follow us like us subscribe contact us
Loading, please wait

Higher CAFE Standards: "There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch"

By Jude Clemente | Fri, 31 August 2012 01:53 | 14

In July 2011, the Obama administration announced the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that will begin taking effect in 2017. The standards for U.S. light-duty vehicle fleets (passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks) will be 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025, and they piggyback on the 2009 mandate for a CAFE average of 35.5 mpg by 2016, up from 27.3 mpg in 2011. The 54.5 mpg target is the largest mandatory fuel economy increase in history, and officials claim that the plan will save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs by 20251.  It is also expected to lower petroleum consumption by a total of 12 billion barrels and curtail the daily requirement by 2.2 million barrels a day (b/d) by 2025 (11% of current demand). Apparently, there is no downside to the new rules:

“These standards will help spur economic growth, protect the environment, and strengthen our national security by reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil. Working together, we are setting the stage for a new generation of clean vehicles,” Ray LaHood, U.S. Secretary of Transportation2

The U.S. energy system, however, contains great inertia, and several persistent trends will influence our energy economy well into the future. For oil, there is a lack of material substitutes that has both the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Model and the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) certifying the reality of petroleum’s dominance for decades to come. The outlook for vehicles is central because gasoline is almost half of our oil demand. The present analysis details why the 54.5 mpg CAFE is not as desirable or beneficial as some say: 1) more dangerous vehicles, 2) higher costs, 3) efficiency paradox, 4) CAFE and gasoline taxes, and 5) multiple loopholes. Indeed, more domestic oil production will remain a non-negotiable pillar of U.S. energy security.

More Dangerous Vehicles

Higher CAFE standards push automakers to build dangerously smaller and lighter vehicles that can burn less fuel. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the typical passenger vehicle is now around 3,560 pounds, compared to 4,060 pounds in 1975.3  When vehicles are lighter, extra material is removed, and the armor that protects motorists in the event of a crash is often discarded. The 54.5 mpg CAFE is set to begin in just five years time, and the automotive technology required does not yet exist. Given the long lead times for new technologies to be developed, tested, and incorporated into vehicle models, downsizing and downweighting will likely become an even more critical means of meeting CAFE. Unfortunately, a steady drumbeat of studies has demonstrated the fatal results of mileage regulations:

•    In 1989, the Harvard School of Public Health and the Brookings Institution found that a 500 pound weight reduction in the average vehicle increased annual highway deaths by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000-19,500.4

•    In 1999, USA Today estimated that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mpg gained in fuel economy standards.5  In the years since CAFE (1978-1999), “46,000 people have died in crashes they would have survived in bigger, heavier cars.”

•    In 2002, the National Research Council reported that there were between 1,300-2,600 vehicle crash deaths in 1993 that would not have occurred if vehicles were as heavy as they were in 1976.6

•    In 2003, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration found that reducing a vehicle’s weight by just 100 pounds increased the fatality rates by as much as 5.63% for light vehicles, 4.70% for heavier vehicles, and 3.06% for light trucks.7  This translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light vehicles, 10,884 for heavier vehicles, and 14,705 for light trucks between 1996 and 1999.

Higher Costs

Although higher CAFE standards can save Americans money by lowering their gasoline requirement, there could also be numerous (unintended) adverse economic consequences. The ambitious 54.5 mpg standard will lead to higher vehicle prices because manufacturing costs are higher for advanced technology vehicles. The Chevrolet Volt, for instance, the first plug-in hybrid to hit the mass market, has a sticker price of $40,000, or just below the average annual per capita income of $43,000. Indeed, General Motors is now idling its Volt plant to match lagging demand. And since the automotive technology to achieve 54.5 mpg is not yet available, automakers will need to spend billions in research and development (R&D) to reach the new standards – an added cost that is often overlooked. Americans for Tax Reform reports that the wave of R&D required could add around $6,000 to the cost of every new vehicle by 2025.8  This rising price for new vehicles would necessarily be followed by higher prices for used vehicles, possibly squeezing low-end buyers right out of the automobile market altogether (Figure 1). In all, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers concludes that the new fuel economy standards will add $209 billion in costs by 2025.9

Figure 1: Higher CAFE Standards Shrink the Low-Cost Vehicle Market

Vehicle sales
Note: For 2025, two average CAFE scenarios (45.8 mpg; 60.5 mpg) for new passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks are assumed
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to 2035, p. 25, 26

The “price elasticity of demand” indicates that Americans buy fewer vehicles when new ones are more expensive, or worse, put off a new purchase while holding onto their “clunker.” And fewer new vehicles mean more greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the need to buy less fuel will cut revenues from gasoline taxes, and states could face the problem of subsidizing the infrastructure projects that those taxes were earmarked to fund. If the government then decides to compensate by hiking taxes, the savings that drivers accumulated with their fewer gallons bought could be wiped out. Increased CAFE standards can also reduce jobs because higher retail prices lower product demand, and the smaller vehicles that result trim the manufacturing process. Further, according to the Highway Loss Data Institute, the lightweight vehicles that are promoted by CAFE increase insurance costs because they are more prone to being involved in an accident.10

Efficiency Paradox

At best, higher efficiency standards only indirectly impact fuel demand: the EIA confirms that “the growth in vehicle-miles traveled has basically mirrored the increases in real disposable income.”11  In contrast to a “low-hanging” panacea, energy efficiency is an intricate field of economics that is routinely oversimplified by those too easily swayed by the popular appeal of quick and easy energy solutions. Clearly, historical evidence invalidating the claim that energy efficiency improvements are sure to decrease consumption has not made its way from obscure economic journals to the general public. The counter-intuitive phenomenon that greater efficiency can actually lead to greater consumption is known as the “Jevons Paradox,” named after the British economist who first articulated the peculiarity almost 150 years ago. “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption,” William Stanley Jevons noted in his 1865 book, The Coal Question, “The very contrary is the truth.”12  Jevons observed that England’s demand for coal at the time soared after Watt introduced his efficiency improvements to Newcomen’s coal-fired steam engine. Efficiency gains have tended to increase consumption because they:

•    make the use of energy relatively cheaper, thereby encouraging greater usage
•    lead to economic growth for both the overall economy and the individual, causing total energy consumption to increase (“rebound effect”)
•    multiply the use of the resource’s “companion” technologies, products, and services that were previously restrained 

Indeed, CAFE increases have not yielded their desired and anticipated results. When CAFE first originated in 1975, the U.S. imported about a third of the 17 million barrels of oil it consumed each day, 15% of which came from the Persian Gulf. The 1973 Arab oil embargo abruptly exposed the security, political, and economic vulnerabilities of this dependency, and automakers were required to meet certain mpg efficiency targets for new vehicles starting in model year 1978. By 1983, this mandated standard had been elevated for passenger vehicles, from 18 mpg to 26 mpg, and for light-duty trucks (average for two- and four-wheel drive), from 16.5 mpg to 18.5 mpg.13  And from 1983 to 2007, the standards were increased respectively to 27.5 mpg and 22.2 mpg.

Over this 25-year period, however, national economic growth (+$7.2 trillion) and population expansion (+70 million people) persistently trumped these vehicle efficiency improvements (Figure 2). By the late-2000s, the U.S. was importing nearly 60% of its daily intake of 20 million barrels of oil. In 2004, The National Commission on Energy Policy determined that even if Congress mandated the passenger vehicle fleet extend its average fuel economy to 44 mpg, up from 27.5 mpg, domestic motor fuel consumption would still surge by 3.7 million b/d by 2025.14

 Figure 2: Higher CAFE Standards = More Driving, More Fuel, 1983-2007
Miles traveled
Gasoline consumption
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/, 2012

CAFE and Gasoline Taxes

CAFE standards only partially and indirectly attack the negative externalities of motor fuel use (emissions, energy security, congestion, accidents). Thus, the cost of reducing fuel use via CAFE is higher than it would be through an increase in the more transparent federal gasoline tax, which applies to all vehicles, not just new ones. To understand why, the various ways consumers cut back on fuel use must be considered. In the short-term, Americans can buy an efficient hybrid instead of a gas-guzzling sport utility vehicle and/or curb discretionary driving. Over time, people can make other lifestyle changes, such as using public transportation, carpooling, finding a closer job, or working from home. Higher fuel prices directly impact all these choices by encouraging Americans to make the marginal adjustments best suited to their own personal circumstances. As stated by the National Research Council in 2002,

“There is a marked inconsistency between pressing automotive manufacturers for improved fuel economy from new vehicles on the one hand and insisting on low real gasoline prices on the other. Higher real prices for gasoline…..through increased gasoline taxes…..would create both a demand for fuel-efficient new vehicles and an incentive for owners of existing vehicles to drive them less.” 15

Higher fuel prices, however, have a destructive ripple effect across the entire U.S. economy, and the increased overhead for businesses is ultimately paid for by consumers. Higher gasoline taxes, for instance, are wildly unpopular because they decrease the discretionary income available for other types of consumer spending, thereby nullifying the invaluable “multiplier effect,” where an increase in spending sparks a chain reaction that generates more economic activity far greater than the original purchase. Affordable personal transportation provides Americans with an enlarged “opportunity circle,” where they are more free to consume, pick a job, and socialize. As fuel prices rise, these choices begin to contract, and quality of life generally diminishes. Fuel taxes are regressive because they are a disproportionate expense for the less fortunate. Welfare to Work has shown that affordable personal mobility is the key for low-income Americans to find and keep the most rewarding jobs.16

Multiple Loopholes

According to Edmunds, the new 54.5 mpg CAFE has “plenty of loopholes, exemptions, and credits in the plan…..and their impact might result in a ‘real’ CAFE standard as low as 50 mpg.”17  Among the features that could decrease the real fuel efficiency of new vehicles is a section that offers credits for the use of fuel-saving technologies, such as 1) energy efficient Light Emitting Diode headlights, 2) photovoltaic roofs than can use sunlight to generate power to help charge batteries or auxiliary equipment, 3) thermoelectric systems that use exhaust heat to generate power, and 4) automated grilles that close at high speeds to increase aerodynamics. In addition, if President Obama loses the 2012 election, the new president could simply rewrite CAFE rules based on the “reexamination” period. If President Obama is reelected, the increases will not begin until after his second term, leaving numerous chances to dilute, or even eliminate, the toughest aspects of the new CAFE requirements.

In fact, gaming CAFE is integral to Detroit’s modus operandi. For example, many vehicles on the market today are rated as flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs), able to run on gasoline, E85 (85% ethyl alcohol and 15% gasoline), or some mixture in between. Regardless of what fuel combination drivers actually use, the automakers get credits on their CAFE requirements for every FFV they sell. The added cost to make a vehicle FFV-rated is only $100, so manufacturers have launched entire marketing campaigns around the tagline: “Fuel up with E85 or regular gasoline – whichever is more convenient.”18  E85, however, is anything but convenient since only a few thousand of the 175,000 fill-up stations across the nation sell it. So, few FFVs are ever actually fueled with anything other than gasoline. In recent years, for instance, although the Suburban got less than 15 mpg, the credits General Motors earned against its CAFE ratings meant that, on paper, the Suburban delivered more than 29 mpg.19  From 2001-2008, U.S. News & World Report records that Americans used an extra 17 billion gallons of gasoline due to the FFV loophole.20

Conclusion

The effects of higher fuel efficiency standards are more complex than generally proclaimed. There is a lack of historical evidence to conclude that the 54.5 mpg CAFE will reduce oil demand in the absolute sense being assumed. Much more likely, oil and oil imports will stay an essential component of the energy portfolio for decades to come. Over the next 20 years, the EIA expects the U.S. to add more than two Japans to its Gross Domestic Product ($9.5 trillion) and expand its population by the size of France (65 million people).21  To that end, not even the widening focus on wind and solar power will alter our fundamental need for more crude because oil-based electricity accounts for only 3% of our total oil demand. Pre-recession growth trends are beginning to reemerge. In the International Energy Outlook 2011, the EIA’s NEMS has domestic oil demand rising by as much as 21% by 2030.22  Considering that 80% of the world’s proven oil reserves are controlled by a single cartel, OPEC, we need policies to enhance, not impede, the domestic suppliers of this irreplaceable liquid fuel. 

By. Jude Clemente for Oilprice.com 

References

1  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, July 29, 2011, “President Obama Announces Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standard,” U.S. Department of Transportation, available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2011/President+Obama+Announces+Historic+54.5+mpg+Fuel+Efficiency+Standard.
2  Ibid.
3  U.S. Department of Energy, June 25, 2007, “Fact #475: Light Vehicle Weight on the Rise,” available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2007_fcvt_fotw475.html.
4  Robert Crandall and John Graham, April 1989, “The Effect of Fuel Economy Standards on Automobile Safety,” Journal of Law and Economics, Volume 32, Number 1, pp. 97-118.
5  U.S. Congress, July 15, 2000, Congressional Record – Senate, Washington, DC, p. 10950.
6  National Research Council, 2002, Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p. 27.
7  Institute for Energy Research, April 19, 2011, “Will Fuel Economy Mandates Increase Car Company Profits,” available at: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/04/19/will-fuel-economy-mandates-increase-car-company-profits/.
8  Americans for Tax Reform, August 1, 2011, “Obama’s Automotive Regs. Harm American Companies and People,” available at: http://atr.org/obamas-automotive-regs-harm-american-companies-a6384.
9  Angela Greiling Keane, November 16, 2011, “U.S. 54.5 MPG Fuel-Economy Standard May Cost $157 Billion,” Bloomberg, available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/doubling-fuel-economy-may-cost-2-000-a-car-157-billion-u-s-draft-says.html.
10  Kevin Ransom, January 28, 2009, “Smaller cars can mean higher insurance rates,” CNN, available at: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-28/living/aa.smaller.cars.higher.insurance_1_hybrid-small-cars-smaller-cars?_s=PM:LIVING.
11  Energy Information Administration, November 2005, “Household Vehicles Energy Use: Latest Trends & Data,” U.S. Department of Energy, available at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhts_survey/2001/tablefiles/es0464(2005).pdf.
12  Jevons, William, 1865, The Coal Question (Chapter 7), Library of Economics and Liberty, April 4, 2009, available at: http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnCQ7.html.
13  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, November 2004, “Automotive Fuel Economy Program Annual Update Calendar Year 2003,” U.S. Department of Transportation, available at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/FuelEconUpdates/2003/index.htm.
14  The National Commission on Energy Policy, December 2004, “Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America’s Energy Challenges,” available at: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/endi_en_stlmate.pdf.
15  Ibid., p. 113.
16  Consumer Energy Alliance, September 15, 2008, “The Impact of High Energy Prices on Key Sectors of the U.S. Economy,” available at: http://www.bipac.net/cea/impactpublication.pdf.
17  John O’Dell, July 28, 2011, “CAFE Players Settle On 54.5 MPG For 2025,” Edmunds AutoObserver, available at: http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/07/cafe-players-settle-on-545-mpg-for-2025.html.
18  Ibid.

Biography

Jude Clemente is Principal at JTC Energy Research Associates, LLC and affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security at San Diego State University. He holds an MS in Homeland Security from SDSU and a MBA in Finance from Saint Francis University. Clemente’s research specialization is oil and gas supply at the national and international levels. He is a frequent contributor to Oil & Gas Journal and Energy Pulse, and his most recent work has appeared in Oil & Gas Financial Journal, Journal of Energy Security, Pipeline & Gas Journal, The American Oil & Gas Reporter, Petróleo, and Public Utilities Fortnightly.

About the author

Contributor
Jude Clemente
Company: JTC Energy Research Associates

More recent articles by Jude Clemente

Fri 31 August 2012
Higher CAFE Standards: "There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch"

Leave a comment

  • Hans Nieder on August 31 2012 said:
    Superb article indeed, Mr Clemente...

    The typical way to increase mileage, is to reduce the weight of the vehicle...

    Of course, in order to accomplish this, requires other materials other than steel (itself not cheap these days) and as such, will drive up the cost to the consumers...

    Let industry lead the way, as the price of goo becomes increasing more expensive...Ford has recently announced, that it plans to build some or all of it's truck lines with aluminum!

    They claim that it would reduce the average weight size by some 500 pounds. That should, I suspect, increase mileage by some 2 or 3 MPG...

    I would like to know what the payback period would be..

    What the Federal government should be more concerned about, is their own efficiency rather than meddle in private matters, but then that would shrink their power...
  • Jude Clemente on August 31 2012 said:
    Thanks Hans. This is indeed a very important subject that often goes completely ignored, largely for political reasons. Google "the jevons paradox" to understand why energy efficiency does not automatically mean less energy consumption. Back in 1980 it took around 15,000 Btu to generate a $1 of GDP. Today, it is around $8,000 Btu. Yet, U.S. energy consumption has continued to climb.

    Again and again we see that economic growth and population growth trump gains in energy efficiency. Remember, oil demand is down today largely due to a sunken economy, where higher prices encourage less use. Efficiency is indeed critical to any modern economy, but the point is clear: as a growing nation, we will need more energy, not less. Thus, as our main sources of energy, hydrocarbon production will remain a non-negotiable pillar of U.S. energy security for decades to come. All major forecasting bodies are projecting that fossil fuels will remain the backbone of the world's energy economy for decades to come.

    Sorry to those that blindly believe we can get off oil, gas, and coal in, say, 20 years, but these are

    just the facts, ma'am.
  • Michael Hullevad on August 31 2012 said:
    There is no way around higher taxes on gas if no dependence on arab oil! A combination of much higher fuel efficiency and smaller/lighter vehicles combined with higher taxes on gas(50%?) resulting in the same expenditure for lower income groups. It is a question of using stick and carrot in order to make a energy bridge to future electric or hydrogen cars.
  • Gary Chandler on August 31 2012 said:
    Great article! Regarding the comment above about Ford making trucks from aluminum, Jaguar has been making the XJs out of aluminum for a number of years. I drive an XJR with a 400hp V8 and get 26 mpg on the highway. I could probably do better if I slowed down a bit! The only downside is if you ever need body work, you have to go to a shop with the right tools and training to work on it and its much more expensive.
  • Tom Bavis on August 31 2012 said:
    Since automobile weights have decreased by 500 pounds since 1975, obviously they're MUCH more dangerous... but highway deaths have DECREASED, despite doubling of miles driven, with death rates per mile down by more than 2/3.

    Much of the difference in death rates vs. vehicle size are self-selection: young, inexperienced drivers don't buy big Buicks or SUVs, while older drivers don't buy the smallest, least expensive cars.
  • djt on August 31 2012 said:
    the cost of the gas saved will be paid up front in the price of the car, so the net dollars spent on transport likely won't change. thus fuel consumption will be lower.

    also, there's a limit to how much time people can spend sitting in their cars. has this limit been reached? for most people, probably. in my case, I simply have no more time to be consumed by transport regardless of the price of fuel.
  • Samuel Conner on August 31 2012 said:
    My old 1985 Honda Civic Sedan, which was not a small vehicle by the standards of present compacts, got 40+ mpg on the highway. It had a dinky 85 horsepower 4 cylinder engine. Engine efficiency must have improved somewhat in nearly 30 years. Surely part of the change needed to reach the new CAFE standards could be achieved simply by reducing engine power.
  • bmz on August 31 2012 said:
    That is simply an argument--and not a very good one at that. But for the Republicans, we would have in place a program to become energy independent by using our increasing abundance of natural gas as a transportation fuel at a fraction of the current cost of gasoline. How you could ignore that, betrays your motivations.
  • Brian Templeton on August 31 2012 said:
    Many years ago back in the early 70's, I made something from mail-order plans, called a fuel vapourizer, and fitted it to an old gasoline engined bus, which I was using for "jobbing" to small "outback" retailers. On the road, at just partial thottle, just cruising on the long rural roads between the little Quebec townships, it used to give me about 20-24 MPG. Without it on, I was getting some 8 to 9 MPG. However, it was a fiddle to use, because if it was necessary to change the cruise speed, then I had to change the setting of the butterfly valve controling the flow of exhaust gases going to the charge mixture pre-heater.
    at first I could not understand why I was getting such a great difference. But having been trained in engineering in the U.K., I did happen to have a study book on heat engines, and there I found the answer from several graphs detailing gas expansion and efficiency of various compression ratios for gasoline engines. Most gasoline engines run at part thottle and therefore at a working compression in the engine a long way underneath that for maximum efficiency. If the compression pressure is raised on a partial thottle opening, the engine is able to deliver increased power without an increase in fuel comsumption. So, by increasing the working pressure of the mixture charge up to just short of detonation, but still go at the same speed as before, it is possible to lift one's right foot a fair way, thus conserving gasoline. This saving had nothing to do with "vapourizing" the fuel, but by heating and expanding the air mixed with the fuel. With computers in vehicles now to control the settings instead of always using one's hand, this is an idea that may well be worth considering again.

    One other point, the valve porting in virtually every four stoke engine at present time regardless of if it is a car or motorcycle has been arranged to give power, not economy. They are like the old-time two stroke engines of the past, where much of the fresh unburnt fuel mixture went straight across the piston and out of the exhaust port without being fired. Some of the worst examples can be found amongst the "super-cars". Now two stroke engines of far greater horse power but not greater fuel consumption are all that you find amongst todays two stroke engines. All four stroke engines should also have the incoming mixture directed against the cylinder wall opposite the exhaust valve, and this could also reduce the fuel consumption very significantly.

    I am not a fan of President Obama, but it seems to me that his projected future fuel economy ratings may well be achieved by putting more emphasis on engine design and vehicle body aerodynamics, then on reducing the sizes, weight and strength of the vehicle effecting vehicle safety.
  • Bill Brandon on September 02 2012 said:
    This is good article. Your point about “Jevons paradox” is absolutely correct. I think, however, the automotive engineers DO know how to meet this standard. They down size direct injection engines similar to Ford’s EcoBoost and GM’s EcoTec. They then redesign and lighten the frame and down size again with added turbo charging or supercharging. A light hybrid that captures braking energy through an enlarged 12v battery used for a supercharger in combination with an exhaust driven turbocharger is being discussed at Riccardo.

    Engine and drive chain engineering can only take you so far without improving fuel octane quality. It has been suggested that in conjunction with CAFÉ standards, the government needs to also mandate minimum octane fuel standards. 100 octane has been suggested. This can be met with ethanol without adding dangerous aromatics. The misconception that ethanol needs to be a ‘renewable or biofuel’ component needs to be confronted. While auto manufacturers would like to design for a 30% ethanol fuel, they rightly doubt the ability to provide that volume by 2025 using ‘bio’ methods. Ethanol can also be produced using our plentiful and low cost natural gas and is a better way to introduce gas into the transportation fuel market rather than as a CNG fuel.

    Regardless of what fuel is used, its use must be tied into the economy through some market method or Jevons paradox will invoke itself. When the gas tax was first started, it was viewed as a road ‘user fee’. When gasoline was our only fuel choice, a per gallon tax approach made sense. It has not kept up with inflation though and should be scraped in favor of a better, fairer and more thoughtful approach. It would not be hard to come up with a ‘tax’ tied into the odometer and the type of vehicle it was and its age.

    I also think the ‘safety’ argument is a red herring as pointed out above.

    BBrandon
  • R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. on September 02 2012 said:
    I, an old engineer, scoff at "efficiency" as mandated by politicians. It is a diversion. The single parameter to watch, like a hawk, is cost, cost to the consumer over the life of the machine.
    An example: Assume I could invent a carbon burning machine with an efficiency of 100% (An impossibility, most car engine's efficiencies are in the 20% range). But my engine will only work using diamonds (a carbon form) as fuel. The cost would be so high as to make my dream useless in the market; no one would buy it. So I hire a lobbyist to make the purchase mandatory, you must buy my machine. It will impoverish you.

    Obama could mandate 100 MPH as a CAFE standard, and many will walk because they can not afford the resultant machine. He claims that regs increase employment. I say they raise costs, e.g. a $40,000 golf cart which requires $60 to fill the tank.
  • Jeff on September 04 2012 said:
    My 2000 VW Jetta with over 240,000 miles still averages 50 miles to the gallon and you know very well that in Germany there are a number of diesel hybrids that average around 75 mpg. Tell me we can't do better. One of the real issues is that diesel fuel can be exported from this country and there ought to be a law against it like the one prohibiting the export or import of gasoline. The supposed fuel spike when the weather gets cold is myth when the largest export from the US is fuel.
  • EV World on September 05 2012 said:
    Here's the biggest problem I have with this article: "we need policies to enhance, not impede, the domestic suppliers of this irreplaceable liquid fuel." Clearly, the author has no concerns about the environment or global warming. How soon we forget the BP oil disaster in the Gulf or the Enbridge's tar sands pipeline spill in Wisconsin, not to mention the drought 65% of the country is under. Our generation of boomers may not like the idea of giving up the automobile, but the generations behind us aren't so impeded, as a recent spat of articles about Gen Y Millennials buying fewer cars and driving fewer miles suggest. Even fewer teenagers are getting driver's licenses than in the past. In a resource constrained world (politically and physically), there are other things more important in life than owning a new car, at least as they are currently conceived, sold and operated. Alternatives to private car ownership are fast evolving: smart's Car2Go, Autolib in Paris, the Hiriko in Madrid, the 20,000 electric car leasing program in Hangzhou, China. It's time we think outside the box instead of just trying to make the box bigger, hotter, and dirtier.
  • shawn on September 06 2012 said:
    the original Prius got over 64 mpg i heard people tell me they got more, now the newer Prius get like 54, they were cut back, so that goes to show you that the technology exist there just choosing to put it out slowly to make more money instead of releasing it as it is researched, thanks to this little thing called internet we can see how other country's are advancing and we can notice now how we are intentionally left behind so that greedy corporations can make more money, so long store short no they don't have to reduce safety in a car to make it more better they just need to use technology that already exists, and stop being so money hungry, im pretty sure that's why the priuses economy got cut was because people were going to the gas pump way to less, so less money was being made, think about it.

Leave a comment