Newly proposed auto standards hold promise

The Biden Administration is clearly making good on its pledge to revisit the automobile GHG emission standards weakened by the previous administration. The notice of proposed rulemaking issued by EPA on August 5, 2021 aims to cut model year 2026 car and light truck GHG emission rates 17% compared to the recent level, from 205 grams/mile (g/mi) in 2020 to a nominal target of 171 g/mi in 2026. 

The White House announcement just prior to the EPA proposal also states an ambitious goal for EVs to comprise half of U.S. vehicle sales in 2030. This non-binding target would include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) as well as pure zero-emission vehicles such as battery electric and fuel cell cars. 

Fleetwide efficiency gains more important than electric cars over the next decade

For at least the next decade, the overall fuel economy of the entire car and light truck fleet will be more crucial for climate protection than the number of electric vehicles sold. That's the message of my recent online article in Scientific American: "Want Greener Cars? Focus on Fuel Efficiency." Read the discussion there (the article was first published in The Conversation under the title "To make the US auto fleet greener, increasing fuel efficiency matters more than selling electric vehicles").   

Personal trucks widen emissions gap over EVs

Excess carbon dioxide emissions from the rising popularity of light trucks, such as the Ram pickup, swamp many times over the potential carbon savings from increased sales of EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3, to date.  

Last fall, I posted an analysis showing that, even as electric vehicle sales had grown significantly over the past several years, the broader market shift to personal trucks (mainly SUVs and pickups) has overwhelmed the potential CO2 reductions from EV use by more than a factor of four. With the new EPA data now released, this ratio has increased to a factor of 5.6, as shown in the chart below. 

Light trucks overwhelm EVs' carbon-cutting benefits to date

Electric vehicle sales have grown rapidly over the past several years. In 2012, only about 53,000 EVs were sold in the United States, counting both battery electric and plug-in hybrid models. By 2018, the annual tally of new EVs sold in the United States reached 361,000. It then tapered to 327,000 in 2019, the last full year of data before the 2020 pandemic. The vast majority of EVs are Teslas, with the big jump in 2018 due to the introduction of the Tesla Model 3. With overall light vehicle sales on the order of 17 million per year (pre-pandemic), EVs comprised about 2% of the U.S. market as of 2019.

A missing link in green car marketing

One of the reasons why automakers have advocated weaker fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards is that lower-than-expected fuel prices have lessened consumer interest in higher fuel economy. Although insufficient consumer interest relative to environmental need is the main reason why regulations are needed, lack of consumer interest is a legitimate concern. The challenge is quite real when the market is pulling one way while regulations are pulling another.

Nevertheless, environmental need -- and indeed policy-fostering public sentiment to address global warming -- does not go down when pump prices fall.

Pondering the future of the car with the planet in mind

Historical vehicles on display at General Motors Factory One (left to right): Flint Road Cart (1886),
Buick Model C (1905) and Chevrolet Classic Six (1913)  [photo: Jason Robinson, courtesy of General Motors]

This year, the Society of Environmental Journalists' (SEJ) Annual Conference was held in Flint, Michigan. The city has been in the news recently because of its toxic, lead-contaminated tap water, a public health crisis brought on by negligence and indifference at all levels of government. Clean water was a major theme of the event, which included moving presentations by members of the community, activists and researchers involved in the crisis.

Historically, however, Flint is one of the cities that gave birth to the automobile. William Durant, a key co-founder of General Motors, and his partner Josiah Dort opened a factory for making horse-drawn carriages there in 1886. That building subsequently became an early factory for Durant's car company before falling into disuse in 1924. Five years ago, General Motors purchased the building and named it Factory One, turning the refurbished structure into a museum and event space.

This location served as a fitting venue for an evening plenary on the Future of Cars held on October 3, 2018, the first day of the SEJ conference. Moderated by Jim Motavalli, the panel included Michelle Krebs, a leading automotive analyst, Mike Ableson, a GM vice president involved in the company's electric vehicle efforts, and myself.

Stronger fuel standards make sense, even when gas prices are low

The current Republican administration is taking steps to weaken EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for cars and light trucks. One of the stated reasons is that lower fuel prices make it more difficult for automakers to comply with the regulations. However, car companies are already well on the way to re-engineering their vehicles to cut emissions through higher fuel economy. Fuel prices are a fickle friend when it comes to the crucial long-term quest to cut climate-disrupting GHG emissions. So that's all the more reason to keep strong standards in place, as explained in this recent piece published on The Conversation. 

Think Progress and Out-of-Touch 'Persuasion'

There's no doubt that shifting political opinion toward effective climate action is going to take a lot of persuasion, especially of individuals and policymakers who don't already believe in the urgent need to drastically limit greenhouse gas emissions, or at least tend to rate the environment high on their list of concerns. 

But advocates trapped in the mental boxes of green-group group-think -- and that includes the dear former California governator, Republican though he may be -- are unlikely to change the minds of those in the most need of persuasion by approaching the issue as touted in this recent piece, "Did The Governator Just Come Up With A Republican-Proof Argument On Climate Change?" on Think Progress. 

The question that Mr. Schwarzenegger posed on Facebook was along the lines of "What room with a sealed door would you be rather trapped in, one with a gasoline car running at full throttle or one with an electric car running flat out?" (on treadmills, we presume).

Electric cars vs. smart cars

Over the past year or so, there has been a growing awareness that autonomous, self-driving cars could disrupt transportation in a big way and might even do so sooner rather than later. Some of us who closely follow automotive technology have seen this potential for a number of years. The topic is now getting a lot of airplay, sparked in large measure by Google's announcements about its R&D of self-driving cars.

I've been mulling over what it means for other automotive technologies, especially those associated with energy use, such as electric vehicles (EVs) that plug into the the power sector for fuel rather than rely on a liquid fuel such as gasoline. As noted in a post from a few years ago, EVs are not close to being cost effective for cutting carbon compared to ongoing improvements in gasoline vehicle efficiency. Hence my belief that policies that try to push EVs into the market are misguided, and that for the time being it makes more sense to foster the adoption of connected and automated vehicles.

This thinking has been explained in several short pieces published elsewhere, so no point in rehashing those arguments here (though thoughtful comments are welcome). Those posts on other sites include:

Of Carts and Horses, Cars and Smarts, on the University of Michigan Conversation blog.

The Smarter Road to Electric Cars, on Automotive Engineering International Online.

Driverless Cars before Electric Ones, on The Energy Collective. 

Cars Should Tune In Sooner, Plug In Later, as self-published on my AutoEcoRating site.

This last piece listed was the first one published and although it is substantively the same as the Energy Collective version, it may still be of interest because it's gotten the most flaming comments to date.

Postscript: I've since written an essay on "What's Next for the Automobile?" published as the introduction to a Scientific American special issue entitled The Rise of the Automobile, in January 2015.

Enjoy!

Alternative fuels: maybe not so fast

Someone long ago pointed out that we'd run out of atmosphere -- meaning its ability to safely soak up excess CO2 -- well before we ran out of coal. Now that global warming has progressed from a seemingly remote risk to a clear and present danger, it's heartening that U.S. leaders are finally starting to tackle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants where coal use is concentrated. Addressing such energy sector emissions is a centerpiece of the new climate plan announced by President Obama in July.

As it turns out, such action to address GHG emissions upstream, meaning in the energy and resource systems that supply the fuels used downstream in our everyday lives, is also the next important step needed to control CO2 emissions from cars and other forms of transportation.

Automotive carbon-cutting bang-for-buck

Fuel efficiency is clearly the low-hanging fruit when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. But what if we need to reach higher on the technology tree to get on track to cutting carbon as much as eventually will be needed? 

Alternatively fueled vehicles (AFVs), meaning cars designed to run on something other than gasoline or diesel fuel made from petroleum, are commonly touted as "clean fuel vehicles," and green-leaning policymakers promote them as a key part of sustainable energy strategy. 

Although various AFVs have gone in and out (and in again) of favor over the years, some form of all-electric drive is often seen as a leading contender for the car of the future. In 1990, California issued a zero-emission-vehicle (ZEV) mandate to push battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and eventually hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) into the market. Originally justified as the solution to smog-forming tailpipe pollution, ZEVs are now thought to be crucial for cutting carbon. Given the range limitations of BEVs, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that can both charge up with electricity and fill up on gasoline have been added to the portfolio as well. 

The Fuel Efficiency Horizon study, however, shows that the supply of low-hanging fruit is more ample than many people think. The adjoining chart compares the relative cost to the relative GHG reduction benefit for several competing technology options. 

The vertical axis gives the costs as a percentage increase over the price of a baseline vehicle, taken as a 2005 midsize car. The horizontal axis gives the percentage cut in GHG emissions relative to the baseline, counting emissions both downstream at the tailpipe and upstream at locations where fuels or electricity are produced. All of the options reflect projections of lower costs and improved performance attainable by 2035, drawing results from the MIT On the Road in 2035 report. The BEV, FCV and PHEV points assume modest reductions in upstream GHG emissions for electricity and hydrogen. No upstream GHG reduction or CO2 offset is assumed for the gasoline or diesel vehicles. 

The upshot? Efficiency improvement remains the least costly way to cut auto sector CO2 emissions for the foreseeable future. This fuel efficiency horizon involves only vehicles that still rely solely on gasoline or diesel, up to and including "grid-free" (non-plug-in) hybrid electric vehicles (shown as the "gasoline hybrid" point on the chart). These ongoing efficiency gains offer GHG reductions greater than those from the battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and plug-in hybrid technologies at a lower cost (a cost that is far lower in comparison to BEVs). 

In short, an evolutionary technology pathway, highlighted as the shaded band in the lower portion of the chart, will enable quite a lot of progress over the next 25 years, and do so without the high costs, consumer acceptance concerns and fuel infrastructure barriers faced by the alternatives.