This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In a study published in the journal Energy Economics , MIT researchers have found that a fuel economy standard is at least six to fourteen times less cost effective than a fueltax when targeting an identical reduction in cumulative gasoline use (20% by 2050).
Monthly data from the EIA shows that crude oil is 60% of the price of gasoline, 17% is refining costs, 12% is federal and state taxes, and 11% is distribution and marketing. Refined product prices are set by the marginal supply costs of bringing the incremental barrels of products to market.
Switching from the automotive standards to the trading scheme could save as much as €63 billion, says the study’s lead author Sergey Paltsev, deputy director at MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and senior research scientist at the MIT Energy Initiative. —Sergey Paltsev.
A bi-partisan Congressionally-created commission has recommended a shift from motor fueltaxes to direct fees charged to transportation infrastructure users—i.e., An ever-expanding backlog of investment needs is the price of our failure to maintain funding levels—and the cost of these investments grows as we delay. of GDP today.
The key to obtaining significant reductions in transportation-related GHG emissions is to increase the cost of driving. The economy-wide CO 2 prices applied increase the cost of driving only marginally with respect to the business-as-usual case. Adoption of all of the preceding policies.
BCG comparison of the CO 2 reduction potential and cost of different technologies. In addition, the cost to the consumer would be about $50 to $60 per percent CO 2 reduction—roughly half the cost of what was expected three years ago. Source: BCG. Click to enlarge.
New propulsion systems requiring new fuels, such as plug-in electric vehicle systems and fuel cell systems, are beyond the scope of this technology roadmap and are treated in separate roadmaps. Fuel economy standards are in place in most OECD member countries and China, and are helping to make important progress in these countries.
The nonpartisan US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that federal policies to promote the manufacture and purchase of electric vehicles, some of which also support other types of fuel-efficient vehicles, will have a total budgetary cost of about $7.5 billion through 2019. Possible future policies.
Currently there are no fuel consumption standards for such vehicles, which account for about 26% of the transportation fuel used in the US. The report does not recommend a specific numerical standard. This is called load-specific fuel consumption (LSFC).
Low running costs of electric vehicles would lead to extra demand for car transport and make necessary the taxation of electricity. measures: • Stringent CO2 standards for cars. A lack of stringent CO2 standards removes the main incentive for motor industry to invest in electrification. Popularity.
ISO/TS 16949 is the quality management system created by the International Organization of Standards to monitor the design, development, production and servicing of automotive components. When asked about battery product pricing, Donaghy replied “ Everyone wants to know price, we would agree that we need to get the cost of the energy down.
However, production costs of US corn-ethanol are very high. The gap between the intercept of the ethanol supply curve and the oil price creates large deadweight costs that may overwhelm any external benefits. However, production subsidies, import tariffs and sustainability standards do.
Average on-road fuel consumptions (tank to wheels) of the different propulsion systems in an average light-duty vehicle: 2010, 2030, and 2050. Values normalized to standard naturally-aspirated gasoline engine vehicle. Market-based incentives should be implemented to support the US Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) LDV requirements.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content