I am wondering if it really sound to compare GHG emissions 'normalized to NEDC'. How large are the the differences between NEDC, FTP-75, and JC08, plus how large are the differences in acutal on road performace. EPA gets the fuel economy numbers from the manufacturers. Are they using FTP-75, FTP-72, and urban driving cycles for their determinations? Out of curiousity does anyone know how long ago were these driving cycles determined and what the empirical parameters were. I can't seem to find the methodology anywhere.

@ ac -

the test cycles are for the most part very old and a poor representation of real-world driving. To its credit, EPA has managed to convince the US auto industry that its 30-year old test procedures need to be updated, mostly because they yield unrealistically optimistic results for hybrids from a certain Japanese manufacturer.

The results of additional, more stringent tests that are already performed today because of emissions certification will be used to compute the EPA-estimated fuel economy that must by law be advertised in dealer showrooms. Results under the new regs will be displayed using a new sticker design. I believe the cutover will happen in 2009 and, consumers will initially be confused because the numbers under the new regs will be ~15% lower, making it harder to cross-shop against late model used cars.

Note that MPG values for CAFE and the gas guzzler tax will continue to be computed using the current, more lenient system. Afaik, the competing proposals on CAFE reform currently before the US Congress are also not based on the methodology EPA will use to provide information to consumers.

BTW: official emissions and MPG numbers don't come from the manufacturers but rather the type certifications performed by the regulating agencies themselves.

---

The reasons each geography maintains its own test cycles - other than continued employment for government officials - are different traffic patterns and plain old protectionism via technical standards. While EPA and CARB cycles are based on (totally antiquated) real-world statistics, the synthetic NEDC was designed for ease of implementation with a manual transmission. An actual driver sits in the vehicle on the dynamometer and has to keep simulated vehicle speed within a narrow tolerance band throughout the 11-minute test. The cycle even prescribes the gear shift points. If he fails, the car has to cool down again for at least six hours before he can try again, which is a hassle.

To estimate real-world fuel economy, European univiersities and some manufacturers already use another, much newer cycle called CADC (Common Artemis drive cycle) that is based on statistical analysis of a slew of recent measurements in actual cars driven by members of the general public in urban, rural and highway contexts. It features higher, unsteady speeds and more frequent acceleration events than the NEDC, but the airco is still switched off. However, the CADC is more difficult to reproduce faithfully, especially with a manual transmission. It also yields less favorable numbers, two reasons why the industry is not keen to see it adopted for official type certification.

For more on the gory details of how such drive cycles are defined, see here:

http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/tremove/library?l=/artemis_meeting_2005/mccrae_photoppt/_EN_1.0_&a=d
http://www.scs-europe.net/services/ess2003/PDF/LOGIS07.pdf

@Rafael,
in a word, let's hope peak oil arrives sooner rather than later. To state the obvious: scarcity is the engine of innovation.

The EU just published a report showing that it can import sufficient quantities of hydrogen produced from renewables outside of the EU (Africa, Asia, North Atlantic).

Check it out:
July 31, 2007: EU project: long-distance hydrogen transport and trade feasible

We would start with hydrogen from Iceland, for the transport sector. Then scale things up and create a diverse pool of sources.

Rafael,

Your thought echo mine, precisely.

California is in effect "cherry-picking" all the "best fuel" and decreeing that that is all that can be consumed in California. The rest of the world can go jump. And, oh by the way, we demand you make this "good stuff", for us superior Californians.

You and I know that terms like "gasoline" and "diesel" are really broad categories for mixtures of hydrocarbons that conform broadly to certain flammability standards. Gasoline is the undefined mixture of hydrocarbons that might be any collection of specific hydrocarbons that range in molecular weight from about 8 Carbons to say 14 Carbons per molecule. "Diesel" is another broad mixture centered on heavier or more carbons per molecule.

If you super refine the fuel and select only the "best hydrocarbons" you will have a superior fuel. But then what happens to the other stuff? It must get either be cracked, to reduce the molecular weight; or polymerized, to create heavier molecules; to use as other fuel.

Doing this separating and re-construction, all cost energy to do. The specialized step to do this will need factories be built to do it.

All these activities take place in special factories called "refineries", that California will not allow to be either erected not expanded in California. So it will have to be done elsewhere, if at all, with all the additional pollution.

Otherwise somebody else will have to just get by while burning the "poor fuel" remnants.

The net result? MORE than the same hydrocarbons get burnt, to move the SAME people and their goods, around the same distance. MORE than the same total pollution takes place. The CARB idiots expand their make work bureaucracy empires; and the Gaia worshipers think they have done something for the environment.

In reality, all they have done is increase the amount of total hydrocarbons consumed; but they can FEEL BETTER as concerned, first-class, California people.

As we know REALITY has nothing to do with it. For all good Little Liberals, FEELINGS, not reality, are what counts.