TABLE H.4 Plausible Reductions in Petroleum Use from Vehicle Efficiency Improvements over the Next 25 Years and Estimated Incremental Cost of Advanced Vehicles Relative to a Baseline 2005 Standard Gasoline Vehicle

Propulsion System

Petroleum Consumption (gasoline equivalent)

Incremental Retail Price (2007 dollars)

Relative to Current Gasoline ICE

Relative to 2035 Gasoline ICE

Car

Light Truck

Current gasoline

1

0

0

Current diesel

0.8

1,700

2,100

Current HEV

0.75

4,900

6,300

2035 gasoline

0.65

1

2,000

2,400

2035 diesel

0.55

0.85

3,600

4,500

2035 HEV

0.4

0.6

4,500

5,500

2035 PHEV

0.2

0.3

7,800

10,500

2035 BEV

None

16,000

24,000

2035 hydrogen FCV

None

7,300

10,000

NOTE: BEV, battery electric vehicle; FCV, fuel cell vehicle; HEV, hybrid electric vehicle; ICE, internal combustion engine.

SOURCE: Report from the NRC Panel on Energy Efficiency (NAS-NAE-NRC, 2010) quoting Bandivadekar et al. (2008).

1.4 to provide representative retail price estimates (Evans, 2008). The timescales indicated for these future technology vehicles are not precise. The rate of price reduction will depend on the deployment rate (Bandivadekar et al., 2008; Evans, 2008).

The results in Table H.4 show that alternative powertrains such as improved gasoline and diesel engines and hybrids entering the fleet today cost from 10 percent to 30 percent more than a current gasoline vehicle. This price difference is estimated to drop to 5 percent to 15 percent in the midterm future. Longer-term options such as plug-in hybrid and FCVs are estimated to cost between 25 and 30 percent more than a future gasoline vehicle. Battery electric vehicles with standard vehicle performance and size remain costly, approaching double the cost of a future gasoline vehicle. A more plausible market opportunity for BEVs is small city cars with reduced range. However, these also will need significantly improved battery performance and battery costs to become competitive.

Based on the estimates in Table H.4, the NRC energy efficiency panel concludes that evolutionary improvements in gasoline ICE vehicles are likely to prove the most costeffective way to reduce petroleum consumption. Since these vehicles will be sold in large quantities in the near term, it is critical that their efficiency improvements are directed toward reducing fuel consumption. While the current hybrids appear less competitive than a comparable diesel vehicle, they are likely to become more cost competitive over time. PHEVs, BEVs, and FCVs appear to be more costly alternatives for reducing petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Among these three technologies, PHEVs are likely to become available in the near to midterm, whereas BEVs and FCVs are mid- to long-term alternatives.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

An, F., and D. Santini. 2004. Mass impacts on fuel economies of conventional vs. hybrid electric vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2004-01-0572. SAE International, Warrendale, Pa.

An, F., J.M. DeCicco, and M.H. Ross. 2001. Assessing the Fuel Economy Potential of Light-Duty Vehicles. SAE International, Warrendale, Pa.

Bandivadekar, A.P. 2008. Evaluating the Impact of Advanced Vehicle and Fuel Technologies in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet. Ph.D. thesis. MIT Engineering Systems Division, Cambridge, Mass.

Bandivadekar, A., K. Bodek, L. Cheah, C. Evans, T. Groode, J. Heywood, E. Kasseris, K. Kromer, and M. Weiss. 2008. On the Road in 2035: Reducing Transportation’s Petroleum Consumption and GHG Emissions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Cambridge, Mass. July.

Cheah L., C. Evans, A. Bandivadekar, and J. Heywood. 2007. Factor of Two: Halving the Fuel Consumption of New U.S. Automobiles by 2035. LFEE Report 2007-04 RP. MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment. Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/cheah_factorTwo.pdf.

Duleep, K. 2007. The Hydrogen Transition and Competing Automotive Technology. Presentation to National Research Council Panel on Fuel Cell Vehicles and Hydrogen on April 18, Washington, D.C.

EEA (Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.). 2007. Update for Advanced Technologies to Improve Fuel Economy of Light Duty Vehicles. Draft Final Report. Submitted to U.S. Department of Energy. EEA, Washington, D.C. August.

Evans, C. 2008. Putting Policy in Drive: Coordinating Measures to Reduce Fuel Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Light-Duty Vehicles. M.S. Thesis, Technology and Policy Program. June. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Heywood, J.B. 2007. Strategies to Reduce Transportation Petroleum Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Presentation at FreedomCAR and Fuels Program Meeting.

Johnson, T. 2008. Diesel Emission Control Technology in Review. SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-0069. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa. April.

Kasseris, E.P., and J.B. Heywood. 2007. Comparative Analysis of Automotive Powertrain Choices for the Next 25 Years. SAE International, Warrendale, Pa.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement