The U.S. Has Quietly Made Some Remarkable Advances in Fuel-Efficiency

[cpzilliacus]

Citylab/Atlantic Cities: The U.S. Has Quietly Made Some Remarkable Advances in Fuel-Efficiency -
Standards developed over the past decade offer reasons for optimism.

In 1975, largely in response to OPEC's oil embargo against the United States, Congress enacted a new energy law that included provisions to increase "Corporate Average Fuel Economy." These CAFE standards, as they're known, led to a remarkable jump in the fuel efficiency for the U.S. auto fleet, with a near doubling of fuel economy and a 50 percent jump for light trucks in just a decade. But federal policymakers coddled the auto industry in the 1970s, and by the 1980s the fuel-efficiency curve had plateaued.

Then, in 2008, oil prices went really crazy–breaking the unheard-of level of $140 per barrel. In the run-up, a Democratic Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the historic Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which required the fleetwide CAFE standard be increased to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation developed new standards for emissions and fuel economy, issuing a series of landmark rules culminating in the 2012 requirement that the standard ramp up to 54.5 mpg by 2025.

[Brandon]

CP, I don't buy all that the author is selling.  He's awfully optimistic about the advances in fuel economy and naive about the Trust Fund.  But, one look at his credentials at the bottom tells me a lot about his viewpoint.

Deron Lovaas, director of state/federal policy and practice for NRDC's Urban Solutions Group, is an expert on energy efficiency, transportation infrastructure, and climate change, among other issues. Prior to joining NRDC in 2001, Deron worked for the National Wildlife Federation, Maryland's Department of Environment, Zero Population Growth, and the Sierra Club, where he directed a national campaign to reduce suburban sprawl.

Department of Energy projections show that VMT decline, which could reach as much as one trillion miles a year by 2030, will cut into oil consumption considerably.

I call bullshit on this one.  The projections were made when the economy was in the tank during the Great Recession.  Once people start getting jobs again, and people coming out of college can get jobs and start families, that number is only going to go up.

The biggest reason trust fund solvency is an issue is simple labor and materials cost inflation.

Right, and it isn't in part that the fund has been abused by using it for things other than highway projects?

Small wonder that a friend from the Sierra Club referred repeatedly to increasing the CAFE standard as the single biggest step we can take to tackle global warming.

Fighting "global warming" (proper term is climate change BTW) is a misnomer.  No one can fight it.  What's done is done, and we can adapt, but not fight.

[english si]

Fighting "global warming" (proper term is climate change BTW) is a misnomer.  No one can fight it.  What's done is done, and we can adapt, but not fight.

Denier! Burn the Denier! Oh wait, that would cause CO2. Bury the Denier alive! Give his carbon to the ground!

</sarcasm>

I've seen people jeered and called denier for less - on a UK political programme an MP said that they were pretty much convinced that it was happening and that we needed to lower our carbon emissions but the statist solutions proposed by various movements were not the best way to do it. He was jeered, and the next day the press were calling him a climate change denier. What he actually denied wasn't the science, but how the answer to the problem, which put me on his side that we're trying to deal with it in a stupid way.

Oh yeah, and the same paper that was most active in the disgracing of this guy as a 'denier' was one that has said what you've said a couple of times (that we can't stop it, only adapt and not exacerbate it) only to have changed its tune within a week as the scaremongering sold papers.

[cpzilliacus]

CP, I don't buy all that the author is selling.  He's awfully optimistic about the advances in fuel economy and naive about the Trust Fund.  But, one look at his credentials at the bottom tells me a lot about his viewpoint.

Deron Lovaas, director of state/federal policy and practice for NRDC's Urban Solutions Group, is an expert on energy efficiency, transportation infrastructure, and climate change, among other issues. Prior to joining NRDC in 2001, Deron worked for the National Wildlife Federation, Maryland's Department of Environment, Zero Population Growth, and the Sierra Club, where he directed a national campaign to reduce suburban sprawl.

I agree with you - but he is undercutting several of the biggest and loudest arguments made by his groups, which is that highway improvements and freeway improvements "pollute the air," "increase oil consumption" and "worsen global warming" - and that "mass transit is the only way to solve transportation problems."

I think he (or his bosses) will come to regret this article.

[cpzilliacus]

Department of Energy projections show that VMT decline, which could reach as much as one trillion miles a year by 2030, will cut into oil consumption considerably.

I call bullshit on this one.  The projections were made when the economy was in the tank during the Great Recession.  Once people start getting jobs again, and people coming out of college can get jobs and start families, that number is only going to go up.

I also agree with you on this.  VMT is not down because of a massive modal shift to transit (most transit systems in the U.S. have lost patronage since 2008, the only large one that has enjoyed gains is New York City, but that system is so big that gains there push up the nationwide transit utilization totals).

[PHLBOS]

In 1975, largely in response to OPEC's oil embargo against the United States, Congress enacted a new energy law that included provisions to increase "Corporate Average Fuel Economy." These CAFE standards, as they're known, led to a remarkable jump in the fuel efficiency for the U.S. auto fleet, with a near doubling of fuel economy and a 50 percent jump for light trucks in just a decade. But federal policymakers coddled the auto industry in the 1970s, and by the 1980s the fuel-efficiency curve had plateaued.

Nice distortion from the article writer of what actually happened back then.

The original CAFE figure for cars went from 18 mpg in 1978 to 27.5 mpg in 1985 and the era of really big coupes/sedans/wagons w/400+ cubic inch engines that could pull a 7000 lb. trailer (when properly equipped) was effectively forced out of production after 1979 and the country was in a recession (think double-digit inflation and the so-called misery index that was being touted back then).

However, when gas prices started leveling off and even went down after 1983; sales of downsized but still larger than compact cars started increasing again as well as the rebirth of the performance-oriented pony cars (think '82-'83 Mustang GT, The Boss Is Back!).  While such vehicles still got better mileage than their 70s predecessors; sales of such were considered a hinderance to meeting CAFE standards (once the figure got higher than 20-22 mpg, circa 1980-81) and became viewed as guzzlers.  As a result, many automakers found themselves in a quagmire; do they continue downsizing to meet CAFE standards (Chrysler under Iacocca & GM to a degree did such) or do they produce more larger and/or performance vehicles to meet public demand?  It's worth noting that the lower gas prices and people splurging more on car choices coincided with an improving economy (economic prosperity does not equal everyone driving glorified lawn-mowers).

After 1985, the CAFE figure stayed at 27.5 mpg and even went down to 26 mpg a year or two later because police car purchases (which were also subject to CAFE standards) were getting hit w/gas-guzzler taxes and cops made it more than clear that they were not willing to downsize any further.

In 1989, a new Congress & new President (Bush 41) bumped the CAFE figure back to 27.5 mpg and the country would start to see a then-quitely growing market (the SUV) litterally explode a year or two later.  The reason: since trucks were subject to a lower CAFE standard (then 20 mpg) than cars; car makers expanded on making more SUVs of various sizes and the large station wagon would become extinct after 1996.

Sales of Mid & Full-size SUVs were the main reason why the overall fuel economy curve for vehicles plateaued and even dropped.  Can one say Law of Unintended Consequences here?

Had the CAFE figure for cars stayed below 26-27.5 mpg (granted everybody was thinking that gas would cost over $3/gallon by 1985); maybe many SUV-buyers would have went w/full-size cars and station wagons instead and the overall consumption wouldn't have been as high.

Food for thought.

Then, in 2008, oil prices went really crazy–breaking the unheard-of level of $140 per barrel. In the run-up, a Democratic Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the historic Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which required the fleetwide CAFE standard be increased to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation developed new standards for emissions and fuel economy, issuing a series of landmark rules culminating in the 2012 requirement that the standard ramp up to 54.5 mpg by 2025.

IMHO, unless the majority of vehilces produced are either electrics, hybrids, micro/mini cars, or diesels (if such were allowed en masse in the U.S.); there is no way that automakers can meet a fleet average of 54.5 mpg let alone 35 mpg.  Even if technological advances do catch up to the demand; one can only draw blood from a stone for so much; and, again, not everybody's going to be driving the same type of vehicle. 

Heck, some automakers (Ford, Hyundai & Kia) recently got busted for posting inflated EPA mileage figures (the 2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid model was listed as getting 47 mpg is now listed as 42 mpg).  We may be seeing more of such (puffed-up/distorted figures to meet CAFE standards) down the road.

While the title of the article has some truth to it; the author conveniently (IMHO) leaves out a few key elements of how it actually happened and is using such to promote an agenda with some spin.

[sdmichael]

I've also noticed the usage of MPGe instead of MPG for hybrid/electric vehicles. Previously, it was basically making a comparison that wasn't accurate. How can you be getting X mpg when your car is running on electricity? MPG refers to the internal combustion engine, not the electric motor.

[NJRoadfan]

I've also noticed the usage of MPGe instead of MPG for hybrid/electric vehicles. Previously, it was basically making a comparison that wasn't accurate. How can you be getting X mpg when your car is running on electricity? MPG refers to the internal combustion engine, not the electric motor.

Its an energy equivalent calculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

That being said, using MPG for these calculations is misleading. Its not a linear scale, the actual fuel usage difference between 18 and 20MPG is much greater than 38 and 40MPG (1MPG isn't a fixed unit of fuel). The preferred measurement is liters per 100km (or gallons per xx miles).

Crossovers (small SUVs) are becoming popular in Europe too. People like SUVs even when there isn't a loophole to exploit.

[Duke87]

I've also noticed the usage of MPGe instead of MPG for hybrid/electric vehicles. Previously, it was basically making a comparison that wasn't accurate. How can you be getting X mpg when your car is running on electricity? MPG refers to the internal combustion engine, not the electric motor.

A gallon of gasoline contains about 120,000 BTU of chemical energy, which is roughly equal to 35 kWh. Look at how much electricity the car consumes and compare accordingly. Or at least, that's how the EPA rates the efficiency of electric cars.

Of course, this is somewhat dishonest because electricity generation is usually quite inefficient (though it varies depending on fuel source). One gallon of gasoline emits 8.887 kg of CO₂ when burned. Per the EPA, 1 kWh of electricity averages 0.68955 kg in its generation so 35 kWh results in 24.13 kg of CO₂, which is 2.72 times more than a gallon of gasoline.

This means your 100 MPGe electric car has about the same carbon footprint per mile driven as a gasoline powered car that gets 37 MPG.

[Scott5114]

Fighting "global warming" (proper term is climate change BTW) is a misnomer.  No one can fight it.  What's done is done, and we can adapt, but not fight.

Denier! Burn the Denier! Oh wait, that would cause CO2. Bury the Denier alive! Give his carbon to the ground!

</sarcasm>

I've seen people jeered and called denier for less - on a UK political programme an MP said that they were pretty much convinced that it was happening and that we needed to lower our carbon emissions but the statist solutions proposed by various movements were not the best way to do it. He was jeered, and the next day the press were calling him a climate change denier. What he actually denied wasn't the science, but how the answer to the problem, which put me on his side that we're trying to deal with it in a stupid way.

Oh yeah, and the same paper that was most active in the disgracing of this guy as a 'denier' was one that has said what you've said a couple of times (that we can't stop it, only adapt and not exacerbate it) only to have changed its tune within a week as the scaremongering sold papers.

English politics are weird. The senior senator for my state has flat out said there is no way that humans could have caused climate change because there is no way that humans could change what God is doing with the climate, and that climate change was invented by the media and Hollywood. He's a ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I think I'd rather have your problem, to be honest.

[PHLBOS]

Crossovers (small SUVs) are becoming popular in Europe too. People like SUVs even when there isn't a loophole to exploit.

That's because they offer more room inside than their car counterparts.  I've known at least 3 people who replaced their compact cars (Corollas/Sentras) for small SUVs/CUVs (RAV4s/CRVs) in the last few years.

[vdeane]

Crossovers (small SUVs) are becoming popular in Europe too. People like SUVs even when there isn't a loophole to exploit.

That's because they offer more room inside than their car counterparts.  I've known at least 3 people who replaced their compact cars (Corollas/Sentras) for small SUVs/CUVs (RAV4s/CRVs) in the last few years.

But who needs or wants that much room other than soccer moms?  My Honda Civic is practically empty; even when going on a multi-day trip, I don't have need to use more than half of the trunk and a small amount of space on the passenger seat for my purse and atlas.  SUVs make it harder for everyone by obstructing the view and making parking spaces tighter.

[Brandon]

Crossovers (small SUVs) are becoming popular in Europe too. People like SUVs even when there isn't a loophole to exploit.

That's because they offer more room inside than their car counterparts.  I've known at least 3 people who replaced their compact cars (Corollas/Sentras) for small SUVs/CUVs (RAV4s/CRVs) in the last few years.

But who needs or wants that much room other than soccer moms?  My Honda Civic is practically empty; even when going on a multi-day trip, I don't have need to use more than half of the trunk and a small amount of space on the passenger seat for my purse and atlas.  SUVs make it harder for everyone by obstructing the view and making parking spaces tighter.

The problem is that we mandate things like booster seats for kids.  Well, you can only fit 2 to a seat, and then governments, in their infinite wisdom, ban these same kids from the front seat as well.  This necessitates three rows of seats if you have more than 2 kids.  Booster seats are wholly unnecessary.

[vdeane]

I believe the front seat prohibition is due to mandatory airbags, but they can be disabled now so I don't get why it stays.

Personally, I don't know why one would have more than two kids (or any, for that matter... I'm not a kid person), but that's getting off topic.

[Stratuscaster]

But who needs or wants that much room other than soccer moms?  My Honda Civic is practically empty; even when going on a multi-day trip, I don't have need to use more than half of the trunk and a small amount of space on the passenger seat for my purse and atlas.  SUVs make it harder for everyone by obstructing the view and making parking spaces tighter.

Not every non-car is a large SUV.

Crossovers are today's station wagons, just as minivans are stations wagons.

One reason I'll give for buying a CR-V over a Civic, or a Tiguan over a Golf, or crossover/minivan over a car - easier entry and exit from the vehicle. It's MUCH easier for me to get in and out of my Caravan than to drop and and climb out of my Intrigue.

[SSOWorld]

Crossovers - decent mileage for sure - less susceptible to being rolled with coal.

[PHLBOS]

But who needs or wants that much room other than soccer moms?

A. People that fall in the *ahem* anorexically-challenged department.  Most small SUVs offer more shoulder & hip room than small cars.  Especially given the wider front consoles that many cars have today.

B. People that frequently carry cargo that is too tall to fit in a conventional trunk.  Note: while most notchback sedans & hatchbacks offer folding rear seats; a wagon/CUV/SUV offers more cargo volume for such cargo.

C. People that want it (aka Freedom of Choice).

I believe the front seat prohibition is due to mandatory airbags, but they can be disabled now so I don't get why it stays.

Not all vehicles out there have such a passenger's side airbag kill-switch.  The only ones that do are usually 2-seaters and single-cab (2-3 seat) pick-up trucks.  My '97 Crown Vic doesn't offer such and the passenger's side airbag on my '07 Mustang is only deactivated when there's nobody sitting in the seat.  Additionally, not everybody's driving brand new vehicles out there (nationwide average age of a car on the road today is about 11 years old).

Personally, I don't know why one would have more than two kids (or any, for that matter... I'm not a kid person), but that's getting off topic.

Based on your profile, you're only 23; you may change your mind about that some 7 to 10 years later.

One reason I'll give for buying a CR-V over a Civic, or a Tiguan over a Golf, or crossover/minivan over a car - easier entry and exit from the vehicle. It's MUCH easier for me to get in and out of my Caravan than to drop and and climb out of my Intrigue.

That was the main reason why my father gave up his Continental Mark VII for a Ford Escape; easier entry/exit... especially given his Parkinson's condition.

[Brian556]

I think the problem of kids being left in hot cars in an unintended consequence of 'safety' rules that require kids to be in the back seat. This was never really a problem before.

It looks like this rule may be doing more harm than good.

You're a lot more likely to forget some thing (or someone) that's out of sight.

The thing that really bothers me is that the government, as well as a lot of people, are more concerned with protecting people in case of an accident, rather than preventing accidents in the first place, because the first is plain easier.

The government would rather make us pay extra for cars so that they can have airbags rather that get the assholes off their phones and booze like they should be doing.

[DaBigE]

But who needs or wants that much room other than soccer moms?

A. People that fall in the *ahem* anorexically-challenged department.  Most small SUVs offer more shoulder & hip room than small cars.  Especially given the wider front consoles that many cars have today.

CUVs are not just the "anorexically-challenged" folk, they're also for those of us who are vertically-gifted (>6-ft), as well as the older folk who can't bend as easily as they could when they were 20-years younger.

[SSOWorld]

But who needs or wants that much room other than soccer moms?

A. People that fall in the *ahem* anorexically-challenged department.  Most small SUVs offer more shoulder & hip room than small cars.  Especially given the wider front consoles that many cars have today.

CUVs are not just the "anorexically-challenged" folk, they're also for those of us who are vertically-gifted (>6-ft), as well as the older folk who can't bend as easily as they could when they were 20-years younger.

Why all the PC? Are you just *THAT AFRAID* to offend someone? >_>

[DaBigE]

But who needs or wants that much room other than soccer moms?

A. People that fall in the *ahem* anorexically-challenged department.  Most small SUVs offer more shoulder & hip room than small cars.  Especially given the wider front consoles that many cars have today.

CUVs are not just the "anorexically-challenged" folk, they're also for those of us who are vertically-gifted (>6-ft), as well as the older folk who can't bend as easily as they could when they were 20-years younger.

Why all the PC? Are you just *THAT AFRAID* to offend someone? >_>

Not afraid in the slightest...I was just continuing the pattern.

The un-PC version:
CUVs are not just for the beached whales, they're also for the Shaquille O'Neals, as well as the old farts who can't bend even if they lay off the Viagra.

Better?