ASPO 2010 Slides

8/7/2019 ASPO 2010 Slides

1/35

FUELSTANDARDFORTRUCKS:

CAVEATSANDIMPLICATIONSFOROILCONSUMPTION

Presented at theASPO 2010 World Oil ConferenceWashington, D.C., October 2010

RogerH.Bezdek,Ph.D.,President

ManagementInformationServices,Inc.Washington,D.C.,[email protected]


2/35

INTRODUCTION

In face of impending oil constraints, people demandthat governments do something!

Policy recommendation frequently made is increasedvehicle fuel efficiency standards

These currently exist for cars U.S. is currently developing these fuel standards for

trucks

This is extremely difficult and complex as I discuss

2


3/35

FUEL STANDARDS FOR TRUCKS

Fuel economy standards for trucks have never beendeveloped before

These will have major, long-lasting economic & oil effects in

U.S. and worldwide Here I:

-- Summarize National Academies of Science (NAS) study

-- Assess problems of developing these standards-- Discuss methods of truck fuel standard regulation

-- Note major recommendations made

-- Analyze pitfalls, caveats, and unintended consequences-- Estimate potential oil savings

3


4/35

BACKGROUND

Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007:

-- NHTSA must develop fuel economy standards for

medium duty & heavy duty (MDHD) trucks-- NHTSA hired NAS to assist I

served on NAS Committee

Chronology:

-- NAS work began 11-08; final

report 4-10

-- Presentations made to White House, NHTSA, EPA,DOE March-April 2010

-- Obama directive May 21, 2010: Standards will beissued by 7-31-11 & begin in MY 20144


5/35

ISSUES AND CAVEATS

NHTSA directive to NAS: Help develop standards, notassess whether they are needed

Are fuel efficiency standards for trucks needed?

CAFE justified: passenger cars not sensitive to fuel costs

However, trucking industry very cost sensitive:

-- Highly competitive

-- Fuel is major cost of doing business

-- Reacts to even small changes in fuel costs

-- Fuel efficiency has been increasing ~ 1%/year

CAFE point of reg.: Auto manufacturers; MDHD point ofreg. not clear

Nevertheless, NAS mandate: Help develop fuel

standards, not determine if they are required5
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://zeus.concordia.ca/jmannadiar/pics/dollar%20sign.gif&imgrefurl=http://zeus.concordia.ca/jmannadiar/&h=480&w=480&sz=14&hl=en&start=36&um=1&tbnid=gRTRosInMnih6M:&tbnh=129&tbnw=129&prev=/images?q=dollar+sign+picture&start=20&ndsp=20&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2005-49,SUNA:en&sa=N


6/35

MDHDs FUEL USE LARGE & INCREASING

MDHDs use 26% of all U.S. liquid trans fuels 30% by 2030

Truck Fuel Consumption

(80% used by large trucks)

6


7/35

FOCUSED ON VEHICLE & DUTY CYCLES

18 classes of trucks compared to 2 (cars & light trucks) for CAFE7


8/35

MANAGEABLE LEVEL OF DETAIL NEEDED

> 100 basic configurations listed by a singlemanufacturer

Many options within each configuration create 1,000sof potential truck specs

~ 10x range of vehicle mass

~ Dozen representative duty cycles Sales spread across ~ 10 major manufacturers,

final body fit by many more

Engine, chassis, driveline, body

from different manufacturers

8


9/35

MDHD FUEL USE DOMINATED BY

CLASS 8, CLASS 2B & CLASS 6

9


10/35

MDHD POWER AND ENERGY BASICS

10


11/35

ROADMAP FOR DIESEL HD 53%

THERMAL EFFICIENCY BY 2019

11


12/35

AERODYNAMIC EFFICIENCY

12

Aerodynamicsleepertractoraerofeatureidentification


13/35

WIDE-BASED SINGLE TIRES

13

New generation wide-based tires can increasefuel economy by 10% for combination trucks


14/35

TECHNOLOGIES & COSTS OF

REDUCING FUEL CONSUMPTION

14


15/35

WHO TO REGULATE?

15


16/35

METRICS OF FUEL CONSUMPTION

Metrics should be based on energy or fuel consumption i.e. equivalent diesel gal/cargo ton-mile

Metrics should incentivize subcomponent & total vehicledevelopment

Metrics should relate to the

transport task or vehicle vocation Metrics should encourage energy

conservation for given task

Fuel type used will likely change

over time

Energy density varies with fuel type

16


17/35

HOW TO REGULATE

Regulate final stage vehicle manufacturers since theyhave greatest control over vehicle design & major

subsystems that affect fuel consumption Establish fuel consumption metrics tied to task

associated with particular type

of MDHD

Set targets based on

improvements in vehicle

efficiency or trailer

changes to increase

cargo carrying capacity

17


18/35

CONGRESS: CONSIDER LIBERALIZING

WEIGHT & SIZE RESTRICTIONS

18

IllustrativeProjectionsofFuelConsumptionSavings


19/35

GOVT. R&D SUPPORT REQUIRED

Fed. Govt.: Support programs in industries, national labs, pvt.companies & universities to develop MDHD technologies forreducing fuel consumption

NHTSA: Engineering contract for vehicles covering severalapplications & approaches to component testing data inconjunction with simulation modeling to derive LSFC data

NHTSA: Pilot program to test drive certificationprocess & validate regulatory proof of concept

19


20/35

INDIRECT EFFECTS & EXTERNALITIES

Replacement rate of older vehicles Purchasing one class of vehicle in response to

regulatory change (vehicle class shifting) Fleet turnover impacts Increased ton-miles shipped

due to lower shipping cost Rebound effect Congestion & costs

Safety & incremental weightImpacts Environmental co-benefits

& costs20


21/35

INDIRECT EFFECTS & EXTERNALITIES

Fleet Turnover Effects

How will regs affect new vehicle prices,

operating costs & fleet turnover? Pre-Buy early purchase behavior

Low-Buy dip in purchases after

introduction of new vehiclesTon-Miles Traveled & Rebound Effect

Fuel consumption improvements can affect operating costs

Rebound effect cost reductions cause truck traffic increases,partially offsetting individual truck fuel saving

Recommendation: NHTSA conduct economic/paybackanalysis based on fuel usage by application & different fuelprice scenarios

21


22/35


23/35

FUEL TAXES v REGULATIONS

Tax affects incentives for all elements in freight transportationsystem & provides incentives for efficiency

Tax affects existing vehicles; standards affect only new ones

Fuel standard produces unintended consequences Tax will reduce miles driven, reducing congestion, accidents, etc.

Trucking industry is competitive: With tax-induced higher fuelprices, firms will optimize operations

Fuel taxes increase highway trust fund

Tax shows the additional costs imposed

on truck sector; standards obscure costs

Tax minimizes information needed by

regulators & gives incentives to firms

23


24/35


25/35

MDHDPETROLEUMCONSUMPTION,20082030

By2030,MDHDFuel ConsumptionReduced~10% 25%

Butnotice: Evenwithfuelstandardsenacted,significantoil

savingsdonotstartfor15years!25


26/35

PETROLEUMSAVINGS,20142030

By2030,totalU.S.OilConsumptionreducedby~2% 4%

By2030,regssaving~3%ofU.S.oil toolittle,toolate?26


27/35

CUMULATIVEPETROLEUMSAVINGS,20142030

27


28/35

IMPLICATIONS

Train has left the station: Regs in 10 months!

Regs are gift that keeps on giving

International implications Be informed read NAS report

Are regs necessary?

Regs may be effective But may not be cost-effective

Are there better ways to save oil?

Regs: Little impact for next 2 decades No silver bullet, but helpful

28


29/35

29

APPENDIX: NASCOMMITTEEMEMBERS

Dr. Andrew Brown, Jr.

Exec. Director & Chief Technologist

Delphi Corporation

Dr. Dennis AssanisProf. & Director, Auto Research Center

University of Michigan

Dr. Nigel Clark

Prof. & Director Center for Alternative Fuels,Engines & Emissions

West Virginia University

Duke Drinkard

VP, Maintenance (Ret.)

Southeastern Freight Lines

Lexington, SC 29073

Dr. Roger Fruechte

Director, Electrical & Controls Integration

LabGeneral Motors R&D (Ret.)

Dr. Roger Bezdek

President

Management Information Svcs.

Oakton, Virginia

Thomas Corsi

Director, Supply Chain Mgmt., Logistics,Business & Public Policies

University of Maryland

Dr. David Foster

Prof. & Director, Engine Research Center

University of Wisconsin

Dr. Ron Graves

Director, Fuels, Engines & EmissionsResearch Center

DOE/ORNL

Dr. John Johnson

Presidential ProfessorMichigan Tech University

Houghton, Michigan


30/35

30

APPENDIX: NASCOMMITTEEMEMBERS

Drew KodjakExecutive DirectorInternational Council on Clean

TransportationWashington, DC

Tom ReinhartProgram Manager, Engine Design &Development

Southwest Research Institute

Dr. James WinebrakeChair, Dept. of Science, Technology &Public PolicyRochester Institute of Technology

Dr. Martin ZimmermanChief Economist & Group VPFord Motor Company

David MerrionExec. VP, Detroit Diesel (Ret.)Detroit, Michigan

Dr. Charles SalterExec. Director, Engine Development (Ret.)Mack Trucks / Volvo Powertrain

John WoodrooffeHead, Transportation Safety AnalysisUniversity of Michigan TransportationInstitute

Garrick Hu

VP, Global Engineering (Ret.)Arvin Meritor

Aymeric RousseauManager, Advanced Powertrain VehicleModeling Team

Argonne National Research Lab


31/35

25 LARGEST PRIVATE FLEETS

31


32/35


33/35

WHOTOREGULATE?

33

Advantages&DisadvantagesofEachChoiceofRegulatedParty


34/35

COMPLEXITY OF TOTAL SYSTEM

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

34


35/35

MEASURING FUEL CONSUMPTIONIN PAYLOAD TERMS

(gallons/ton-mile) Load Specific Fuel Consumption: (LSFC)= FC/Payload in

Tons

FC = Fuel Consumption on a given cycle, gallons/100 miles

Recommendation: Use LSFC as metric & be based onaverage payload derived from national data representative of

classes & vehicle duty cycles

35

ASPO 2010 Slides

Documents

Transcript of ASPO 2010 Slides