Technology and Economic Analysis in the Prepublication Version of the Report 'Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards' Letter Report (2002) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Letter Report
Letter Report
Pages 1-14
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
In doing so, it stresses the committee's desire that readers focus on averaged estimates for cumulative gains and costs instead of the upper and lower bounds, which reflect the increasing uncertainty of costs and benefits as fuel efficiency is increased. It also updates and explains the economic analysis presented in Chapter 4 of the prepublication version.
|
From page 2... ...
He pointed out that the ACEEE analysis, which was based on detailed energy balance simulation, predicted results similar to those in the committee's report when weight reduction was excluded. He also noted that inclustry's treatment of engine idle-off was inaccurate and that analysis of energy losses was a matter of engineering judgment as well as exact mathematics.
|
From page 3... ...
The committee still finds that "technologies exist that, if applied to passenger cars and light-duty trucks, would significantly reduce fuel consumption within ~ 5 years" and that "assessment of currently offered product technologies suggests that light-duty tmcks, including SUVs, pickups, and mini vans offer the greatest potential to reduce Sue} consumption, on a total-gallons-saved basis." The only changes to the findings and recommendations presented in the prepublication version are the references to the analyses presented in Chapters 3 and 4, which have been modified as discussed in the section "Technical Discussion," below, and Attachments A through E
|
From page 4... ...
, shows that the most optimistic upperbound estimate in the prepublication version exceeded aggressive development targets by less than ~ 0 percent. The same analysis suggests that if pumping losses were reduced to extremely low levels (due to unthrottled operation)
|
From page 5... ...
~ increases in vehicle price. Although the committee believes that its average estimates, as presented here, provide a reasonable approximation of the fuel economy levels attainable, it endorses its statement in the prepublication version namely, that changes to CAFE standards should not be based solely on this analysis.
|
From page 6... ...
Full analysis of systems effects, which might be better defined by more rigorous indivi~lual vehicle simulations, could suggest fuel economy improvements that are greater or less than the average estimates made by the committee. More accurate estimates would require detailed analyses of manufacturer-propr~etary technical information for individual vehicle models, engines, transmissions, calibration strategies, emissions control strategies, and other factors- information to which the committee has no access.
|
From page 7... ...
. The committee reaffirms its position in Finding 6 of the CAFE report: "The committee cannot emphasize strongly enough that the cost-efficient fuel economy levels identified in Chapter 4 are not recommended CAFE goals.
|
From page 8... ...
This approach allowed the committee to estimate potential changes in a wide variety of vehicle classes within the boundary conditions of the study. The committee notes that similar methods were used in the 1992 NRC analysis of automotive fuel economy potential (NRC, 1992)
|
From page 9... ...
In such a case, Mel economy levels higher than any of those estimated by the committee could become feasible. ~ Note that the economic analysis in Chapter 4, including that in the prepublication version, heavily weights the average but statistically considers the uncertainty represented by the high and low values.
|
From page 10... ...
. Several changes and corrections of minor errors in the prepublication version of the report also have been made.
|
From page 11... ...
ANALYSIS OF COST-EFFICIENT FUEL ECONOMY LEVELS The cost-efficient analysis (called the "break-even analysis" in Chapter 4 of the prepublication version but renamed the "cost-efficient analysis" in order to eliminate a source of confusion) depends on the results of the technical analysis.
|
From page 12... ...
Cost-efficient fuel economy levels represent the point at which the cost of another small increment in fuel economy equals the value of the fuel saved by that increment. They do not represent the point at which the total cost of improving Intel economy equals the total value of the fuel saved.
|
From page 13... ...
, Princeton, New Jersey Project Staff JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES) ALAN CRANE, Responsible Staff Officer, Effectiveness and Imp act of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
|
From page 14... ...
. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and cntical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.