Panel – How to increase US fuel economy
Still not accurate enough
Stymieing better fuel efficiency?
According to a National Academy of Science Panel, many readily available technologies to improve fuel efficiency are not being utilized by automakers because the methodologies for determining fuel economy, particularly regarding CAFE, are often out of touch with the real world.
Nonetheless, the panel found that automakers will still face significant costs in meeting new CAFE requirements, and thus focused on some of the most promising technologies available. For instance, cylinder deactivation, especially in larger vehicles, can improve fuel economy as much as 10 percent for around $500 per vehicle.
Moreover, the panel also found that engine downsizing and turbo charging, as well as reducing overall vehicle weight, are very effective ways of increasing vehicle fuel efficiency in the next 15 years.
However, in the next 15 years, the panel does not see either fuel cell vehicles or battery powered vehicles making a big a dent in overall fuel economy. While battery-powered vehicles will be marketed and sold in the next 15 years, “a battery cost breakthrough that the committee does not anticipate within the time horizon considered,” is necessary for widespread adoption.
I was watching UCTV-SB last night and there was an interesting comment in the program about the Cradle to Cradle [environmental] design movement.
The one comment that struck me was; we are currently building vehicles that last too long. The statement was based on some interesting concepts.
The statement – “We are designing and building vehicles that last too long.” When I heard this statement I was shocked. Hasn’t this been one of the core values vehicle purchaser want – a vehicle that can last for years and years? However; some of the principles behind this reasoning are quite interesting.
According to the presenter; since vehicle technology is moving so quickly we should be purchasing a new vehicle every few years instead of every 10-20 years. Some of the benefits identified were interesting:
+ A significantly improved vehicle fleet fuel economy average.
+ Rapid incorporation of new technology.
+ More jobs for the labor force
+ Faster recycling of old dirty vehicles
Here is a link to the program if interested.
http://uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16539
Tom-
I believe this is definitely a piece of the future of the auto industry. Also, I think car ownership is going to become less important over time as well, making constant change easier. Better Place has been barking up this tree with their long term business model, which is more akin to the cell phone business model than the auto business.
Likewise, I believe that within the decade, there will be a car-sharing service built around auto-pilot. Essentially, auto-taxis could pick up subscribers, drive them to work, the store, etc using the safest, most efficient route based on real time data from multiple sources – all for a fraction of the cost of vehicle ownership.
I also believe that cars, and light trucks as they now exist have a very limited future as something privately owned.
I see cars like the MIT City Car in our future which we will just lease, keep in our garage, drive it onto a mass transit system of some type and possibly drive the last 2-10 miles to work without ever leaving our vehicle. When newer and better technology arrives you just turn in the old vehicle for recycling and get a newer, better, faster, cheaper and smoother riding one. I see leasing as one possible option for the future for our automotive industry.
How far is this into the future? My guess is maybe 20-50 years. Wouldn’t it be sweet if you could drive onto a train in L.A., sit in your car reviewing all the Vegas shows you might want to see and when you arrive, you just drive there.
Tom G.
No, that would not be good Tom. It’s a good thing that Vegas isn’t that easy from LA!
Ultimately, I think a revolution is near and it might destroy the current auto industry. Their business model is dead and someone is going to come up with a new, much more cost-effective business model that will seem odd at first, but then we’ll wonder why it took so long to see the light.
Made me laugh [Vegas]. I thought we already passed the legislation that authorized the stimulus funds to build it? When will we ever get our priorities straight, LOL
Have any ideas what this ‘revolution’ might look like?
Tom G.
Not in enough detail yet. If I had a more clear idea I’d be trying to build a company around it, or at least an investment portfolio – of course I’d need to go to Vegas to try to build my investing funds! That or the Santa Anita horse track!
Nonetheless, the revolution will be software driven, that I know for certain. In particular, I really like the auto-pilot software demonstrated via the DARPA Grand Challenge, but that’ll probably only be a niche in the short term (10 -20 years). Technologies like carbon fiber will also be a huge part of the formula as well, as will some combination of batteries, fuel cells, reformers, etc..
Likewise, a real wild card is solar power, but only if cars become SIGNIFICANTLY lighter, which I believe is inevitable. Carbon fiber and software-driven safety features, I believe, can result in much lighter, yet safer, autos with radical fuel efficiency capabilities, even if using gasoline. In fact, I believe that weight, not batteries, should be America’s number one priority today.
Ultimately, however, imagine the teenager of today. Instead of driving to work in the ever-more congested world of tomorrow, I’d bet they’d rather play the latest driving video game on Playstation on the way to work, while knocking out a few e-mails, calls, etc.. Suddenly, the car is just a mobile Internet hot spot – a mobile office or mobile game room.
Dach – I thought teenagers were already doing that and that’s why we’ve had to establish anti-texting laws. I’m just saying…
Tom – I understand the wish for the car/train combo, and I’ve read about it on other blogs, but in reality, it’s a pipedream. Just the logistics of having to create a whole new rail system based on the size of vehicle participation is mind-boggling. After all, it ain’t gonna be just you daddi-o, who wants to literally “ride the rails”.
Also, in regard to your comment that cars last too long, the fact is cars used to last 15-20 years easily “back in the day”. But when the auto industry realized it could make more bucks by making degradable or non-adaptable parts, THAT’S when you started having vehicle life expectancies of 5-7 years.
Personally, I want my car to last as long as possible. Sorry, but I don’t have the $20-30k to throw around as loosely as others.
Ciao…
Interesting concepts. I foresee a time when the roads themselves provide the power for the vehicles that travel them. Solar will become that cheap. Either in, on or overhead the road/guide-way so you can drive/ride in the shade. This of course also includes automated spacing, guidance and of course connectivity.
As far as software goes I agree it will become increasingly important but it will take time. We already have quad core processors yet most individuals today are still running 32 bit software on a single core. Gamers do use at least a couple of cores for some games. I see software at least 5-10 years behind the hardware. This is one area I see ripe for a breakthrough; some type of simplified programming language; something spoken maybe. Last; I see us as an electric society.
Have a great day
Tom G.
So sheckyvegas; please share with us what you see as the future of transportation 10-30 years from now.
What do you believe our transportation infrastructure will look like?
Tom G.
shecky- that’s the reason for auto-pilot. the software demonstrated in the latest DARPA challenges has proven that auto-pilot is basically viable today in terms of technological capabilities. thus, teenagers will drive the latest edition of midnight club on the way to school, work etc, but not the car. that doesn’t mean they can’t drive the car, but if they’d rather text, play games, sleep, etc., i believe the cars in the not too distant future will offer those capabilities.