a fuel efficiency horizon for u.s. automobiles

A Fuel Efficiency Horizon for Grid-Free Automobiles

John M. DeCiccoEnergy Institute / School of Natural Resources and

Environment, University of Michigan

Government-Industry MeetingWashington, DC • January 26, 2011

2

Study Goals Adopt a problem-embracing perspective

Address not only what can be done to improve vehicle efficiency, but also

What must be done to put the sector on a path that supports the attainment of challenging climate protection targets

Analyze new fleet levels attainable through 2035 Fundamentals-based analysis, 2005 baseline Use transparent assumptions building on previously

published engineering simulation results

Assume success in "revolution by evolution" Ambitious but non-disruptive technology change

(estimates restricted to "grid-free" options) What are the implications of the resulting efficiency

horizon for "revolutionary" alternatives?

3

Family Haulers Then and Now

1975 Mercury Marquis

2005 Ford Freestyle

• 6.6L V8, 150 hp• Rudimentary pollution

control• Seat belts• 11 MPG

• 3.0L V6, 203 hp• Ultra-low

emissions• Sophisticated

safety features throughout

• 24 MPG

4

Technologies Considered Evolutionary change, efficiency optimized Powertrains (examples):

Gasoline -- turbo DI, w & w/o lean operation; advanced valvetrains including camless

Diesel -- advanced turbo DI, within NOx limits Hybrid -- non-grid-connected Transmission -- dual clutch auto direct, CVT

Platforms: Modest net mass reduction (≈20% on average

over the full 30 year horizon, 2005-2035) Ongoing aero, tire improvements

5

Fuel economy and related trends

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Index 1975=1

New U.S. Light Duty Combined Fleet

Source: U.S. EPA Fuel Economy Trends report 2010

On-road MPG

Horsepower to Weight

Ratio

Test Weight

2.6%/yr 2004-104.4%/yr

1975-87

6

Performance Size Fuel economy Index (PSFI)

Source: An & DeCicco, SAE Transactions, Journal of Engines 116: 859-873 (2007)

7

Automobile efficiency is best viewed as a matter of design priority Technological progress has been steady

Most technologies have multiple benefits Whether fuel efficiency is gained depends on:

• Design objectives of a given vehicle• Overall mix of vehicles sold (e.g., car vs. truck)

Until recently, most of the prior two decade's technology improvements were applied to enhance power, capacity and other amenities

What path will auto efficiency follow going forward? Net energy/GHG impact is a market outcome It will depend on jointly expressed priorities of

consumers, automakers and policymakers

8

Engine specific power trends

Source: EPA Fuel Economy Trends report; selections from Ward's 10 Best Engines, 2006-10

53 kW/L

9

Advanced engines

Now-breaking wave:

Turbocharged, direct- injection (DI) gasoline

GM 3.0L V-6270 hp, 67 kW/L

Audi 2.0L I-4211 hp, 79 kW/L

10

MIT simulation results

Source: Kasseris & Heywood, SAE 2007-01-1605

11

Technology adoption ratesHistorical data from EPA Fuel Economy Trends report:

Front-wheel drive in new cars Fuel injection in new light vehicles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Sh

are

of

New

LD

Vs

Logistic model:

U(t) = Umax(1 + Ae-bt)-1

Parameter estimates: A = 40 b = 0.68 for Umax = 100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Sh

are

of

New

Car

s

Logistic model:

U(t) = Umax(1 + Ae-bt)-1

Parameter estimates: A = 55 b = 0.44 for Umax = 87%

These are examples of relatively rapid technology diffusion Other technologies, such as multivalve engines, saw

significantly slower rates of adoption historically

12

How rapidly might hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) see widespread adoption?

13

Quadratic fits to cost estimates

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

0 10 20 30 40 50Consumption Decrease (GJ/yr)

RP

E I

nc

rea

se

(2

01

0$

)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Consumption decrease (GJ/yr)

RP

E In

crea

se (

2010

$)

Cars

Light Trucks

Near-term estimates as used to support the California proposal, similar to those used for the MY 2011-16 CAFE rule

Long-term estimates as used in the MIT "On the Road in 2035" study

Adjustments: assume lower costs of mass reduction based on Lotus (2010) study, but phased in gradually for 20% mass savings at zero net cost by 2035.

Declining costs over time are modeled as rightward shift of quadratic curves.

14

Resulting cost curvesNew fleet average Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) estimates

15

Fleetwide costs and benefits

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000 2

010$

2020 2025 2030 2035

Model Year

Costs

Benefits

Present value (per-vehicle average)for efficiency horizons trajectory

Lifetime benefits were calculated assuming: 7% discount rate 10% rebound effect $2.50 /gal fuel (pre-tax) $0.18 /gal oil externality $22 /tonne CO2 cost

16

Efficiency horizon trajectory

1.83 kJ/m (52 MPG) implied by 2025

17

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Reduction in GHG Emissions

Incr

eas

e in C

ost

GASOLINE

HYBRID

Relative Technology Benefits and Costs

H2 FUEL CELL

PLUG-IN HYBRID

BATTERY

ELECTRIC

Projected cost impacts and GHG reductions for efficiency-

optimized midsize cars in 2035 relative to a 2005 baseline

DIESEL TDIGASOLI

NEGASOLINE TDI

An evolutionary path can carry the U.S. automobile fleet quite far with manageable costs for technology and minimal risks for customer acceptance.

Baseline Vehicle

18

Caution on "revolutionary alternatives" Basic characteristics of liquid hydrocarbons

The properties that make them so valuable for transportation also make them easy themselves to transport, and therefore fungible, globally traded commodities

Consider Resource diversity need not entail fuel product diversity Low carbon need not mean no carbon The road less hyped: creative chemical engineering plus

carbon separation and sequestration

Is the quest to "get off fossil fuels" but a fool's errand that wastes resources without solving real problems? "The Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone …"

(Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudi oil minister 1962-86) The end of the Stone Age was not centrally planned! That is not to say that public policy doesn't have a critical

role, but rather that its goals must be carefully defined

19

Vehicle standards in context Important to recall that vehicle efficiency is just one

leg of the "three legged stool": Travel demand (VMT) Vehicle consumption rate (inverse of MPG) Characteristics of the fuel system (petroleum & carbon

intensity)

Current energy & climate policies are incomplete, if not indeed imbalanced

Can we change the fuel by changing the vehicle? Key fuel concerns going forward are systems issues, not

reducible to fuel properties Automakers can address vehicle efficiency, but not emissions

from fuel supply system (whether for liquids, electricity or hydrogen)

Innovation is wonderful, but subsidization is questionable

20

Conclusions A horizon of 3x efficiency relative to recent U.S. new

fleet levels can be reached, given: Sufficient lead time (~2035; implied rate 3.7% per year) Plus major and ongoing changes in market priorities Following such a trajectory implies a 52 mpg (157 g/mi)

new LDV fleet by 2025, without EVs or PHEVs

Efficiency improvement appears more cost effective than alternative fuel and vehicle (AFV*) options at present Nevertheless, improving vehicle efficiency is just one

part of a sound energy-climate strategy for transportation

A complete strategy will also require measures to• Motivate efficient transportation planning, land use and

infrastructure investments • Manage net GHG emissions in fuel supply

*AFV refers to fuels or energy carriers other than liquid hydrocarbons

21

Thank you!

The report, A Fuel Efficiency Horizon for U.S. Automobiles, can be downloaded from the University of Michigan Deep Blue archive at: http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/78178

For further information, contact:

John M. DeCicco, Ph.D. Faculty Fellow • Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute (MMPEI) Senior Lecturer • School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE) University of Michigan, Ann Arboremail: DeCicco@umich.edu http://www.snre.umich.edu/profile/decicco http://www.energy.umich.edu/res/fac_10/fac_DeCiccoJ10.html