CAFE the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards Actually Work

[JDaly]

in 1975, Congress ordered the Department of Transportation to create the first fuel-economy rules, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards which require that a manufacturer’s fleet of vehicles in a given model year achieve a mean fuel economy. Despite all the problems they actually work.

Check out the story here in my substack post

 

And the gist of it plays out here in this chart

:

 

[dsailer]

In economics there is a phrase: "Ceteris Paribus", meaning "all things being equal". There are other things that would have affected MPG ratings during this period, one being the cost of fuel. Another being the affect of legislation on MPG testing methods. There's no way to separate these affects.

 

The spike in MPG in 2012 looks suspicious. Where they really able to make this kind of jump in MPG this quickly? Or is it just that Obama's 2019 legislation (not shown on your graph) kicked in in 2012 and the numbers changed by magic? There is a fair amount of information to be found around 2012 regarding the inability for drivers to achieve stated MPG ratings. My own opinion is that car manufacturers simply modified their testing to achieve the standards. Of course they also actually increased MPG, but by how much?

 

There is a cost to increasing fuel economy. The real question is whether that cost is outweighed by the benefits. What is the additional carbon footprint of all the engineering and parts that goes into this MPG increase? Seems like nobody cares about that.

[Larry Schramm]

Many persons believe that all of the electricity to charge all of the coming electric vehicles comes from the socket in the wall and that it is unlimited. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Larry Schramm (see edit history)

[Matt Harwood]

1 minute ago, Larry Schramm said:

Many persons believe that all of the electricity to charge all of the coming electric vehicles comes from the socket in the wall and that it is unlimited. 

 

Assuming that people who enjoy something you don't like are stupid is faulty logic.

[Larry Schramm]

Just now, Matt Harwood said:

 

Assuming that people who enjoy something you don't like are stupid is faulty logic.

 

Almost everything I read indicates that the electrical grid infrastructure is fragile at best, not including the estimated generating capacity.   This is the type of information that I am going on.  I would say News Week is a reputable news source.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/californians-told-not-charge-electric-cars-gas-car-sales-ban-1738398

[JDaly]

DSailer.

Thanks for your comments and insight. Well marked.

Re "ceteris paribus" your point is well taken. So many variables get "in the way" in a real world system measure.

We must take this data with appropriate grains of salt as you point out.,

Re the jump from 2011 to 2012. Yes. Suspicious. I could not find an excel error in my sources.

Here is the EPA site I retrieved the data from.

And here is the downloaded data in Excel Pivot Table that I used.

I used the 'estimated real world MPG' values.

I reviewed but could not find the anomaly.

I welcome any corrections. 

re Obama era legislation. Yes, the Morning Consult Graph calls it out (yellow highlight below) but as it involved no change and just a continuation of the existing planned legislation I did not call it out.

You have put your finger on a lot of good points.

Thanks,

john Daly

[JDaly]

Larry Schramm,

Thanks for your point.

Yes the grid is fragile and the electricity sources do come from some fuel source.

I guess folks are looking at the year to year increase in "% of generated electricity from renewable sources" (like solar) as a reason to prefer electric over fossil fuel.

 

Another "shot" at the "everybody by electric cars now" fever dream involves the COSTS - as in carbon emissions to actually produce the cars... mining, steel creation, bending, grinding, shipping etc.  -- which often go uncounted in lifecycle carbon emissions analysis.

According to the reasoning of this Guardian Article, we are better off, typically, milking as many more miles as we can out of our current rides as possible.

That is the tack I am taking with our two 2009 Prius (Prii?)

Thanks,

john

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

 

 The last paragraph in your post, john, is something I can get with.      My 1992 Buick  made it's "carbon" footprint long ago. Like 31 years or so.   It only gets driven 1500-2000 miles per year.   Equals 100=150 gal of gas.  Don't believe I could buy an electric for that.      

 

  And as Clik and clak, the tappet brothers said,  it is always cheaper to fix what you have than to buy something else.

 

 We have come a LONG WAY SINCE THE 1970S. Air is MUCH cleaner.  Diminishing returns come to mind, though. 

 

  Ben

[Larry Schramm]

JDaly,

 

Here is something to consider when talking about making lithium batteries.  These numbers are consistent to what I have read in a number of places.... and this is just the battery.

 

Global lithium mine production 2010-2021 - Statista

https://www.statista.com › statistics › world-production-of...

 

Search for: How much earth is mined for lithium?

 

How much earth does it take to make a lithium battery?

 

When accounting for all the earth moved (i.e. the materials first dug up to get to the ore), one battery requires digging and moving between 200,000 and 1,500,000 pounds (or between 90 and 680 tonnes) of earth per battery.Apr 4, 2022

 

And from the Wall Street Journal.

 

Is lithium mining worse than fossil fuels?

 

“[It's] not like CO2 comes out of the lithium, but it does take energy to mine things — today many of those systems involve emitting CO2.” Lithium-ion battery mining and production were determined to be worse for the climate than the production of fossil fuel vehicle batteries in an article from The Wall Street Journal ...Jan 14, 2022

Edited December 27, 2022 by Larry Schramm (see edit history)

[JDaly]

Larry, Amazing amount of earth moving requiring tons of emitted carbon.

GOT to put that into equation for full life cycle carbon foot print.

 

As they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[JDaly]

Ben Bruce,

Well done keeping the 92 Buick moving fine. and you are so right on the Klic and Klac quote.

Always less expensive to keep and repair it.

(Except when the frame finally rusts out... which happened to my 1978 Olds Custom Cruiser!)

John Daly

[billorn]

See? Here's how facts get all distorted:

 

56 minutes ago, Larry Schramm said:

Is lithium mining worse than fossil fuels?

 

56 minutes ago, Larry Schramm said:

Lithium-ion battery mining and production were determined to be worse for the climate than the production of fossil fuel vehicle batteries 

See how they did that? The headline (which is all most people read) says something totally different than the article.

 

They can't truthfully say that the mining is worse than burning fossil fuels, but they can twist it using the logical fallacy of "Just asking questions" in the headline then bury the truth down in the article where one single word changes the whole premise.

 

Pay attention to how they're leading you to the conclusions that "feel" right but have no basis in reality. Critical thinking and critical reading are skills that we're losing as sure as we're losing skills like upholstering and babbitt pouring.

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Can't win sometimes, Larry.     Heads buried in the [ lithium] sand?

 

  Ben

[NTX5467]

Way back in the 1980s or so, a friend and I happened upon a Texas Electric Utilities (or whatever the main electricity provider in Dallas, TX was called back then) display at the Dallas New Car Show.  They had taken a new S-10 pickup and converted it to electric power in their own shop, for company use.  Years BEFORE GM built a fleet of Chevy S-10 EVs in the Shreveport, LA plant.

 

We inquired about charging and such.  The rep stated that that would be no problem.  With a particular circuit for EV charging on the poles (suspicioned to be there when it needed to be), he said the customer would get home, plug in the vehicle, and go about their after-work activities at home.  Then, the electric company would cycle the circuits to various parts of town, sequentially.  Hence, the main charging would be done in "low use" times, after dark.

 

ONE thing to remember . . . at earlier that time, The State of Texas electricity market was not de-regulated, which meant it was engineered to never fail and have bullet-proof reliability.  In our current de-regulated system, things are done more like making sure capacity if just enough to get the projected job done, with no large reserve capacity (as in prior times).  In other words, how the grid operates is related to "numbers" and profits, with reliability not quite as bullet-proof as in prior times.  End result, the fragility of the grid is very real, unless you believe the regulators and how well THEY perceive what THEY have been/are doing.  They tend to believe they are doing a cost/benefit analysis on a private business rather than a public utility that MUST be reliable at all times, no matter what.  ALL with very little real oversight by the State or anybody else, except possibly some far-off consultants or similar.

 

It has been interesting to watch the comments from the state operatives as there was lots of finger-pointing and NO taking responsibility for what happened two winters ago.  Loss of life included.  Not to forget the suspected increasing insurance bills to consumers, who were also charged with paying for any improvements to the grid, after that.  I'll stop there.

 

Agreed, the carbon footprint of gasoline, diesel, and ethanol production is still there, although the carbon footprint of our older vehicles is long gone.  To me, the conjured-up carbon footprint concept is like talking about how many tons of particular gases are emitted from motor vehicles on the road today.  THEN a price is put on those emissions and they can be traded back and forth like a commodity.  People who don't produce enough can sell them to others who need them, although NO affect on the environment comes from such things . . . except on paper.

 

Climate change is real and we probably passed the tipping point at least a decade ago, I suspect.  As many haggled about if IT was really real or not.  To me, it is real, as evidenced by the increased severity of recent weather events in this nation.  Just that WE don't individually see them when they happen in other parts of the country we are not living in, MUCH LESS what's been going on in Europe.  As all of the vehicle OEMs are multi-national operations with sales of vehicles in Europe, Europe seems to be leading the orientation that we need electric vehicles, so we then get them worldwide.

 

No doubt, the initial and main pushes to EVs will be in the main metro areas of the country.  There is a government website (which can be sourced from www. hotrod.com, click on "The Future" icon in the top tool bar).  Many re-charge locations in the DFW area, but head west on I-20 and they quickly disappear . . . other than a Tesla charge station at certain hotels and such.  Plus some new car dealerships which need them as they sell electric vehicles.  In those regions, a plug-in hybrid might be best?

 

There are some expenses related to petroleum-fired vehicles which don't apply to electric vehicles.  And some which are unique to EVs that petrol-fired vehicles don't have.  I don't know how the basic vehicle registration fees change with an EV, as there is no "road tax" on electricity, for example.  Hydrogen-fueled vehicles might be easier to "road tax" as that fuel would be used by on-road vehicles, mostly.

 

To my surprise, I discovered that HD OTR truck tractors already have electric and hydrogen powerplants in their final testing phases for production.  So that makes TWO fueling infrastructures to happen!  As Shell is already converting some of their larger gas stations into EV charging locations, as I saw on a news feed item last week.

 

NONE of us will live to see an all-EV vehicle fleet, unless some magic capsules will prolong our lives another 60 years or so.  But in the mean time, EVs CAN help the atmosphere not get much worse.  On the other hand, IF all of the electric generation stations had completed the change to nuclear power when that was the trendy thing to do, one news article stated that we would NOT be currently worried about climate change and sea ocean elevation rise.  BTAIM

 

Mark Reuss stated that with GM moving toward EVs in all price segments, they would not abandon the internal combustion engines.  Which is a covert way to say that the EV conversion will take some time.  Additionally, Toyota has announced hydrogen-fueled vehicles they have been working on as others are headed toward straight EVs.  The article also pointed out the benefits of hydrogen fuel, once a few SAFETY concerns are tackled.  On the Toyota Corolla the article mentioned, re-fueling takes less time than with gasoline, for example.

 

So, as large mining vehicles are converted/upfitted to electricity/battery or hydrogen fuel, the beloved "carbon footprint" of the various mining operations will diminish greatly.

 

Back when President Obama proposed the much-higher CAFE standards back then, I found it interesting that all of the USA OEMs were agreeable to them.  At that time, many suppliers were already working on EV or hydrogen fuel technologies.  Remember when GM revealed their "Car of the Future" and it was hydrogen fuel-cell powered?  At the time, I wondered "What are they thinking!", but that early and evolving research was the reason the vehicle OEMs were agreeable to the increased CAFE standards.  One alleged reason for Fiat-Chrysler to join other European OEM to form Stellantis, was so they could get ready access to their EV technology.  NOW . . . to get the solid-state batteries online!

 

IF you don't want to believe news sources on future EV or hydrogen-fueled vehicles, then head over to Google and input something like "hd truck EV hydrogen powerplant" and see what pops up.

 

Now to get Samantha to wiggle her nose and make EV infrastructure items appear!  (Trump's magic wands' batteries are dead)

 

Sorry for the length.  Happy New Year!

NTX5467

Edited January 1, 2023 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[JDaly]

...and Happy New Year to you as well NTX5467 Willis

 

You walked us through a very interesting and rich-with-insight story about the evolving "alternatives" to Internal Combustion Engine propelled vehicles,

Very intereting.

I feel the problem is not the individual cars but the entire transportation system.

Just as the country was reaching the tipping point to going all in for cars (vs. trains or other mass transit options) in the 1920's Will Rogers said, "Good luck, Mr. Ford. It will take a hundred years to tell whether you have helped us or hurt us, but you certainly didn't leave us like you found us."

It's now 100 years later and like the Yin Yang symbol ☯  its helped and hurt.

Some pundits have pointed out that auto companies see electric vehicles as a way  to save the auto industry and EV's do not fundamentally improve our transport system. Traffic, parking, energy per mile, etc.

(note that Disney World directs families to leave their cars far away as they monorail you into a car-free joyscape)

Problems with they system will persist. For example, once we reduce the carbon emissions to stop adding to the green house cover that's heating us, we still have the problem of millions of cars spewing fine particle dust that's harming those living near roads and highways. As pictured here , from here.

We are where we are and we'll need to keep satisficing and marginalizing.

But it would be nice to get a do-over on the whole car / interstate system.

John Daly

 

[NTX5467]

Yes, the "Disney Future World" of the later 1950s included monorail trains (think mass transit) in a somewhat glamourous and upscale orientation.  Riders get to their destination in a very comfortable and classy manner, but must then walk everywhere they went.  Many more lean people, back then, too, as the Pepsi Generation was still young and active.  Minimal stress, more enjoyment, but "going places everybody else wanted to go WHEN they wanted to go".  That last part could be the downfall of mass transit.

 

Automobiles were about freedom and speed of transit. Individuality of ownership and movement.  But also consider that mass transit is a business and needs to make profits.  Which means they'll service the largest amounts of people during normal business hours, or thereabouts.  What about that 3rd shift factory worker or second shift waitress?  And who is benefitted can then become a conversation about social equality and similar, for some.

 

When we were at the 75th Buick Anniversary meet in Flint, I went up there with a friend.  No rental car, but transportation from the Flint airport (about three employees left in the whole place at 10pm, it seemed!!!) by another Buick friend.  So, one afternoon, I decided to get out and see things.  Our hotel was on the outer edge of things, but no shuttle bus at that time, so I walked to the downtown city bus hub, found the correct route, and rode the bus as far out as it would go, walking a few miles to get to the hotel.  It was a nice experience, but I soon determined that it was something that (possibly) few Buick owners were riding.  At the time, I was younger and normally ran 6 miles every day or so, so I was in shape for that activity.

 

At the local levels, "trains" are much more popular for longer-distance transit than cars, a bit.  With AMTRAK for longer distances.  Getting away from the highways can be a refreshing way to see the countryside, but it's not for everybody.  Schedules and then getting to your ultimate destination once in the destination city.  Not unlike flying and getting a rental car for local transportation, but how many rental car locations are near a train station vs airports?  BTAIM  Possibly that might change as more long-distance high-speed trains become operative in the future?

 

Can't forget transit busses either!  Outside of the normal Greyhound-type entities, which have provided some of the most economical ways to travel and ship light and smaller freight items, IN PRIOR DECADES, I highly suspect that their clientele is not of the same demographics of what it was back in the middle 1960s, when GM was the premier bus maker with great products for city and longer-range travel.  Scheduling comes into play here, too!

 

Mass transit gets lots of people to "common" locales efficiently, quickly, and with less pollution load/person than even EVs might, by observation.  Make then CNG or electric and things get much better more quickly.  Not to mention a more efficient way to use existing infrastructure.

 

Sometime in the middle 1970s, General Dynamics in Fort Worth started running van pools for their employees.  One employee was responsible for the van and its maintenance and all of the riders determined where it would be parked (usually a shopping center parking lot, and when it would leave each morning.  Usually 9+ passenger vans.  As far as I know, that fleet is still in operation.  Other large employers have done similar, which is good.  Their own smaller version of "mass transit".

 

Many school bus and garbage truck fleets converted to CNG a good while back, as with city bus fleets.  Compared to the normal diesel units, maintenance costs went down due to a cleaner-burning fuel being used.  Now, many are ordering (with federal assistance) electric school busses, too.  In general, defined-route vehicles can be one of the best uses of EVs, to me.  Can make the infrastructure issues a bit better, too.  But it might take another 10 years or so to see if the $$$$ numbers work as they need to.

 

At this time in history, we are having to change.  Car companies have been watching the progression of climate and such for decades, so they have their own planning functions outside of the governmental climate watchers.  Information is flowing between entities as to what is projected to be needed and how to best get there is being determined by the OEMs in their respective areas of the world.  Much more intense than when the discussion was about oats or gasoline.  Yes, there were some electric "city vehicles" in the earlier 1900s, but they never caught on for some reason.  But not everybody had electricity back then.

 

At the Henry Ford Estate, in Dearborn, MI, adjoined by the University of Michigan which operates it, there is one room of batteries to power the electric lights in the big house.  Early Edison batteries.  At the time, they were high technology, but now antique artifacts.  To me, that is similar to what the current EVs will become in the future as battery technology increases such that "range anxiety" and/or "re-charge anxiety" are not real issues to drivers of EVs, unless one is waayyyy away from a metro area.  But in the grand scheme of things, no worse than seeing signs like "Last Gas for the next 150 miles" beside the road.  Just have to watch the gauges and do your own judgement calls.

 

One thing, though, we are not anywhere close to being in a "Jetson's World" where we live in very elevated residences and jet around in individual pods which puff out water vapor.

 

ONE area where EVs are king, though, for acceleration junkies.  Many EVs, even converted muscle cars, have very quick acceleration.  TFL Trucks (used to be called "The Fast Lane - Trucks") tested the GMC Hummer EV, a Ford F-150 LIghtning Pro, and the Cadillac Escalade V-series vehicles a little while back.  That heavy Hummer EV did the quarter mile in 12.31 seconds @ 105mph, the Ford was 13.58 # 102.4mph, and the gas-motor Cadillac was 13.80 @ 104.5mph.  Remember when 0-60mph in 7.2 seconds was in the realm of "fire-breathing" 7.0 Liter V-8s with 3.90 rear axle ratios in 4000lb cars?  Then, in the 1990s, similar performance could be had in a GM Intermediate platform Buick Regal with the Buick 3800 V-6 engine (and 4-speed automatic transmission)? 

 

Now we've got very heavy pickuo trucks (as the Hummer) that runs fast enough to possibly need a roll cage (per NHRA rules) in order to race on the drag strip!  Plus the new GM 2.7L High-Output turbo motor for light-duty pickups that will run almost 90mph in the quarter mile (actually 89.7 mph in a YouTube video) with power numbers similar to the old Chevy 396 4bbl, Chrysler 383 4bbl, or Ford 390 4bbl, but with much more lower-rpm torque with turbo modulation.  And GM Powertrain did a great job with that motor, by observation.  With it getting over 24mpg at freeway speeds.  With the 8-speed automatic, of course.  In many cases, a G80 Locking differential might be necessary on those vehicles.  Expensive technologies at higher degrees of execution have gotten us to our current world of things.  Compared to the middle 1980s when "the perceived future" was fwd and 200 horsepower powertrain in smaller vehicles.

 

At this point in time, regardless of whatever the EPA or CAFE might require (at a minimum), we have LOTS of choices to choose from as to our personal transportation.  Hybrid electric, full battery EVs, gasoline, diesel, CNG, or hydrogen.  I suspect the bulk of users will need only two or three possible choices.  Just depends upon their particular needs and uses.  There will probably be some trial-and-error choices, too, over time.  Not unlike buying a pickup truck in the 1970s . . . get a 6-cylinder three-speed manual trans (as Ford sold millions of back then, by observation), a 200 horsepower V-8 and automatic, or something bigger to haul and tow with, and THEN whether you needed a 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton rating.  THEN choose from a multitude of interior and exterior trim choices.  "Best informed choices" are the ultimate KEY to things.

 

Enjoy!

NTX5467 

Edited January 2, 2023 by NTX5467 (see edit history)