Natnl Academy of Sciences: to cut U.S. gasoline use in half by 2030 no one technology will do it.

[Bill USA]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/20/how-to-cut-u-s-oil-use-in-half-by-2030/

if the United States ever plans to deal seriously with climate change, the transportation sector will have to change drastically. And the National Academy of Sciences report concludes that no one single policy or technology will do the trick.

Case in point: In the past few years, the Obama administration has enacted a series of ambitious corporate average fuel economy standards that will require new cars to get around 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. (That will translate into about 35.4 miles per gallon on the road.) That sounds impressive, but the NAS study concludes that current standards aren’t enough to hit even that 2030 goal for oil use.

In fact, the report argues, it’s tough to find any single technology that can cut oil use in half by 2030 on its own. Making conventional cars more efficient won’t do it. A major push on electric vehicles won’t do it. The only things likely to work are a massive switch over to natural-gas vehicles (which would, in turn, make it much harder to hit the greenhouse-gas goals) or a combination of efficiency, electric vehicles, and advanced biofuels:

[div class="excerpt" style="width:auto;border: 1px solid #000000;"]

Electric vehicles: The NAS report estimates that electric vehicles (they're talking PHEVs here, not conventional hybrids) will catch on relatively slowly in the next few decades, even if battery costs drop by a factor of 5, because “limited range and long recharge time are likely to limit the use of all-electric vehicles mainly to local driving.” What’s more, it will be hard to meet long-term emissions goals through plug-in vehicles alone so long as the electric grid is still powered by fossil fuels. Still, the report notes, electric vehicles are an extremely promising way to curtail gasoline use. ____ (that is, as long as time is not an issue_Bill USA)

[Demeter]

1. I give it 6 months

The complete collapse of the economic ponzi game will cut the gas usage to official vehicles, only.

[robinlynne]

2. That is simply not true. Watch the documentary who killed the electric car.

California cut down petroleum usage by 10% simply by enacting one simple law, and that was 20 years ago.
note: not exactly 10%, but 10% of all consumer usage. All car companies who wanted to sell cars in California had to sell 10% of their cars with 0 emissions. Every company quickly put electric cars on the road. they were a huge success. The car companies themselves took the cars and ripped them into 1 inch pieces and buried them in the desert so the technology could not be used. Some of those cars are still out here. It was simple. It was fast. It was no cost.
And that was old technology!
Some of the people who have electric cars put small solar panels on their cars, which power the air conditioning.

[Bill USA]

3. talk to the guys who make up the National Academy of Sciences. see if you can change their minds.

[robinlynne]

4. Read the last paragraph in your OP. They are saying people would not switch to electric cars fast

enough. They had to put that caveat in there. That electric vehicles would "catch on slowly". That is not about the science. That is about the politics of big oil corporations!!!
Again, watch the documentary. I rode in one. It is Better than a gas car, and that was many many years ago. "The technology isn't quite there yet", just not true.

[Bill USA]

5. the last paragraph of the excerpt in OP is talking about the realities of the economics of an

expensive alternative and one that is recharged by a power industry driven by fossil fuels......

"Electric vehicles: The NAS report estimates that electric vehicles (they're talking PHEVs here, not conventional hybrids) will catch on relatively slowly in the next few decades, [font size="3"][font color="blue"] even if battery costs drop by a factor of 5,[/font] because “limited range and long recharge time are likely to limit the use of all-electric vehicles mainly to local driving.”[/font] What’s more, [font size="3"][font color="blue"]it will be hard to meet long-term emissions goals through plug-in vehicles alone so long as the electric grid is still powered by fossil fuels.[/font][/font] Still, the report notes, electric vehicles are an extremely promising way to curtail gasoline use. "

[font color="blue"] "even if battery costs drop by a factor of 5"[/font]

... This statement is recognizing the relevance of the cost factor in the adoption of a new technology. One factor constraining the adoption of PHEVs is their marginal cost which adds about $15,000 to the price of the car. This relates to my concern for an economy compromised as to growth and employment by relentlessly rising price of oil or an actual or anticipated (rightly or wrongly) oil supply disruption. It will be a slow process getting people to spend about $10,000 to $15,000 extra for a PHEV - even moreso in recessionary times when they are more anxious about their employment situation.

Reducing our vulnerability to oil supply disruptions (and thus also to speculative price rises due to anticipated oil supply disruption) is essential - given our increased risks of threats to the oil supply in the mid-East - to preserving an economic condition which is supportive of introducing new, and more expensive technologies. To do this, we need to reduce our dependence on petroleum, in particular imported petroleum - as rapidly as possible. The quickest way of reducing our dependence on petroleum is by substituting alternative fuels (preferably renewable) for gasoline. [font size="3"]You can replace the fuel the cars burn faster than you can replace the cars that burn the fuel.[/font]


[font color="blue"]"...it will be hard to meet long-term emissions goals through plug-in vehicles alone so long as the electric grid is still powered by fossil fuels"[/font] ...

This is referrring to the fact that PHEVs don't actually get you that big a gain over conventional hybrid electrics if the power grid used to charge them is still fueled by fossil fuels. This is the science and the economics of the situation.

Now certainly, politics enters into every policy choice we make. Republicans fighting the adoption of renewables for power generation doesn't help the PHEVs. But even without Republican opposition (at the behest of fossil fuel industry), converting the power grid to a significant proportion of renewable fuels as a power source will take considerable time. Like three decades to get an appreciable change. This then compromises the potential gains to be had by PHEVs over Conventional Hybrid Electrics.

[robinlynne]

6. again. watch the movie. It was already done. 20 years ago. inexpensively.

This assumtion, "that it wont catch on", is untrue.
Solar panels added to the cars limit the amount of electric charging needed.
etc.
This issue is 100% politics.
The science is way way there already. and has been for some time.

As for the grid being run by fossil fuels, the answer is obvious and simple. The rest of the world is already doing it.

[Bill USA]

7. again, communicate this to the National Academy of Sciences. Maybe you understand something they

don't.

here's the page to buy their study or look it over http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18264

Why don't you email them and straighten them out.

regarding renewable energy powering the energy grid is something about everybody is for. But it does nobody any good to be blind to reality. All the experts who have studied this know it will take a number of decades to get a significant amount of our electrical energy coming from renewable resources. It just takes a good deal of time to produce this much change in our electrical power generation.

[robinlynne]

9. Germany did it with one incentive. They ruled that anyone who puts up solar panels will receve doubl

double the current rates for electricity produced by those panels during the next 10 years. Everyone is scrambling to put up solar panels. The infrastructure gets up in a flash. Panels are gong up on roofs, on farms, everywhere, fast. In addition the govt put them up all along the highways, on govt property.

[happyslug]

10. The high taxes on Gasoline and the massive subsidize for mass transit had NO EFFECT??

Europe has had high taxes (compared to the US) for decades. This has two effects, first mass transit pricing can be higher, for the alternative is to use high taxed fuels, second it provided the Government money to use to improve mass transit and Rail transportation system.

The high gasoline taxes also encouraged people to live within walking or biking distance of mass transit, thus encouraging bicycles as a series means of transportation. The German Government also provided incentives to produce and ride bikes as means of getting to and from work.

Sorry, the Solar Panels was just one part of a massive policy to minimize fuel and now coal usage. This is similar to what the US group is advocating, a wide spread out effort to reduce carbon use in addition to fuel and coal use.

[robinlynne]

11. I am only talking about how to go solar quickly. I ahve no porblmes with creating mass tranist. grea

great idea. I'm all for it.
once again, it is down to political will, not science.

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. EV adopters aren't average consumers

To drop 10% of consumer fuel use requires the replacement of 10% of the average vehicles and usage profiles. Pulling Horse Trailers won't be in the early adopters. Nor will the residents in rural and exurban areas. Those that put on 15,000+ miles a year probably won't fit in the EV range atleast some of the time.

[madokie]

8. Local driving is 90 some percent of driving

50 miles would do 95% or our driving. If the EVs weren't so expensive I'd already have one.