Drilling Detroit Report

drilling in detroit Tapping Automaker Ingenuity to Build Safe and Efficient Automobiles DAVID FRIEDMAN JASON MARK PATRICIA MONAHAN Union of Concerned Scientists CARL NASH CLARENCE DITLOW Center for Auto Safety Union of Concerned Scientists June 2001 ii UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS © 2001 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved David Friedman is a senior analyst in the UCS Clean Vehicles program. Jason Mark is the Clean Vehicles program director, and Patricia Monahan is a senior analyst in the Clean Vehicles program. Carl Nash is a consultant and former director of the Office for Strategic Planning and Evaluation at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Clarence Ditlow is the executive director of the Center for Auto Safety. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions. The UCS Clean Vehicles program focuses on changing current transporation policies, which favor single-occupancy driving and fossil fuels. The program develops and promotes innovative strat- egies to make transportation less polluting and more energy efficient and provides information to policymakers, the media, and the public about transportation’s impact on public health, the en- vironment, and the economy. More information about UCS and the Clean Vehicles program is available on the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org/vehicles. The full text of this report is available on the UCS website (www.ucsusa.org/publications) or may be obtained from UCS Publications 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 Or email [email protected] or call 617-547-5552. Printed on recycled paper Drilling in Detroit iii Contents Figures v Tables vii Acknowledgements xi Executive Summary xiii 1. Introduction 1 Why Fuel Economy Matters 1 2. The Road Traveled So Far 6 Auspicious Beginnings 6 Backslide 7 Key Energy Trends 12 Key Economic and Environmental Trends 14 3. Technologies for Fuel Economy Improvement 16 Technology Trends 16 Evolutionary Technology Options 17 Advanced Technology Options 18 The Trouble with Diesel 19 4. Creating Consumer Choice 21 The Next Family Car 23 The Fuel-Efficient Sport Utility Vehicle 26 A Fuel-Efficient Fleet 29 5. The Benefits of a More Fuel-Efficient Fleet 33 Policy Options 33 iv UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS Fuel Cell and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Fleet Penetration 37 Scenario Results 38 6. Fuel Economy and National Wealth 44 Jobs, Wages, and National Income 44 Other Macroeconomic Impacts 46 7. Safety and Fuel Economy 49 Driving on a Highly Skewed Field 50 Safety by the Numbers 52 Weight Reduction to Improve Vehicle Fuel Economy 57 Previous Studies of Safety/Fuel Economy Trade-Offs 59 Safety Improvements That Remain to Be Widely Implemented 61 8. Forging a Fuel-Efficient Future 63 References 65 Appendices A. Emissions Calculations 71 B. Technology Options for Improving Fuel Economy 73 C. Technology Package Results 83 D. Scenario Model Development 89 E. Arctic Oil Production Estimates 95 F. Actual Motor Vehicle Crash Statistics 97 Drilling in Detroit v Figures 1. US Oil Product Demand 2 2. US Oil Product Supply 3 3. Fuel Economy Standards 8 4. Historic Vehicle Sales 9 5. Vehicle Sales Mix: 1975 vs. 2000 11 6. New-Vehicle Fuel Economy 11 7. Vehicle Travel 13 8. Vehicle Fuel Use 13 9. Average Vehicle Attributes, 2000 vs. 1985 17 10. Oil Use in the Car and Light-Truck Markets under Various Fuel Economy Scenarios 39 11. National Consumer Net Savings from Fuel Economy Improvements 40 12. Oil Savings from Fuel Economy vs. Potential Arctic Refuge Supply 42 13. US Oil Price and Inflation 47 14. Gross Domestic Product and Inflation 47 15. Occupant Fatality Rates in Crashes Between Two Light-Duty Vehicles per Number of Victim’s Type of Vehicles on the Road 54 vi UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 16. Passenger Car Occupant Fatalities in Single-Vehicle Crashes and Rollovers 55 17. Light-Truck Occupant Fatalities in Single-Vehicle Crashes and Rollovers 55 E-1. Projected Production Schedule for the Arctic Refuge 96 Drilling in Detroit vii Tables 1. Annual Passenger Vehicle Fuel Use and Fuel-Related Pollution 4 2. Annual Savings from Fuel Economy Standards 8 3. Vehicle Sales, 2000 vs. 1975 10 4. Energy, Economic, and Environmental Indicators of US Passenger Vehicle Travel 15 5. Evolutionary Technology Options for Fuel Economy Improvement 18 6. Lifetime Consumer and Environmental Impacts of the Average New Car and New Light Truck Sold in 2000 22 7. The Evolutionary Family Car 24 8. Hybrid Family Car 25 9. The Evolutionary SUV 26 10. Hybrid SUV 27 11. Fuel Economy Improvements for a Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Fleet 28 12. Fuel Economy and Lifetime Savings from Stage II Evolutionary Conventional Vehicles 30 13. Fuel Economy and Lifetime Savings from Hybrid Electric Vehicles 32 14. 2010 Fuel Economy Scenario Summary 41 viii UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 15. 2020 Fuel Economy Scenario Summary 41 16. Macroeconomic Impacts of the Stronger CAFE Standards Scenario on the Motor Vehicles Sector 45 17. Approximate Registrations of Various Types of Motor Vehicles in the United States 52 18. A Comparison of Basic US Motor Vehicle Standards over the Last 20 Years 53 19. Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities and Changes in the Average Weights of Particular Vehicle Classses 60 A-1.Emission Rates 72 C-1.Stage I Evolutionary Technologies for Fuel Economy Improvement 83 C-2.Fuel Economy and Lifetime Savings from Stage I Evolutionary Conventional Vehicles 84 C-3.Stage II Evolutionary Technologies for Fuel Economy Improvement 85 C-4.Fuel Economy and Lifetime Savings from Stage II Evolutionary Conventional Vehicles 86 C-5.Fuel Economy and Lifetime Savings from Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Stage I 87 Drilling in Detroit ix C-6. Fuel Economy and Lifetime Savings from Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Stage II 88 D-1. Key Input Data for the UCS Stock Model 89 D-2. Annual Average Gasoline Cost 91 D-3. Key Output Data from the UCS Stock Model 92 D-4. Report Terminology 92 D-5. Fuel Economy and Associated Costs from 2000 to 2014 93 D-6. Fuel Economy and Associated Costs from 2015 to 2020 94 E-1. Development Rates for the Arctic Refuge 95 F-1a. Passenger Car Fatalities in Two-Vehicle Crashes Between Passenger Cars and Vehicles Listed 97 F-1b. Pickup Fatalities in Two-Vehicle Crashes Between Pickup Trucks and Vehicles Listed 97 F-1c. SUV Fatalities in Two-Vehicle Crashes Between SUVs and Vehicles Listed 98 F-1d. Minivan Fatalities in Two-Vehicle Crashes Between Minivans and Vehicles Listed 98 x UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS F-2. Single-Vehicle Passenger Car Crash Fatalities 98 F-3. Single-Vehicle Pickup Truck Crash Fatalities 99 F-4. Single-Vehicle SUV Crash Fatalities 99 F-5. Single-Vehicle Minivan Crash Fatalities 99 Drilling in Detroit xi Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Roland Hwang, Michelle Robinson, and Michael Pancook for their helpful review and John DeCicco for his review and technical input. The authors would also like to thank Marshall Goldberg for his contributions in economic modeling and his impressive turnaround times. The authors are indebted to Jan Reiss for her work in editing and layout. The help of Anita Spiess was invaluable in getting this report out the door, and Brent Robie’s assistance in graphic design is much appreciated. Even with all the help, the information and opinions expressed in this report are solely those of the authors. xii UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS Drilling in Detroit xiii Executive Summary The fuel economy of today’s cars and light trucks is at its low- est point in 20 years. A combination of federal inaction on fuel economy policy and the increased marketing of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and minivans as substitutes for passenger cars have led to this point. Our nation now faces a number of significant and growing problems that could be addressed through a reason- able but aggressive approach to fuel economy improvements. These problems include increased consumer fuel costs; a growing de- pendence on imported oil; rising emissions of greenhouse gases, toxics, and smog-forming pollutants; and a fleet that is less safe than it would have been without the massive infusion of today’s light trucks. This report represents a comprehensive assessment of both the technical and economic potential of achieving a safe and fuel- efficient fleet. The analysis is based on existing technologies, many of which are on the road today. The research combined conserva- tive economic assessments with sound computer models to investigate the impacts of significant fuel economy improvements through the year 2020. The study shows that increasing the fuel economy of the nation’s fleet of new cars and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2012 and then to 55 mpg by 2020 can yield significant benefits to consumers, the economy, and the en- vironment without sacrificing passenger safety during a collision. These findings indicate that, instead of looking for oil in environ- mentally sensitive areas, the nation can tap the ingenuity of Detroit’s automobile industry to produce a fleet of safe and fuel- efficient vehicles. For these benefits to be realized, the federal government needs to act now to provide meaningful and continu- ous increases in fuel economy standards. Conclusions This assessment of the impact of fuel-efficient technologies indicates the following: xiv UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS A fleet that relies on continuously evolving conventional technologies could reach an average of more than 40 miles per gallon, nearly a 75 percent increase compared with today’s fleet. Many of these gains could be made with technologies that are already in consumers’ hands.

Load more