Everyone’s looking for a solution to high gas prices. Well, here’s a novel concept: we could just use less fuel.

According to a new analysis from the Natural Resources Defense Council, increasing our average vehicle fleet efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon would save consumers $68 billion per year after 2030 when new mileage standards have been fully met.

By bumping up the fuel efficiency of our nation’s vehicles to that target, NRDC estimates that the amount of oil saved per day in 2030 would equal today’s combined imports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The emissions reductions would also be substantial — cutting enough carbon dioxide to equal the shut-down of 76 coal-fired power plants.

Last July, the White House announced a plan to increase fuel efficiency from 21 mpg today to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The targets, which would spur new manufacturing activity in America’s auto sector, had strong support from labor unions and most major auto manufacturers. Over the life of the program, the cumulative savings would be more than a trillion and a half dollars, according to the Obama Administration.

To date, these fuel efficiency standards are one of the most credible policy solutions to addressing high gas prices.

The “drill baby drill” crowd falsely believes that more fossil fuel extraction is the answer. But as numerous analyses have pointed out, including one from the Associated Press, more domestic drilling simply does not correlate with lower prices at the pump.

Excessive speculation is also a key target for many lawmakers. While some economists say speculation in the oil markets has raised oil prices by 15% in the last decade, any short term efforts to crack down on the problem don’t really address the real issue: Investors believe that oil prices will continue to go up, largely because of booming global demand, finite supply, and continued conflict around the world.

Alternatives to petroleum like electric vehicles and advanced biofuels are extraordinarily important and will be a major piece of the solution. However, these two sectors are facing a number of financial, technical and consumer-demand challenges, making the extent of their role still uncertain.

Increasing fuel efficiency standards is a proven, tangible solution that can help us reduce petroleum use and help save consumers money. Although such targets may increase the cost of a vehicle by as much as $2,000, NRDC estimates that the savings in gas use would be as high as $6,400 — netting consumers roughly $4,400 over the lifetime of a vehicle.

And Americans say they’d make the investment. Last year, Consumer Reports issued a poll showing that 58% of Americans were willing to pay more up front for an increase in fuel efficiency. Around the same time last year, the Consumer Federation of America released a survey showing that three quarters of Americans supported an increase in fuel economy standards, with a 65% wanting aggressive targets of 60 mpg by 2025.

With manufacturers, labor unions, and consumers all throwing their support behind fuel efficiency, this should be a policy solution that our nation’s policymakers should be able to agree on.

Submit Comments to California on Low Carbon Fuel Standard

Size of oil industry production investments and subsidies (globally) over the past five years (2006 to 2010).

by Simon Mui, in an NRDC Switchboard cross-post

NRDC has long supported efforts by companies to invest in cleaner technologies. We have started tracking oil industry investments in renewable fuels such as advanced biofuels, down to the company level. In a new analysis, NRDC compares those investments to traditional investments in conventional oil production and even dirtier unconventional sources such as tar sands.

For years, the oil industry has promoted itself as getting cleaner and investing in alternatives to oil. But when it comes to transportation fuels – still their main business – are  oil companies truly going green and investing in cleaner alternatives to oil?

NRDC to Oil Companies: “Actually, We Don’t Agree”

Based on our research of the overall industry, our conclusions is a resounding “NO”.  The oil industry as a whole has spent at least fifty (50x) times in producing more dirtier fuels sources such as tar sands than their entire global investments in producing renewable fuels. I note that this does not include oil industry investments in other dirtier fuel sources such as oil shale, extra-heavy oil, and coal to liquids.

Breaking it down on a global basis: the oil industry’s investment over the past five years amounted to

Read more

Tea Party Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) castigated electric cars on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show today, expressing his adamant opposition because, in the freshman’s words, “this is science that doesn’t make sense.”

Kelly, who was a wealthy car dealer before winning election in 2010, and Liddy spent the majority of the interview trading barbs about the Chevy Volt, a landmark American electric car produced by General Motors.

The Pennsylvania Republican said that the government ought not to help fund innovative renewable energy projects like the Volt because the “science [is] way out in front of the market.” Kelly went on to explain that “this is science that doesn’t make sense,” despite the fact that electric car technology has existed for nearly a century and was first developed by Henry Ford and Thomas Edison. He later declared that House Republicans “want to pull the plug on electric cars”:

KELLY: My problem with the Volt sir, and you and I have had this conversation. This is science that’s way out in front of the market. This is science that doesn’t make sense.

Listen to it:

Kelly’s opposition to subsidies appears to only include clean, renewable energies. In July, Kelly defended federal subsidies for oil and gas companies because “we want companies to be profitable.” The Tea Party Republican holds millions of dollars worth of stocks in Pennsylvania oil and gas companies.

In short, Kelly opposes funding clean energy projects because the science “doesn’t make sense,” but supports funding dirty energy because we want oil and gas companies “to be profitable.”

by Greg Rucks and Jesse Morris, Rocky Mountain Institute

In Reinventing Fire, Rocky Mountain Institute provides a blueprint for transforming transportation and freight services with uncompromised convenience, safety and performance using no oil by 2050.

But how do we get there? RMI lays out a five-step program for ending our oil addiction.

1. Shift to ultralight but ultrastrong autobodies

The virtues of a lightweight auto body with improved safety and performance are universally applicable to the many auto powertrain options now available or under development.  To cost-effectively electrify autos, automakers have begun to adopt lightweight bodies that enable a smaller powertrain and fewer, cheaper batteries or fuel cells to provide competitive range.

While incremental lightweighting, reductions in aerodynamic drag and tires with lower rolling resistance substantially improve fuel economy, the true potential of “Revolutionary+” autos that achieve 125-240 mpg equivalent is fully unlocked through the use of advanced materials—such as carbon fiber composites — paired with resulting savings in manufacturing.

2. Pursue innovative state or regional policies that boost the economics of Revolutionary+ vehicles

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

General Electric Co may lease costly vehicle batteries to electric-car buyers, joining other companies looking to get more people to buy alternative-energy automobiles.

The largest U.S. conglomerate is just at the “thinking stage” of such a move, said Mark Little, head of GE’s research and development efforts, on Friday at an event at Nissan Motor Co’s (7201.T) research center near Detroit….

A battery leasing program is a venture that could allow GE to show off its range of businesses, from its industrial core which could be influential in manufacturing the batteries, to its GE Capital finance arm which could support the leasing.

This could be a crucial strategy for keeping down the first cost of electric cars.  Cost is one of the biggest barriers to entry for any alternative fuel vehicle, but especially electrics, since batteries can add considerable cost upfront and take many years to pay for themselves.

Indeed, batteries continue to come down in price, and  the slow global economy continues to keep oil prices down.  In a decade, EVs  will be considerably more cost-effective, but  the key is to jumpstart the market now so you can start getting economies of scale and heading down the learning curve

A key reason this strategy may be viable is that there is likely to be a large aftermarket for these batteries.

Read more

The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (AVTM) program was created in 2008 under President Bush to provide loan guarantees for automakers producing next-generation vehicles. So far, the program has supported projects for ultra energy-efficient and electric vehicles, helping create jobs and enhance America’s competitiveness. But Congressional Republicans have proposed slashing funding from the AVTM program in order to set aside money for disaster relief.

Holding this program hostage sends the wrong message to businesses during these tumultuous economic times. We’ve compiled the top five reasons why stripping funding from the AVTM program to pay for disaster relief is a bad idea — plus a bonus reason at the end:

1. It creates jobs at a time when America needs them the most. The American economy experienced zero net job growth in August 2011. The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program (ATVM) directly created 39,000 jobs and is responsible for another 2,600 construction jobs in 11 states. An additional 18 loan applications in progress are projected to create 50,000 – 60,000 more jobs. Read more