 at 7:07 PM
27
venessa123 on 08/04/2008 at 12:11 AM
1
-------------------------
Vanessa
NEW, NEW, NEW
artcraft on 12/18/2007 at 1:44 AM
1
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
caffeinepowered on 12/18/2007 at 9:54 AM
1
We will get fuel efficient cars when we start choosing cars for their fuel efficiency.
ronwagn on 02/01/2008 at 9:38 PM
10
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.
Thaddeus on 03/17/2008 at 8:26 PM
1
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!
kentgreen on 12/18/2007 at 2:27 AM
2
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!
dmm on 12/18/2007 at 2:59 PM
149
olmon on 12/18/2007 at 3:03 AM
9
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.
wf on 12/18/2007 at 11:01 AM
14
dmm on 12/18/2007 at 2:47 PM
149
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!
jaggspb on 12/19/2007 at 10:50 AM
9
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).
westernmine on 12/21/2007 at 12:13 PM
2
MrPrez on 12/31/2007 at 1:00 AM
2
nibbircii on 12/31/2007 at 12:49 PM
2
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.
GaryB on 12/31/2007 at 2:18 PM
42
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.
shopa on 10/22/2008 at 11:20 PM
5
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