Hi Stan:

I looked up the article you referenced, thanks. The 5% annual increase is for "technical efficiency" defined as the product of EPA’s sales-weighted horsepower-to-weight ratio and sales-weighted “cubic feet mpg” statistics. This is really not what we are after for efficient transportation since a larger car with a bigger engine can be more "efficient" than one which gets better fuel economy. The authors state that "efficiency" gains since 1988 have been from more powerful, larger cars. Further they say that:

Although PSFI has increased steadily over the past two decades (about 50% for cars and 30% for trucks), it is almost completely due to performance gain. Thus, the way technology advances largely were applied over the past twenty years may have hurt the potential for future fuel economy improvement, assuming that feasible rates are linked to an underlying technical efficiency trend...and that market conditions do not shift towards smaller vehicle size or lower performance.

Electrically (from solar) powered mass transit and small private vehicles will be the future.

All this talk about nuclear makes you wonder sometimes. If Nuclear power is so great, then why are so many people worried about if North Korea has it.

If Nuclear power is so great why are people worried about Iran having it?

Where I come from it was said that people should lead by example. Same thing goes for countries.

If we want others to give up on having Nuclear power plants then we should set the example. I say we make plans to moth ball every nuke we have and we build massive wind, solar, and geothermal power plants.

For the wind and solar we need a way to store the power. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

For every problem there is a reasonable solution. Do we have the will power to build the solution?

Whatever happened to the scientist who was considering building a nuclear plant for Google? From what I recall he had a design that created nuclear power, but didn't create fuel for nuclear weapons(no enriched uranium, plutonium). If we have to build nuclear power plants, which seems unavoidable at this point, then why not at least build plants that don't have anything to do with creating nuclear weapons? Lead by example with those. If they can't be used to make weapons, then who cares if NK and Iran have them?

Elliot: You are likely talking about Dr. Bussard and his concept for a fusion reactor. The last rumor I heard was that the Navy gave him a one year extension to document what he had.

glenn,

The automobile of the mid-70s was smaller, lighter, and much more unsafe, and much poorer in performance terms that means something to all buyers.

In reaction to the first emissions laws and the oil embargo, cars shrunk and engines shriveled. Taking 12-15 seconds to reach 60 mph meant they were sluggish, slow to merge on freeways, took inordinate amounts of time and distance to safely pass other vehicles.

Today, many routine vehicles have 0-60 times of 6 or 7 seconds, more than ample, for all but the juvenile acceleration fringe. Those earlier vehicles were made lighter by being made cramped. Modern designs produce much more useful cubic space at the same relative weight. e.g. front wheel drive designs are much more efficient packaging designs for the same weight.

Safety does cost in weight and consequent mileage terms. Emissions controls can reduce performance and increase weight for emission control components.

There is little to be gained from larger vehicles; they are as large as desired in the USA. There is little additional and new extra weight required for safety systems (bumpers, side impact beams, seat belts, airbags); they have been incorporated. There is little need for larger engines for acceptable performance. They have been made as large as necessary.

The point is these "costs" have now been paid.

FUTURE efficiency increases will no longer need to be invested in these issues. Virtually all increases can go to improved mileage and lessen fuel consumption.

But no matter how far we go in efficiency improvements and mileage increases, Fossil fuel supplies are not large enough to provide autos for everyone who wants one, tomorrow. Diversifying the energy sources and finding substitute fuel sources is a necessity.

A PHEV fleet with a gasoline mileage EQUIVALENT of 500- 1000 mpg is enough however, to supply fuel for all the cars that anyone it the world will want, when all in the world can afford to purchase them.

But the main point of this research is that progress is not static; it is made a little bit each and every day, each and every model change. New technologies will help of course, but they are not the only source of progress.

This worthwhile study seems to have awaken many dark forces.

It is fair to assume that we have been and are polluting this little planet at an increasing rate.

The air, lakes, rivers, wet lands and oceans, in many places, are already unfit to support life. The golf of Mexico already has a dead zone (no life) the size of New Jersey and expanding rapidly. The great deserts are getting larger every year. Glaciers and polar ice are melting away at an increasing rate.

For about 200 years, the ever increasing use of fossil fuel, in transportation, power plants, homes and industries has created an unsuitainable air pollution mess that is starting to seriously effect the planet ecosystem.

Agriculture, with heavy and mostly uncontrolled use of pesticides and harmful chemical fertilizers is polluting our rivers, lakes and oceans.

Runoffs from garbage dumps, industries, septic tanks and water treatment plants are complementary to agriculture harmful residues.

All the above and much more is very well known and documented. Sooner or latter we will have to change the way we do things.

The world has slowly started to react with the application of rather primitive but effective solutions.

Electrification of most, if not all, transportation means, is one of the logical first steps. Europe has done much for the electrification of their railways.

Very partial road vehicles electrification started with hybrids about 10 years ago. Hybrids can reduce liquid fuel consumption by up to 40% and GHG by up to 70%. Over one million drivers have bought this type of vehicle.

PHEVS (10, 20, 40 or 80) are the logical next step. PHEVs can reduce liquid fossil fuel consumption by up to 80% and direct GHG by up 90%. Let's support this second step actively, even if the first production models will cost $10K to $15K more than the regular ICE polluting equivalent. We will be the first to gain. PHEV taxis and delivery vehicles could also contribute significantly to cleaner air for our cities.

BEVs and PHEVs 100+ will become available within a decade or so and will further reduce liquid fuel consumption (by 90% to 100%) and direct air pollution similarly.

Where clean electricity (hydro, wind, Solar, geothermal, NG, Nuclear) is available, PHEVs and BEVs should the vehicles of choice. If we care about the air we breath, our health and plain survival we should not hesitate to pay an extra $10K to $15K every 10 years to buy those vehicles, to eliminate 35% to 40% of the GHG and (with the use of cellulosic ethanol and biofuel) reduce Oil imports by 75% to 80%.

Existing (and future) coal power plants should clean up their act and better manage the CO2 and other GHG issue. Operators should be held resposible and have to pay for the pollution they create. Progressive penalties may make those plants uneconomical. This would benefit the transition to cleaner energy production such as Wind, Solar, Waves, Geothermal, Nuclear etc.

Electrified vehicles are much more efficient and use a lot less energy. Transportation vehicles 2 and 3 times more efficient will NOT create an energy shortage but an energy surplus.

I don't understand the negative postings. Some
seem to assume that dollar savings won't be that much
for the consumer, and that pollution will just be
shuttled from the user to the generating plant
resulting in 0% pollution reduction, or that ethanol
poses a greater problem to the air than petroleum!

All three views seem nonsense to me. Phevs will use
so little fuel compared to the autos today --- that
1. One won't have to buy as much fuel.
2. Less fuel oxidized, less pollutants emitted.
3. Generating plants are getting cleaner, and it's
much easier regulating a certain number of generating
plants than it is to regulate millions of cars. Also,
solar is getting cheaper, and housetop solar
systems just for charging your car and heating your
water should be affordable in near future.

Another objection, not seen here, is that cropland
for food production will be gobbled up for ethanol
production. Well, not with a PHEV. PHEVs are going
to reduce the amount of fuel needed. Cellulosic
ethanol production will also lessen the need for
good croplands. Many of the proposed crops can be
grown on marginal lands, and some ethanol is being
produced from waste.

This negativity is crippling. It keeps us where we
are, with no progress.

If you have objections with grounds, be positive
and offer a better solution. -- Swen

Swen, it will take the same amount of WORK to overcome wind resistance and rolling resistance. PHEV may be slightly more efficient (just an interesting theory for the moment) but they will need almost the same amount of energy.

When you fill up your tank it is easy for you to understand where the fuel comes from to provide that energy; however, just because you do not understand where the electricity comes does not mean less fuel is used. It is more likely that more fossil fuel will be burned.

There is a reason to be skeptical and demand that we have done adequate research (what you call being negative). Government has a track record of making things worse rather than better.

As a follow up to Kit's post, our (the U. S.) government does have a tendancy for over-hyping "the next big thing." Nuclear energy was supposed to be "too cheap to meter." Granted, U.S. regulators did have a lot to do with eliminating that particular myth.

Then, merchant plants combined-cycle turbines and all the Enron wannabees came along. Now it's mainly CCS that we're betting the farm on. That and subsidies for wind and nuke plants ostensibly accompanied with streamlined permitting.

Unfortunately, energy/environmental policy decisions are still largely driven by politics (sometimes greed and sometimes wishful fantasies)while good science remains a distant second.

I have a different idea that may be way out of the box but here it is: Carbon rationing. Let people do what they want. If you live large and have a proportional carbon footprint, then expect to pay large for offsets. If you want to live "greener" then maybe you can generate income by selling your excess rations.

Mark

First you want to protect the environment based on science and then you want impose a tax based on multiple myths. I am neither concerned about peak oil or AGW because there are many technical solutions.