Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-28-2016, 02:44 PM   #1 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 100

n/a - '05 Ford Focus ZX3
Thanks: 5
Thanked 63 Times in 25 Posts
Vehicle GHGs rising despite CAFE standards. What's the solution?

GHGs are rising despite fuel economy standards. What's the solution?

ClimateWire
Camille von Kaenel, E&E reporter
June 28, 2016

TRANSPORTATION: GHGs are rising despite fuel economy standards. What's the solution? -- Tuesday, June 28, 2016 -- www.eenews.net

Ingrid Fol chose her minivan, a 2007 Honda Odyssey, because it gets good mileage. Now that gas prices have gone down, the Northern Virginia resident said, there's less pressure to make every gallon count.

"When it was $3-something, I would try to stay within a budget, and choose to walk or bike or combine shopping trips," Fol said as she loaded groceries in her car in Pentagon City in Arlington, Va., with her kids after work. "Now I have more choice, and I'd do it for the exercise instead."

Fuel economy is the Obama administration's main strategy to curb greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. But emissions keep rising. In the first two months of 2016, greenhouse gases from transportation topped those from the power sector for the first time, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas emissions standards have only achieved around two-thirds of the expected fleetwide fuel and emissions savings since 2010. That piles on the pressure for federal transportation agencies, which are currently in the midst of reviewing the standards' effectiveness.

To kick off the process, they are reassessing their assumptions about technology and markets from when the rules were finalized in 2010 and 2012. The analysis is expected this week. The impact of low oil prices on the promised fuel savings, and potential new expectations for the future, will likely be a key part of the report.

"When it comes to climate, fuel economy standards are the only game in town to address impacts from transportation," said Sam Ori, the director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. "If we're falling short of our goals, it really behooves everyone to take a look."

The rules require automakers to nearly double the miles per gallon of new cars by 2025 from 2010. They're doing their job: Automakers are improving the fuel efficiency of their cars every year. Most of the time, new cars flush with novel technologies even exceed the standards, and they're mostly on track to keep doing so.

But even the best technology can't fight market forces.

For example, Fol and her family of five took their first spring-break road trip ever this year, driving up through New England to tour colleges.

They're not the only ones. Last year, Americans drove more than ever before, logging more than 3.15 trillion miles, according to the Federal Highway Administration. Just the increase from the previous2 year, about 1.07 billion, would be equivalent to every person in New Jersey driving to San Francisco and back -- twice. So far this year, the United States is on track to beat that record.

Not only are Americans driving more, but they are choosing more gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs than the agencies setting the standards expected. As a result, the net real-world benefits of the government's standards have fallen below projections, and the gap is growing.

"The fact that you're seeing changes in the fleet re-emphasizes the need to push forward with the strongest standards as we look to achieve oil reduction and climate goals," said Dave Cooke, a senior vehicles analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

As part of a previously agreed-upon midterm review, U.S. EPA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the California Air Resources Board will have to decide by 2018 whether to tighten, loosen or maintain the standards for 2025.

From cars to trucks

When the standards were finalized in 2012, the Obama administration praised them as "the single most important step" taken to reduce dependence on foreign oil and "historic progress" to achieve climate goals.

Environmental advocates and EPA officials say the standards are better than nothing, even if Americans are buying more trucks and SUVs. The Union of Concerned Scientists projects the standards will have brought emissions from the light-duty vehicle fleet below 2010 levels by 2025 -- a year or two later than3 if Americans had stuck with smaller cars. Without the standards, emissions would keep ballooning.

The combined fuel economy programs for 2012-16 and 2017-25 were expected to cut carbon emissions by 6 billion metric tons -- or one year's worth of U.S. emissions, according to EPA. The standards were also set to double average fleetwide fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025.

But those targets were based on assumptions about technology and the market, some of which turned out to be off or completely wrong.

After a steady increase for years and a peak in August 2014, the average fuel economy of new vehicles sold has dropped off, according to Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. The vehicles sold in May 2016 were about as fuel-efficient, on average, as those sold two years ago.

The gap between expected and realized fuel economy performance under the standards reached around 0.3 mpg last year, according to Ori. So far this year, it's approaching 1.3 mpg. With the continued drop in fuel prices, the standards will likely fall short of the expected fuel and emissions savings by 30 percent this year, he said.

Behind the gap is Americans' appetite for bigger cars. The bigger the car, the less emissions saved. That's because the standards are tailored to each vehicle's "footprint" and require larger yearly improvements in cars than in trucks and SUVs.

When they set the targets, the agencies expected the share of light-duty trucks sold in 2025 to be around 43 percent, and the share of cars to be at 57 percent. Sales of bigger vehicles had been exploding since the 1980s, bringing up fuel economy with them, but paused during the recession.

Their forecast was wrong. With the drop in oil prices, Americans bought a record 17.5 million vehicles last year -- and most of them were SUVs or trucks. These larger vehicles made up around 60 percent of May sales. And even within the separate categories of trucks and cars, Americans are trending toward the bigger -- and less fuel-efficient -- vehicles. Fol's minivan may get better mileage than an SUV, but not a Honda Civic.

The standards are designed to adjust to market forces, but the targets, like the 54.5 mpg number, have not been adjusted yet.

Better than before

Environmental advocates seeking to keep the standards as they are or to tighten them say they're better than nothing.

The increase in annual emissions from vehicles on the road in 2016 would be at least a third higher than it is now had the standards not been in place, even accounting for the trend toward larger vehicles, according to Cooke. He projects the standards will have brought emissions from the light-duty vehicle fleet below 2010 levels by 2025 -- a year or two later than if Americans had stuck with smaller cars.4 Without the standards, emissions would keep ballooning, regardless of what size car people bought, he said.

"If we did not have regulations in place, if SUVs weren't getting more efficient, with cheap gas you'd still be seeing an increase in those vehicles. Instead of having a level fuel economy, you'd be moving backward," said Cooke.

The fuel efficiency improvements in trucks have been particularly important, he said, because the vehicles are staying on the roads longer.

Margo Oge, the former head of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality who oversaw the creation of the standards, recognized that the standards might not bring about a fleetwide fuel economy of 54.5 mpg if American's appetite for trucks continued. But the standards themselves are largely working as designed, and that was the fight she fought with automakers during her tenure, she said. "For 30 years, fuel economy standards were frozen, but now, every year starting in 2012, fuel economy will be improved, and carbon pollution will be reduced," Oge said. "The regulation is not 54.5. It is based on what cars and trucks will be able to do on technology, and automakers are ahead of schedule on that."

Is the technology there?

Automakers said the new consumer preferences make it harder for them to achieve the standards. "Whatever is driving customer interest in high-mileage vehicles is really what concerns us in meeting the standards," said Wade Newton, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "At the end of the day, we're not judged on what we put on showroom floor but what consumers buy to put in their driveway."

The standards set "very, very aggressive" goals, Newton added. Automakers have not publicly asked for a lowering of the standards during the review, but have been building a critical case through third-party papers. Last week, they petitioned the agencies for changes in the rules that would bring more cars in compliance (ClimateWire, June 24).

Advocates say meeting the tightening standards is technologically feasible.

Automakers have chosen to shave weight off their cars, called lightweighting, at a faster rate than anticipated, according to a National Academy of Sciences report published last year.

Naturally aspirated engines, which propelled Mazda Motor Corp. to become one of the most fuel- efficient automakers last year, have also been a surprise, as detailed in an International Council on Clean Transportation report last week.

Turbocharging, among other technologies, can still yield fuel economy improvements, especially when combined with a "mild hybrid" system, said John German, the author of that report and a technical expert at ICCT."A lot of people like to talk about how the low-hanging fruit has been picked. What they're missing is the technology tree is growing every year," said German.

----

Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the conclusions of an analysis by the University of Chicago.

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Focus-Ak For This Useful Post:
Frank Lee (06-30-2016)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 06-28-2016, 02:47 PM   #2 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 100

n/a - '05 Ford Focus ZX3
Thanks: 5
Thanked 63 Times in 25 Posts
The link to the mentioned ICCT report is here:

Naturally aspirated gasoline engines and cylinder deactivation
Published Tue, 2016.06.21

Summary: Profiles and evaluates recent developments in naturally aspirated gasoline engine technologies, and compares them to the projections made by EPA and NHTSA for the 2025 CAFE regulation.

Naturally aspirated gasoline engines and cylinder deactivation | International Council on Clean Transportation
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2016, 10:19 PM   #3 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,470

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 30.45 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)

Sx4 - '07 Suzuki Sx4
90 day: 29.3 mpg (US)
Thanks: 318
Thanked 433 Times in 307 Posts
How is the CAFE standard applied?

Does FCA selling say 1 Fiat 500 (at ~40MPG) for every ten Dodge Rams (at ~20MPG), mean their CAFE score is 30MPG?

That's the only way I can see 55MPG 'fleet average' happen, especially without diesel.
__________________






  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2016, 10:34 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,552

Volt, gas only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 38.02 mpg (US)

Volt, electric only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 132.26 mpg (US)

Yukon Denali Hybrid - '12 GMC Yukon Denali Hybrid
90 day: 21.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 168
Thanked 343 Times in 238 Posts
The reason transportation emissions are now greater than power generation is because of the amount of coal plants having been taken off line in the last decade.
__________________




  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2016, 10:49 AM   #5 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 2,101

Dark Egg - '12 VW Touareg TDI Sport AWD
90 day: 25.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 179
Thanked 882 Times in 602 Posts
There is less and less zero emission power generated in the US each year despite the rise in solar and wind power because they prematurely close more nuclear plants every year. The last new nuclear plant to come online was permitted back in 1970.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2016, 11:13 PM   #6 (permalink)
Not Doug
 
Xist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 9,785

Chorizo - '00 Honda Civic HX, baby! :D
90 day: 35.35 mpg (US)

Mid-Life Crisis Fighter - '99 Honda Accord LX
90 day: 31.32 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6,594
Thanked 1,872 Times in 1,422 Posts
Some say the biggest hurdles to reducing greenhouse gases are China and India.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 12:34 AM   #7 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,735

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,571
Thanked 3,508 Times in 2,195 Posts
I say it's gonads.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
Mustang Dave (07-01-2016), samwichse (06-30-2016)
Old 06-30-2016, 01:24 PM   #8 (permalink)
home of the odd vehicles
 
rmay635703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere in WI
Posts: 3,316

Silver - '10 Chevy Cobalt XFE
Thanks: 347
Thanked 657 Times in 490 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
There is less and less zero emission power generated in the US each year despite the rise in solar and wind power because they prematurely close more nuclear plants every year. The last new nuclear plant to come online was permitted back in 1970.
MSR Thorium is the only reasonable power source going 100+ years into the future, sadly no one wants to re-visit the technology from the 1950s that makes 99% less nuclear waste and cannot melt down like current reactors.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rmay635703 For This Useful Post:
Hersbird (06-30-2016), Xist (07-01-2016)
Old 06-30-2016, 10:33 PM   #9 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 8,773

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 212
Thanked 2,896 Times in 2,260 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay635703 View Post
MSR Thorium is the only reasonable power source going 100+ years into the future, sadly no one wants to re-visit the technology from the 1950s that makes 99% less nuclear waste and cannot melt down like current reactors.
Funny how that works. I can shed some light on a few small pieces to this puzzle.
Actually we could have about 96% less nuclear waste if the spent fuel was reprocessed to 2nd generation fuel. Then after 40 years the concentrated waste would lose 99.99% of its radio activity. Raw nuclear reactor waste will remain furiously radio active for thousands of years. The secret is to remove the small amount of waste isotopes that poison the rapid nuclear fission reaction used to create steam and reuse the fuel.
Thorium is useless for creating plutonium for nuclear weapons. That is why the DoE/DoD wouldn't fund it.
We could build reactors that look a lot like what is currently in use, I believe they are called generation III+. They can be built to not melt down. But they are more expensive. They use a reservoir of water held at the top of the containment dome to flood the reactor core in the event of a possible melt down. This works keeping the raw nuclear waste stored on site from melting down which it would if the flow of cooling water were ever cut off.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to oil pan 4 For This Useful Post:
rmay635703 (07-18-2016), Xist (07-01-2016)
Old 07-18-2016, 11:35 AM   #10 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: palmdale ca
Posts: 50

Honda Civic - '91 Honda Civic DX
90 day: 40.65 mpg (US)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
I'm sure that the battery factories and the cost energy and effort from retooling, and switching to more exotic materials every year or two isn't helping much.

Heaven forbid the manufacturers step up to an advanced computer running these things too. How about a 512 MB not BIT or KB computer that uses a fast processor and a wideband, EGT, variable fuel pressure, pulse widths, etc and ambient air to actually make these cars run perfectly in ALL conditions? There are plenty of reports of people taking their time to tune a CARBURETOR on their BIG BLOCK in a '55 Chevy getting 25MPG on the freeway at cruise with an overdrive. many of these cars have 7000-8500cc engines, 400-650 horsepower and can do 0-60 in 3 -4 seconds.

The OEM's are taking their time and trying to make as much money as possible. that's what it boils down to in my opinion. They will most likely get extra government funding within a few years if they can prove that they can't make the goals.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com