People can save fuel by not having a "lead foot", taking the stuff out of the trunk and keeping their tires inflated, engine tuned, air cleaner clean and combining trips. Throw in a little telecommuting and car pooling and we can reduce fuel consumption. These are things we can do right away, but people would rather complain that this is a restriction of their freedoms. Apparently this is a perceived freedom to be wasteful if they can afford to do so.

BlackSun: thanks for looking more deeply into the MIT paper.

In my scan I simply concluded they were looking at ICE/ACF as it it were 1900 when a few Baker Electrics were limping along at six MPH and Rollo, the Driver/Mechanic, took the banker to work in the Pierce-Arrow.

A study of some static world, of markets w/o political fact, and consumers w/o imagination.

I agree with the poster on the Ipod issue. Produce something better, cheaper and change will come exponentailly faster. Right now Prius is prob economical based on higher resale than the press gives it credit for.
Let that sink in a year or two. Then watch Toyota's committement to hybrids kick in on the next gen Prius. I predict over 20% improvement to todays and lowered by 50% hybrid premium. The next gen Prius and better Camry hybrid will force the hand of the rest if the volt and hybrid escape haven't already improved.

I don't see any mention of of social and environmental costs.

This group would support vastly expanded oil exploration in US territory

You're evaded the obvious point: with an external cost of at least $8.35 the US public is paying more for gasoline then Europeans.
Who is benefiting from this?

Thanks BlackSun, I had ask if they considered peak oil, you answer in great detail: "NO!" which is not only a fatal flaw but makes their conclusion completely meaningless.

DS:

A good question which cannot be answered in a blog comment, even accepting for the purposes of discussion that the NDCF is correct. Fact is that you'll be hard-pressed to get any politician to say to their constituency "Congress is going to raise your gas prices by eight dollars per gallon."

If any tax will come it'll likely be in the form of a generalized carbon tax that will be raised slowly.

A good question which cannot be answered in a blog comment
Who is benefiting from this?
Actually it's very simple: Detroit & the Oil companies.

"Fact is that you'll be hard-pressed to get any politician to say to their constituency "Congress is going to raise your gas prices by eight dollars per gallon."

What if it were accompanied with an equal reduction in income and sales taxes, so as to be revenue neutral? This would focus the attention on energy consumption and encourage conservation and adoption of AFVs. People who used energy wisely wouldn't be adversely affected at all.

DS:

Can you honestly say that you don't benefit? Not even a little? It doesn't have to be direct.

BlackSun:

Such a scheme might actually be workable as a form of inclusive consumption tax. Still, it'd be a very hard sell to the average voter. You'd have your work cut out for you.

People here in CA have adopted hybrids rather rapidly. Am
I to assume from this report that people will adopt new
plug-in hybrids more slowly when they raise the mpg from
48 to 100?

It seems like an unrealistic study, to me. The demand is there. Get the cars and fuel to us. If Brazil and Argentina can do it, we can, if we get special interests out of the way.

Ok all-Back to square one-if we devoted our (USA) pioneer spirit to this,as like a war project, we can solve this gasoline addiction in a short time. The demand is there but so are interrupters.

I didn't read the report. Do they classify diesel and hybrids as "alternative fuel vehicles?"

After all, the bulk of the changes we can accomplish in the next 20 years - PHEV, Mild Hybrid, Series Hybrid, shrinking and lightening vehicles, and diesel usage - all can occur, giving us 100% of our current transportation supply at 50-60% of our current consumption, without using ethanol or biodiesel.

What the engineering community overlooks in this and other studies is the wild flux in consumer "taste." That is, like popular music, fashion, consumer electronics, social mores, once a product becomes "in" a whole new set of criterion drives the consumer. We are seeing this with the Prius and some other hybrids. I would argue that the tipping point in marketing occurs before we even claim a peak oil event. $5-8 dollar gas, foreign oil independence, security, environment, and western desire to save a buck whenever possible (e.g. WalMart)drive consumer habits in ways we suspect this study ignores.
in its
Even if the simulations are accurate in their prediction of needed marketing and subsidized (tax breaks/credits) incentives, so what? Of course those tools are needed to transition out of a giant industry to alternatives. The study does a service to the GCC cause by predicting longer term thus keeping up pressure to promote alternatives.

We have confidence that a Volt-type vehicle at a $20k price tag will set the stage for a storm of consumer choice. The Japanese, Chinese and Euros will pressure the pricing downward and the ICE will go to the buggy whip museum faster than cassettes gave way to CDs. That prediction requires intuition not simulation.

The MIT study is somewhat correct, we need another solution and the ones offered don't really address the consumer, only the producers and only the big fat ones that do gas can win because they hold the money power.

Build an engine that runs any fuel, a Next Generation Flex Fuel, then watch the fuel market. Folks will make the right choice given the opportunity in a market economy. Right now there is no market economy, just a Hobsons choice for gas. Brazil proves that folks will chose a vehicle that runs on something other than gas, and in just 3 years, 90% of all vehicles sold run on ethanol. In the US, if folks could buy a vehicle that could run all fuels, that would change the fuels market dramatically, like Brazil, just 3 years. The solution must address the joe average, who must get to work and feed the kids. The solution must use all alternative fuels and ones coming on line. Joe would buy a vehicle that runs on any fuel if it didn't cost much more than a regular vehicle. And Joe would also buy any fuel to help out, as soon as it became available. It would become available as soon as Joe has the vehicle. Its painfully obvious that somebody has to build the vehicle first. Check out a previous post and ask DoE why they don't want to build such a vehicle.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10/concept_a_unive.html#more