The U.S. burns 13 million barrels of oil a day for transportation. Most of this oil powers cars and light trucks. By 2050, the U.S. is expected to burn upwards of 17 million barrels of oil a day for transportation alone.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010. Annual Energy Outlook 2010. Washington DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Automakers' profit margin typically hangs around 1% (in the U.S., 0.4%), far below the oil industry’s. The 2007–2008 global financial crisis sharply cut sales of new vehicles and the financial stability of the U.S. Big 3 auto manufacturers (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler).

Sources: Storey, Jonathan and Automotiveworld.com. The World's Car Manufacturers: An operating & financial review - 13th Edition. United Kingdom: Automotiveworld.com.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. T-5, Consolidated Statement of Income for Financial Reporting System Companies, U.S. and Foreign Petroleum Segments. Washington DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

This chart shows why less than 0.5% of the energy in a typical modern auto’s fuel actually moves the driver, and only 5–6% moves the auto. An auto's weight is responsible for more than two-thirds of the energy needed to move it. All told, 86% of the fuel energy never reaches the wheels.

Source: Sovran, G. et al. 2003. Contribution to Understanding Automotive Fuel Economy and Its Limits. Warrendale, PA: SAE International.

Lightweight autos needn’t cost more. The MY 2010 U.S. new-car fleet shows little or no correlation between lighter weight and higher prices.

Source: America Online. 2011. "New and Used Car Listings, Car Reviews and Research Guides - AOL Autos." America Online.

Autos in the U.S. have increased in weight by 16% since 1986 to an average of 3,533 lb. in 2009. Cars have also gotten denser, rising 14%—from 28 to 32 lb per interior cubic foot. Yet since 1986, U.S. adults got only 8% heavier.

Sources: U.S EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2010. “Light-duty Automotive Technology and Fuel-Economy Trends: 1975–2009; Table 2." Washington DC: U.S EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
Ogden, C.L., C.D. Fryar, M.D. Carroll and K.M. Flegal. 2004. Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index, United States, 1960–2002. National Institutes of Health.
McDowell, M.A., C.D. Fryar, C.L. Ogden and K.M. Flegal. 2008. Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2003–2006. National Institutes of Health.

Powertrain efficiency from tank to wheels can't exceed 1.0, and is around 0.17 in a typical modern car or 0.35 in a good "full hybrid," but the energy needed to move the car can be reduced severalfold by making it lighter and more slippery.

Source: Ross, Marc. 1997. “Fuel Efficiency and the Physics of Automobiles.” Contemporary Physics. Vol. 38 no 6: 381-394.

Each 10% decrease in an auto’s aerodynamic drag can raise its fuel economy by very roughly 3%.

Source: RMI analysis

As with lightweight autos, more aerodynamic autos needn’t cost more. A survey of currently available autos shows that lower drag vehicles, as a whole, cost no more than less aerodynamic ones.

Every 10% decrease in an auto’s weight can raise fuel economy by roughly 6%.

Losses due to rolling resistance are higher for heavier vehicles than for autos. In a Class 8 tractor trailer at 65 mph, 13% of fuel is lost to rolling resistance. Wide base single tires save about half of that today, more with next-generation tires.

It costs little or no more to purchase tires with dramatically improved rolling resistance. Going from the least to most efficient tires improves fuel economy by over 8%.

Source: The California Energy Commission. 2010. "California Fuel Efficient Tire Program and Proceeding - 07 -FET-1 (formerly 02-FET-1).” The California Energy Commission.

Our Revolutionary auto class is based on RMI’s extensive work on the Hypercar. We use a cost model for superefficient battery-electric and fuel cell autos for both cars and light trucks. These vehicles, described in this table, are designed to compete with EIA’s average automobile in price and all driver attributes.

Sources: Lovins, Amory B. and David R. Cramer. 2004. “Hypercars, hydrogen, and the automotive transition.” International Journal of Vehicle Design, Vol. 35 No. 1/2. Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. link
Kromer, Matthew, and John Heywood. 2007. Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet. Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

Carbon fiber material supply is currently increasing by 9–10 million pounds per year. Demand began a 10-fold increase with Boeing’s and Airbus’s new carbon-intensive airplane orders in 2005.

Source: Warren, Dave. 2010. Low Cost Carbon Fiber Overview. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The carbon fiber manufacturing market is very concentrated; six companies produce nearly 93% of the world’s supply of carbon fiber.

Source: Warren, Dave. 2010. Low Cost Carbon Fiber Overview. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The carbon fiber manufacturing market is very concentrated; six companies produce nearly 93% of the world’s supply of carbon fiber.

Automotive manufacturing costs can be cut by 80% with carbon fiber-based autos vs. steel-based ones due to greatly reduced tooling and simpler assembly and joining. However, such cost savings are currently overshadowed with carbon fiber material prices upwards of $16/lb.

Sources: Fuchs, Erica R. H., Frank R. Field, Richard Roth, and Randolph E. Kirchain. 2008. “Strategic Materials Selection in the Automobile Body: Economic Opportunities for Polymer Composite Design.” Composites Science and Technology 68 (9): 1989–2002.
Boeman, Raymond G., and N. L. Johnson. 2002. Development of a Cost Competitive, Composite Intensive, Body-in-White. Publication 2002-01-1905. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Raw carbon fiber is made from either polyacrylonitrile (PAN) or a petroleum pitch precursor. Rayon was used prior to the development of PAN. These fossil-fuel-based materials come from petroleum refining or natural gas processing.

Source: Flake C. Campbell, Jr. 2004. Manufacturing processes for advanced composites. vol. 13. Elsevier.

Carbon fiber costs are primarily driven by manufacturing. Within the manufacturing process, petroleum-based precursors account for just over half the cost of carbon fiber. Across the industry, manufacturing costs are dominated by the high cost of carbon fiber precursor materials.

Sources: McKinsey & Co. 2003.New Horizons: Multinational Company Investment in Developing Economies. McKinsey & Co.
B: Warren, Dave. 2010. Low Cost Carbon Fiber Overview. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The Hypercar (shown) achieved 53% curb-mass reduction without compromising safety. Its 14-part structure was much simpler than its typical 100–200 part counterparts made of steel and aluminum. A paper by Oak Ridge National Laboratory drafted a concept of a composite intensive body-in-white with 18 parts. Its concept had over a 60% mass reduction, also with uncompromised safety.

Sources: Lovins, A.B. and Rocky Mountain Institute. 1996. Hypercars: Materials, manufacturing, and policy implications. Rocky Mountain Institute. 2 vols.
Boeman, Raymond G., and N. L. Johnson. 2002. Development of a Cost Competitive, Composite Intensive, Body-in-White. Publication 2002-01-1905. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Lovins, Amory B., and David Cramer. 2004. “Hypercars, Hydrogen, and the Automotive Transition.” International Journal of Vehicle Design 35 (1): 50–85.

Crash-safety risk with lightweight materials in automotive applications is only perceived, not supported by evidence. Lighter autos are actually safer than heavier ones the same size.

Source: Van Auken, R.M. and J.W. Zellner. January, 2003. “A Further Assessment of the Effects of Vehicle Weight and Size Parameters on Fatality Risk in Model Year 1985–98 Passenger Cars and 1985–97 Light Trucks.” Torrance: Dynamic Research, Inc.

Composites have dramatically improved energy absorption over both steel and aluminum. Composite-based crush cones and similar structures built into autobodies can absorb 120, even up to 240, kJ/kg, vs. about 20 for steel. Crush properties can also be optimized by mixing costlier carbon fiber with cheaper materials like fiberglass.

Source: G. C Jacob et al. 2002. “Energy absorption in polymer composites for automotive crashworthiness.” Journal of Composite Materials 36, no. 7: 813

Some autos currently on the market display specific aspects of Revolutionary design, and are progressing on the path towards truly Revolutionary autos.

Source: RMI analysis

Different powertrains have different cost reduction potential for Revolutionary+ autos. By 2020, for example, battery electric vehicles would be priced about $6,000 higher than business-as-usual autos as forecasted by EIA. However, by 2050, this price difference drops to $500 due to learning curves in carbon fiber, structural manufacturing, and battery packs.

Sources: Kromer, Matthew, and John Heywood. 2007. Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet. LFEE.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010. Annual Energy Outlook 2010. Washington DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration, May 11.
Fuchs,E., F. Field, R. Roth, R. Kirchain.2008. “Strategic Materials Selection in the Automobile Body: Economic Opportunities for Polymer Composite Design.” Composites Science and Technology 68 (9):1989–2002.
Warren, Dave. 2010. Low Cost Carbon Fiber Overview. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Boeman, Raymond G., and N. L. Johnson. 2002. Development of a Cost Competitive, Composite Intensive, Body-in-White. Publication 2002-01-1905. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The cost of the Revolutionary+ auto decreases over time because we assume that battery electric and fuel cell propulsion costs fit empirically observed learning curves analogous to the history of hundreds of diverse manufactured goods.

Source: Kromer, Matthew, and John Heywood. 2007. Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet. Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

Without a feebate (top graphs), no Revolutionary+ vehicles are adopted, since their first three years’ cost of ownership exceeds that of incrementally more efficient "evolutionary" vehicles. With a feebate (bottom graphs), Revolutionary+ vehicles become cost-competitive with evolutionary ones, driving their adoption instead.

Source: See Reinventing Fire Transportation Methodology for modeling details

Feebates are necessary for Revolutionary+ autos to be adopted because of their initial price premium. However, even after feebates are adopted and the U.S. begins to move off of oil, speeding EIA’s factory retooling rate by a few years could move U.S. autos completely off of oil by 2050.

Source: See Reinventing Fire Transportation Methodology for modeling details

Estimates in Reinventing Fire for VMT reduction potential are drawn from several studies and reports. As a conservatism, our modeling results draw upon the lower range of each estimate.

Source: Urban Land Institute. 2007. Growing Cooler: Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute.
(part 2): Urban Land Institute and Cambridge Systematics. 2009. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing GHG Emissions. Urban Land Institute.
Oregon DOT. 2007. Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program. Oregon Department of Transportation.
(part 2): Litman, Todd. 2005. “Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing and Insurance Regulatory Objectives.” Journal of Insurance Regulation 23 (3).
Urban Land Institute and Cambridge Systematics. 2009. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing GHG Emissions. Urban Land Institute.
TIAX. 2006. The Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact of Telecommuting and E-Commerce. Cambridge, MA: TIAX LLC.
Shaheen, Susan, and Adam Cohen. 2006. “Carsharing in North America: Market Growth, Current Developments, and Future Potential.” Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies No. 1986: 9

Nearly 77% of U.S. job commuting is by single-person auto. Smart firms are finding many better options.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2010. "Table 10: Principal Means of Transportation to Work."

Economist Charles Komanoff calculated that in New York City each additional vehicle that joins traffic during rush hour costs society approximately $150 (not a typo!).

Source: Felix, Salmon. 2010. “The Man Who Could Unsnarl Manhattan Traffic.” WIRED magazine.

Even if we all drove superefficient Revolutionary+ vehicles, our transportation system would still suffer from serious congestion, highway accidents, and infrastructure shortages. One way to combat these problems is to develop pricing mechanisms that flatten morning and afternoon commuting peaks that are shown in this graph.

Source: Inrix. 2008. INRIX National Traffic Scorecard: The Impact of Fuel Prices on Consumer Behavior and Traffic Congestion. Inrix.

he Center for Neighborhood Technology has developed an interactive online tool that illustrates what we pay to live far away from work, play, or school. In this example, the Atlanta area has far less affordable housing when transportation costs are added to bare housing costs.

Source: For more information, visit http://htaindex.cnt.org/.

The carsharing industry has grown significantly in the past three years and offers major business opportunities. Carsharing membership is expected to reach 4.4 million in North America by 2016.

Source: David Zhao. 2010. "Carsharing: A Sustainable and Innovative Personal Transport Solution with Great Potential and Huge Opportunities.” Frost & Sullivan.

Short sea shipping could save heavy trucks’ fuel by shifting ton-miles onto ships and waterborne highways that travel up and down our coasts and interior waterways. This would reverse durable trends toward truck freight.

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2007. National Transportation Statistics, table 1-46b, “U.S. Ton-Miles of Freight.” Washington DC: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Better design can save up to 45% of U.S. heavy truck fuel, or 1.7 Mbbl/d in 2050, at a weighted-average cost equivalent to $1.00-per-gallon diesel fuel.

Source: Bockholt, Wendy, and Matthew Kromer. 2009. Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. TIAX LLC.
NESCCF, SwRI, and TIAX. 2009. Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions. Boston, MA: NESCCF; Washington DC and San Francisco: ICCT.
Vyas, A., C. Saricks, and F. Stodolsky. 2002. The Potential Effect of Future Energy-Efficiency and Emissions: Improving Technologies on Fuel Consumption of Heavy Trucks. Argonne, IL: Center for Transportation Research.

Integrating four major aerodynamic features can save about 10% of heavy trucks’ fuel: a nearly sealed tractor-trailer gap, full skirting of the tractor and trailer, a rear drag reducing device, and optimized cab shape with minimal aerodynamic discontinuities.

Source: Bockholt, Wendy, and Matthew Kromer. 2009. Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. TIAX LLC.

Line haul trucks waste a great deal of fuel idling their engines overnight to power small “hotel loads” that cool, heat, and power personal electronics within truck cabs. Auxiliary power units reduce this use by two-thirds; electrified parking spaces eliminate it.

Source: Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future, International Council on Clean Transportation, Southwest Research Institute, and TIAX. 2009. Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions. Boston, MA: NESCCF

As with light duty vehicles, lightweighting trucks reduces tractive load. Over 2,800 lb of weight reduction potential is available, lowering the tare weight so more cargo can be carried by fewer trucks.

Source: Vyas, A., C. Saricks, and F. Stodolsky. 2002. The Potential Effect of Future Energy-Efficiency and Emissions: Improving Technologies on Fuel Consumption of Heavy Trucks. Argonne, IL: Center for Transportation Research.

Parasitic loads are generated by accessories that run the engine or provide power to vehicle systems like cooling fans, alternator, actuators, power steering, air brake compressors, and liquid pumps. Serving these loads more efficiently can reduce heavy trucks’ total fuel use by 3–7% at minimal cost.

Source: Bockholt, Wendy, and Matthew Kromer. 2009. Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. TIAX LLC.

Trains can move four times more ton-miles per gallon than trucks, typically at lower cost. Rail intermodal systems, where trains move shipments over medium to long distances and trucks move goods to final destinations, could save upwards of 25% of heavy truck fuel by 2050—perhaps even 60–80%.

Sources: SmartWay Transport Partnership. 2004. A Glance at Clean Freight Strategies: Intermodal Shipping. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Brown, Thomas and Anthony Hatch. 2002. The Value of Rail Intermodal to the U.S. Economy. Strategic Directions LLC.

Coal currently dominates U.S. rail shipments. If rail intermodal is to expand across the country, trains will need to free up capacity by shipping less coal. This potential is presented in the Renew and Transform cases within Reinventing Fire’s electricity sector.

Source: American Association of Railroads. 2010. "Railroad Statistics."

Compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) hold great promise over the near and medium-term, especially for buses, medium duty vehicles, centrally fueled fleets, and even class 8 heavy trucks.

Sources: Wellkamp, Nick and Daniel Weiss. 2010.American Fuel: Developing Natural Gas for Heavy Vehicles. Center for American Progress.
Krupnick, Alan. 2010.Energy, Greenhouse Gas, and Economic Implications of Natural Gas Trucks. Resources for the Future and the National Energy Policy Institute.
Michael Ogburn. 2010. Email communication. “CNG/LNG and dual fuel engines.”

Our airplane efficiency gain is derived from studies of new airplane designs within each of the major airplane size classes: narrowbody, widebody, and regional. Efficiency gains for each future airplane design are relative to existing 2010 designs.

Sources: The Boeing Company. 2010. “Boeing Begins Assembly of First 747-8 Intercontinental." The Boeing Company. link
NASA and MIT. 2010.NASA N+3 MIT Team Final Review. NASA Langley Research Center; Kawai, Ronald T, Douglas M Friedman, and Leonel Serrano. 2006.Blended Wing Body Boundary Layer Ingestion Inlet Configuration and System Studies. NASA.
Frank Gern et al. 2005. “Transport Weight Reduction through MDO: The Strut-Braced Wing Transonic Transport.” Toronto, Ontario, CA: AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit.
NASA and MIT. 2010.NASA N+3 MIT Team Final Review. NASA Langley Research Center; Bushnell, Dennis M. February 2010. Email Communication.
Royal Aeronautical Society. 2010.Air Travel—Greener by Design Annual Report 2009–2010. Royal Aeronautical Society.
Daggett, David L. 2002. Ultra Efficient Engine Technology Systems Integration and Environmental Assessment. NASA.

Decades of improvements in airplane efficiency, logistics, and load factor slashed the fuel burned per seat by 82% during 1958–2010. Compared to early airliners like the Comet 4, engine fuel consumption has dropped by nearly 50%.

Source: Air Transport Action Group. 2010. Beginner’s Guide to Aviation Efficiency. Air Transport Action Group

Considering historical technology adoption in aviation and entry into service dates for advanced airplanes, the majority of today’s planes could be replaced with more efficient versions by 2050.

Source: Walker, Matt. 2009. "Vine seeds become 'giant gliders'."BBC Earth News.

Even with Reinventing Fire’s 2050 outlook on oil use, the nation will still need 3.1 million bbl/d of liquid fuel (minus any natural gas used in trucks). While they can't be cost-effectively electrified, planes and heavy trucks can run on second and third generation biofuels that can be produced in sufficient supply at costs below $80/barrel oil equivalent.

Sources: Thomas G Kreutz, et al. 2008. Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and Biomass. Princeton Environmental Institute.
(part 2): U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010. U.S. EIA Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2010: Petroleum Market Module. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Bain, R.L. 2007. "World Biofuels Assessment: Worldwide Biomass Potential Technology Characterizations." National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
(part 2):U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010. U.S. EIA Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2010: Petroleum Market Module. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Key inputs to our biofuel model for key second-generation biofuel conversion processes are outlined in this table.

Sources: Thomas G Kreutz, et al. 2008. Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and Biomass. Princeton Environmental Institute.
Bain, R.L. 2007. World Biofuels Assessment: Worldwide Biomass Potential Technology Characterizations. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010. "U.S. EIA Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2010: Petroleum Market Module". U.S. Energy Information Administration.

America's vast transportation system can continue growing and improving all without oil. In 2050 we’d rely on superefficient, lightweight vehicles and planes to move ourselves and our goods. For the remaining 3.1 Mbbl/d of liquid fuel demand not supplied by electric propulsion systems, 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels (or, in trucks, natural gas if desired) could be substituted for oil.

Source: See Reinventing Fire Transportation Methodology for modeling details

America's vast transportation system can continue growing and improving all without oil. In 2050 we’d rely on superefficient, lightweight vehicles and planes to move ourselves and our goods. For the remaining 3.1 Mbbl/d of liquid fuel demand not supplied by electric propulsion systems, 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels (or, in trucks, natural gas if desired) could be substituted for oil.

Source: See Reinventing Fire Transportation Methodology for modeling details

Transitioning to a more efficient transportation system by 2050 will cost, all told, $2 trillion in 2010 present value, but will save $5.8 trillion. This includes the cost of building the distribution infrastructure needed to support a fleet of autos running on a mix of electricity and hydrogen, less avoided investments in domestic oil supply.

Source: See Reinventing Fire Transportation Methodology for modeling details

For autos in particular, the savings from investing in Revolutionary+ vehicles can be clearly observed between 2027 and 2050.

Source: See Reinventing Fire Transportation Methodology for modeling details