Forget About 100-mpg Cars
- Posted by: Cliff Kuang , NazSahin
- on July 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm
There are noble projects afoot in the field of fuel-efficient cars. One of the boldest, the automotive X Prize, recently made the cover of Wired: “1 Gallon of Gas, 100 Miles—$10 million: The Race to Build the Supergreen Car.” Reading stories like these, it’s hard not to get caught up in the excitement.
But if you really think about it, the 100-miles-per-gallon innovation isn’t as immediately effective as making a simple switch from a Suburban to a Civic. Just do the math: If you raise a guzzler’s fuel efficiency from 15 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon, you save almost four gallons per 100 miles. But boost a fairly efficient car from 35 mpg to 100 mpg, and you save less than two gallons in the same distance. More importantly, the technology for all cars to reach 35 mpg is already here. The same innovations that in the last 30 years have made family cars into muscle cars can be easily deployed to save gas rather than boost performance.
So why is so little attention being paid to getting better fuel efficiency right now?
Part of the problem is that America’s big automakers are peddling a future-forward myopia that encourages feel-good complacency. Witness Chevy’s commercial for the Volt, a concept car that isn’t yet on the market: A pack of kids put their ears to the hood of a sexy silver car. A man standing nearby explains that the mysterious humming they hear is the car’s “lithium-ion battery pack,” which will allow the Volt to get 40 mpg.
This is disturbing, and not just because the kids may have just piled out of a Chevy Suburban (14 mpg) off screen. Instead of a more fuel-efficient car right now, we get a “miracle,” from the “future.” In the meantime, why not just refuel the Suburban?
| Quote: |
| So why is so little attention being paid to getting better fuel efficiency right now? |
To its credit, Chevy is trying to bring the Volt to market by late 2010, and it has begun pursuing hybrid technology. But my concern is a rhetorical one: What happens when advancements in cars are eternally linked—through marketing and special prizes—with big innovations, rather than tangible results right now? Fuel efficiency gets its urgency sapped: Someone’s working on it, with results TBD. Wait and see.
Detroit argues (as always) that innovation brings growing pains. Ford’s recent response to new federal guidelines is telling. In June, the Big Three told Congress that increased fuel efficiency would be too painful for the auto industry, and would require layoffs. (The United Auto Workers, meanwhile, largely supports the changes, as long as the manufacturing is domestic.) Despite the automakers’ protests, Congress just passed the first increase in fuel-efficiency mandates in 34 years—from an average of 25 mpg now to 35 mpg by 2020. A month later, Ford introduced the EcoBoost engine, which delivers a 20-to-30-percent increase in fuel efficiency via turbo-charging and direct injection. It will be on the market by 2009. That wasn’t so painful, was it?
There is obviously a place for futurism in car development—averting the most disastrous climate-change scenarios will involve tripling fuel efficiency by 2050. But our current fuel standards are so low that this doesn’t require us to invent trash-fueled, flying DeLoreans. Futurism should not command an outsized share of dollars and attention. We should focus on the now, and we should be figuring out how to institute gas-saving measures at a scale where they can actually effect change.
Many options exist to ensure across-the-board improvements in fuel efficiency. Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, advocates turn-in programs for gas-guzzlers, subsidies for carbon-neutral biofuels and electric cars, and aggressive regulation of the fuel-efficiency “floor,” so that gains don’t stall if gas prices decline. The Natural Resources Defense Council has proposed that revenues from future carbon credit sales go into a “trust fund” that would promote the rapid uptake of sustainable technology. The point is that there is no silver bullet—not supercars, not biofuels. Ignoring or overemphasizing any one piece ensures failure.
These measures don’t give off a hum that will make the kids coo. But they’re here now. We can’t keep staring at the horizon and still avoid the dangers right under our noses.
DISCUSSION: 13 Comments
Yea, in the short-term it makes sense to scrap the SUV for existing small cars. But 100 MPG is within reach. Earlier this year VW released a 69 MPG car — see http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/revealed-volksw.html — hell the ‘78 VW diesel rabbit got 50 MPG on the highway.
Tata Motors (India) is developing the Air Car – a
hybrid compressed air / petrol car that is already
getting over 100 MPG.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7243247.stm
It is very odd, because mainstream US press has not written anything about it. Wired wrote a feature article about Tata last month, but made no mention of the Air Car.
Zero Pollution Motors is a New Paltz startup that is doing the same thing:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html?series=19
General Motors is also developing a compressed air / petrol car with the University of California.
It is amazing that lack of news coverage of this amazing development.
Please see my blog page at
http://makesusdumb.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/the-best-invention-youve-never-heard-of/
for more links.
-Devang
ADVERTISING Makes Us DUMB
http://makesusdumb.wordpress.com
Whether saving gasoline is the ultimate goal or reducing total energy consumption while reducing carbon emissions is the ultimate objective is irrelevant, but there is a more comprehensive strategy that can be pursued in the interim to achieve both of these ends.
Objective of the X Prize is to develop an automobile that gets 100 miles per gallon of gasoline– a Noble aspiration indeed and one that does generate interest with consumers looking for personal money savings. But often the most energy efficient thing one can do is drive the vehicle they own instead of buying a new one because the energy required to manufacture that new car (depending on driving habits) can exceed the energy required to drive one’s current, less fuel efficient vehicle.
Yes, on the aggregate it does make more sense to make modest fuel efficiency gains to the whole fleet of all present fuel inefficient vehicles conserve gasoline, but people act on an individual level and they need impetus to switch to a more efficient vehicle and potential savings for each person is far greater switching to a 100 mpg car than to a 35 mpg car. So, why is little attention being paid to getting better fuel efficiency now? The reason is capitalism emphasizes incentives for the individual consumer; it does not stress groupthink (recall “Tragedy of the Commons” by Garret Hardin). People are focused on the savings they can achieve as individuals rather than savings that, we, vehicle drivers, can collectively produce. Ultimately, collective gasoline savings would reduce demand and therefore drive price down, which would behoove individuals, but supply would adjust eventually too and gasoline prices would stabilize. This reality would also require groupthink and group action uncharacteristic of our system.
Tangible results are not being made because the most tangible, immediate results in conserving gasoline could be made through behavioral modifications– drive less, commute by bicycle more often, walk more– unfortunately, advocating behavior modifications in Washington is very politically unpopular. Advocating changes in behavior is akin to political suicide for politicians. So we are relegated to incentivizing the private sector through special prizes in the hope that technological innovations lead the movement to reduce our dependency on oil. Additionally, people are handicapped by a dearth of transportation alternatives. Very few resources have been allocated to alternative modes of transportation and demand for alternative modes has quickly exceeded existing infrastructure of alternative methods, or lack thereof. Most cities have poor bus systems; many cities lack subways and light rails; many cities lack adequate bike lanes; etc.
Kuang is spot on when he says there is no silver bullet, but it seems the success that he wants to see requires not only varying technological innovations but it also requires behavior modifications– something media, with articles like “Forget About 100-mpg Cars”, is hopefully helping to elicit.
It’s in the works boys:
The all-electric Tesla Roadster is now fully established in Menlo Park (there are many videos floating around the web of folks test driving them.
Aptera Motors is unveiling their 300 mpg hybrid/electric vehicle and hopes to produce the all-electric typ-1e by year’s ends for the first reservation holders. In fact, they’ve garnered so much support that Google has recently invested millions into Aptera through their philanthropic Google.org
Link:
http://smashgods.com/2008/07/23/aptera-update-google-now-in-the-passenger-seat/
You can also do a search for Tesla on the site for the full story as well…
100 mpg cars would be great, but do you know how long it would take for those cars to saturate the highways? Maybe you have enough money to go and buy any new “green” car that comes out each year, but most of us don’t! We have enough oil in and around the US to have .80 cent gas for the next 30 years! We do not have the refining capacity or the guts to go and drill for it. How do you think we will power the electric cars? Coal burning power plants? We need to change our power plants to Nuclear and carbon scrubbing coal or oil. All of it will take time! How do we drop the price of energy now, Drill, Drill, Drill! We need to put OPEC out of business! Tell guys like Chavez to kiss our ass! When GM or Ford makes a SUV (yes I want an SUV to protect my family and carry all of our stuff) then I will buy a “green” car! We need to take the blinders off, stop our elected leaders from using fuel and energy to control us! 40% of the cost of a gallon of gas is taxes, federal and state! Tell your congressional leaders to get off their ass and let American companies drill now, new jobs for Americans, money stays in our economy, and we can not be held hostage!
It’s a useful concept to consider, and one that is too quickly cast aside: refinement over advancement. The developed world is continually making efforts to create new technologies, generate revenue and excitement in consideration for the future: silver bullet research. I like the idea of being practical, focusing on realities and possibilities. 100 mpg cars may be a ways off, but then just imagine how far off hybrid or electric or hydrogen saturation is.
It’s a useful concept to consider, and one that is too quickly cast aside: refinement over advancement. The developed world is continually making efforts to create new technologies, generate revenue and excitement in consideration for the future: silver bullet research. I like the idea of being practical, focusing on realities and possibilities. 100 mpg cars may be a ways off, but then just imagine how far off hybrid or electric or hydrogen saturation is.
There are a few aftermaket kits available right now that can turn any car into a hybrid, as long as you’re willing to plunk down $10,000.
The technology is there, but is the money? And will that investment pay off for a consumer in the long run?
The amount of money you save on gas may not even make up the premium you pay for a hybrid car, and I’m sorry to say this, but many hybrid shoppers are thinking about their wallets first and the environment later.
Fortunately, automakers have to pay close attention to consumer demand, reagardless of what drives it. Truck and SUV sales are plummeting. Car buyers are considering smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
This may not make the Volt come to the market any faster, but it will at least send the signal to automakers that there will continue to be demand for alternatives to traditional gas guzzlers, whether hybrid, plug-in hybrid, all-electric, diesel, natural gas or anything else.
Yes, we need to make changes and improvements in the short term, I completely agree with that. But we can’t let the dream of 100+ mpg slip out of our minds. So, I agree that we can’t wait until that day comes when we can FINALLY get 100+ mpg. But, do you really think people would be willing to make a change twice? (first, a short term change, then the change once we reach 100+mpg?)
I’m someone who would be willing, because I believe something has to be done, and I’m sure some of you feel the same way. But is the rest of the world really like you and me?
— “Just do the math: If you raise a guzzler’s fuel efficiency from 15
miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon, you save almost four gallons
per 100 miles. But boost a fairly efficient car from 35 mpg to 100 mpg,
and you save less than two gallons in the same distance.” —Mathematically, that is true, but is it relevant? What would be the effect of improving mileage from 30 to 100 mpg? Assuming we didn’t change the distances be drive, that would reduce transportation fuel use by 2/3! Obviously, such changes won’t occur overnight, but they can (and should) happen.
A bit inane, all of this, really. Electric cars consume ten times the water when compared to fuel vehicles. That 100MPG fleet will only deplete our water supplies in no time. The answer is getting rid of cars, folks. I know we hate to think of WALKING and redesigning our cities, but it’s a must-do. We built the suburbs, and we can unbuild them. Also, the biggest thing you can do to make a difference is stop eating meat right now. After energy production, animal agriculture is the globe’s largest CO2 gas producer. In fact, a vegetarian driving a Hummer is producing FAR less emissions than a meat-eater driving a plug-in hybrid. Before you buy that Prius, consider your diet…then you can find out whether you really do give a damn. If you refuse to give up the beef, well, you really don’t care.
@toddbrilliant:A bit inane, all of this, really. Electric cars consume ten times the water when compared to fuel vehicles. That 100MPG fleet will only deplete our water supplies in no time. Huh? What does water have to do with electric cars? If you’re talking about the power plants, that water is not “consumed” (at least with the more modern nuclear reactors — the steam turbine loop has to be ultra-pure water to prevent corrosion). It is heated (which may cause problems with the local wildlife, see TN cutting back in June last year), but not contaminated… I suppose gasoline cars (which emit ~33% new water vapor from the tailpipe) would be the “green solution” (though that water is dirty, nasty, and contaminated)… An internal combustion engine is ~30% efficient (at best!!), and always uses a HC fuel (CO2 at best, fossil fuels at worst). Customers won’t put up with turbine cars (noisy, and dangerous), or external combustion (yes, they do exist, but are much less efficient, but produce less pollutants) engines. Power plants can be more efficient (natural gas turbines), renewable, or Nuclear (look ma, no CO2). Plus their “pollutants” can be scrubbed, cleaned, and dealt with better because the power plant isn’t moving around…A nuclear car would be kindof neat, but I imagine it would be a royal pain to get NHTSA to approve of such a beastie…Also, the biggest thing you can do to make a difference is stop eating meat right now. After energy production, animal agriculture is the globe’s largest CO2 gas producer. In fact, a vegetarian driving a Hummer is producing FAR less emissions than a meat-eater driving a plug-in hybrid. Before you buy that Prius, consider your diet…then you can find out whether you really do give a damn. If you refuse to give up the beef, well, you really don’t care.Again, huh? The CO2 (or methane) that is emitted by the cows (and us!) was already in the current carbon cycle (don’t let cows eat coal!), and unless the vegetation is petrified, will escape anyway as it decays (swamp gas). If you want to sequester carbon the low-tech way, the best way is to make furniture so that the tree will not release the carbon it gathered during its life when it rots. Then you have to keep people from throwing it away or burning it…-Thor Johnsonhttp://www.scientificconservation.com
Is there a faq as to why all my posts are getting the whitespace stripped from them?I’ve tried Chrome [this post], IE7 (didn’t work)…?!