MIT Study Shows the Way Forward for Cars
A study on how to cut fuel consumption in half in 25 years may seem highly relevant after the summer of $4 gas, but researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began the study five years ago, when gas cost half as much as it does now.
Let's just say we're glad they were working on it even when no one was paying attention.
With Americans sucking down somewhere in the neighborhood of 390 million gallons of gas each day, climate change screwing with the weather and world oil supplies stretched to the limit, MIT has several recommendations on how cars can survive.
Some of their suggestions are obvious, such as the continued development of hybrid, electric and hydrogen vehicles, along with innovations in vehicle weight and other gas-saving technologies.
In what is beginning to be viewed as the conventional wisdom, the researchers poo-poo corn ethanol, but advocate development of cellulosic ethanol, as well as biodiesels derived from algae.
The least popular of their suggestions (and we'd love to hear what our readers have to say on this subject), though, will surely be met with some resistance.
First of all, the study says that innovation in car technology must be geared toward fuel economy, not delivering more speed or power. That has obviously has been the trend over — how long? Oh, yes: the entire history of the automobile. Researchers flatly state that Americans must learn to conserve and, in doing so, expect less from their cars in terms of performance and size. In other words, it's not about inventing ways to make SUVs more efficient, it's about ending the mentality that people need the biggest, baddest V-8.
The report also advocates strong government intervention to "push and pull" market forces in the necessary direction. It doesn't matter how many hybrids automakers build, what matters is the penetration of those hybrids (and electric cars) into the market. This could take several decades, which, the study basically says, is why it should have started yesterday.
We Can Cut Fuel Consumption 50 Percent in 25 Years (Autopia)
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
Government intervention is never a good way to solve anything. Their interventionist policies, restrictions and regulation have limited who can drive, what types of vehicles can be driven and have stifled transportation innovation for over a century in the name of "public safety."
It wouldn't be a bad idea to emphasize mpg and set up competitions around it. In the 1950s they had the annual "Mobil economy run," where drivers would try to get the maximum mileage out of stock cars. I've heard of Prius drivers who are able to get 100 mpg plus out of a stock Prius, and I think the documented record was 1,300 miles on a single tank of gas.
Uh, screw that jazz. I don't want the "gummint" tellin' me how powerful of a car I can buy. If I buy a gas guzzler, than I pay more in gas taxes. Take that extra money and build a windmill.
Americans are just getting more and more willing to give up their freedoms. Pretty soon, that nanny state we've all been warned about will be here. No more Mustang GTs for you!
Uh, screw that jazz. I don't want the "gummint" tellin' me how powerful of a car I can buy. If I buy a gas guzzler, than I pay more in gas taxes. Take that extra money and build a windmill.
Americans are just getting more and more willing to give up their freedoms. Pretty soon, that nanny state we've all been warned about will be here. No more Mustang GTs for you!
Joe, you are an idiot flat out. You may buy a gas guzzler and the extra amount you pay in taxes couldn't fund a windmill, even if there were 20 idiots like you. People are cutting fuel usage, that is the way to go. It is not about freedom, it is longevity and quality of life.
And Colin B. - how have gov policies stiffled inovation? What like preventing a system for ethanol? That has worked out well now that they are advocating it right? Innovation is stiffled by the constant demand for something that is bigger and badder than what your neighbor has. Right now companies have no reason to bring fuel efficient vehicles to market other than the market forces themselves.
There is no freedom to drive, the closest thing you have is the pursuit of happiness, if you're willing to sacrifice everyone else's happiness for your own - then up yours. And beyond that, the government isn't going to tell you what car to drive, they would merely provide incentives to buy a certain type of car. The problem with the government is they make a bill that says they are going to use tax money for the program and then attach another line on the bill that says we are going to fund pig farms in Kansas, along with a hefty pay raise for everyone in Congress.
Silver... the government has limited what types of cars that can be on the road. It cost about $10 million just to pass all the safety, emissions and (some) superfluous regulation to boot. For instance you can't drive a tiny Kei-car or a golf cart or things of that nature on the street that would save gas and money, because the government thinks its best to parent us.
They put high tariffs on foreign built pickups (25%) and up untill recently there used to be something called VER that caped the amount of imports from a certain country. All of these limit your choice to buy the types of vehicles we want.
Just think about Europe on their fuel efficient diesels and how we can't have them because there supposedly bad for the environment and the public. Well--that may be true in a sense but instead of getting better gas mileage and spewing out more particulate matter per mile, we have petrol engines that get worse mileage but are supposedly 'clean'...in the long run though they cause more global warming due to their efficiency of burning fuel.
That's the government for you. Trust me when push comes to shove people solve their own problems a whole lot quicker and better than a ivory tower ever could.
Colin B., I appreciate the well thought out response. Emissions regulations are what they are. Other countries have them too, but truly yes they do limit choices, so yeah you have me there to a point. Same with safety, but I think every country has some measure of these. I don't buy the import restrictions though, if the vehicle is in that high of a demand, the company can choose to build it over here. That falls on the demand side of things. And you can drive your golf cart on the street if it is a private community, just not on the public streets. Maybe if a company makes a golf cart that meets those specific safety regs it would be allowed? I'm thinking something like a Smart car.
Diesels are an interesting issue. I think many people ask if we really want them and what would happen if we adopted them in great number. But companies who want to sell them over here have to build them with better emissions, hence they have to innovate. I think there are many similar situations where government regulations have spurred inovation. But it is not innovation if you want yesterday tech, ie only fast and big. So in a sense I think those government regulations actually give incentive to companies to innovate - you have to improve to get a profit.
I don't think the government can solve all the problems out there, but there is a place for regulations and laws. Protests are not going to stop a power company from building a smoke stack in your back yard unless the government supports you either by way of law or general sympathy.
It's funny to read some of this back and forth banter. I just hope that those that only have half a brain (you know those that drive the gas guzzlers because the profess their freedom and rights and have that bumper sticker that says someting about prying the gun out of their cold dead hands...you know the type - they shop at walmart)have children that don't think the same way when they're adults. Well we probably won't have oil by then anyway and they'll have to find another place to put their gun rack...I can think of one place.
Ziggy,
Show a little respect and maturity and keep your insulting comments to yourself. There's no need for it on here.
And it's okay for Silver to call them idiots. Guess it must have been the walmart comment...that or the gunrack.
I find it funny. It's funny when Jeff Foxworthy says this stuff.
of course because of govt safety regulations traffic deaths are down, equipment like stability control is becoming standard on more cars etc.
Also those golf carts etc on roads are leading to more deaths now that people think they're a good car alternative with gas prices so high. So yeah, let's keep them off the road.
Govt is supposed to protect the public. That's part of its job.
I'm just confused about to whom ziggy was directing those comments to? I thought we were having a discussion about government regulation and the best way to overcome our gas and environment crises and he's bringing up walmart and gun racks?
It was mainly geared to those that believe the above comment:
Uh, screw that jazz. I don't want the "gummint" tellin' me how powerful of a car I can buy. If I buy a gas guzzler, than I pay more in gas taxes. Take that extra money and build a windmill.
Americans are just getting more and more willing to give up their freedoms. Pretty soon, that nanny state we've all been warned about will be here. No more Mustang GTs for you!
The only way to get much better fuel economy is to make cars ligher. Google "kinetic energy" if you want more details.
Unless you use expensive carbon fiber to build a car, cars will have to get smaller to become lighter. Small is Bad in an accident.
Small has less momentum and less iron.
At www.safersmallcars.com
I show an invention to make small cars safer.
Small is bad in an accident - have you seen the stats for the Smart car - very impressive!