What I read was kind of interesting. I question this conclusion given our current crop of gas engines:
In the short term, the development of a retrofit carburetor device for all cars, that reclaims or transmutes the carbon from the exhaust, can drastically reduce the emissions of CO2 from transportation vehicles. (The transportation sector presently contributes to 33% of the carbon emissions.) Preliminary results from this type of device shows a dramatic improvement in mileage as well, making it attractive for consumers
This briefing from 2000 claims the last administration blocked or stifled new sources of non polluting energy. The thrust of the message I read was that the Patent Office which falls under the Secretary of Commerce & the DOE were responsible for blocking new inventions that would help solve our energy dependence. It all sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory. Though I am open to hear more on the subject. I am a firm believer that any device that will save energy will find entrepreneurs with money to invest.
The report also dwells on Cold Fusion like it was a done deal. As far as I can tell with hundreds of Universities around the World experimenting with cold fusion, it is still the holy grail in the quest to get something for nothing.
Just as I think the 35 MPG mandate is so much political hokum.
I have a '08 F250 6.4 liter powerstroke deisel that gets 10 to 13mpg. I have a '99 F250 7.3 liter powerstroke that gets 16 to 20mpg. It looks like its getting worse to me.
I am looking for a clean pre 1995 Ford Powerstroke. Much more reliable engines with driving care would get better MPG than the current crop loaded with emissions stuff. Lots of people in CA take all the smog stuff off as they are not tested for emissions.
I predict that in 20 years we will all be pushing our electric cars back and forth to work while Al Gore drives past in his stretch limo laughing at us. :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
If Bush had any control over the price of oil he would have used it. He does not want to leave office on any more of a sour note than he already will.
Today, I agree he has no control on the oil prices but a few years back while his approving the GOPs version of the energy bills, they could of put us in a much better position in utilizing more alternatives for gasoline such as ethanol. They could of mandated across the board a 10%-15% per volume of gasoline, ethanol to eliveate production pressures or even gas prices. They could of created a Strategic Ethanol Reserve to be used in times of high expense or shortages in gasoline. There's other types of fuels such as diesels or other technologies such as hybrids, electric vehicles they could of pushed for in the short term.
Now they're starting to do introduce some of these new technology vehicles. I was involved in a presentation on the new type of Lithium-Ion batteries which utilize a Nano-phospate chemistry internally inside the battery. Supposedly this new variant of the lithium-ion batt packs more punch, lasts longer, and is safer than the standard Lithium-ion batteries. Perfect for the new all electric vehicles.
This same company named, A123 Systems, offers a plug in package for your standard hybrid battery pack in which extends your current hybrid mileage by 50%. So there are some new and exciting alternatives which could eventually saves us gas and money in the short term. If these were started or implemented a few years back I believe we would of been in a much better position today.
In order to bring down the price of oil you need to reduce the demand and have a competing fuel other than oil.
kdhsypder: Why would you want to drive an 18 mpg truck for example that uses 55 gal per 1000 miles when in 2020 you will be 'forced' to drive a similar truck that unfortunately gets 26 mpg and uses only 38 gal per 1000 miles. Do you hate money so much that you'd want to drive the less efficient vehicle?
Becomes you are assuming that the more efficient vehicle will have all of the capabilities of current vehicles, which is quite a jump.
If you doubt that, try to tow an Airstream trailer with any passenger car built today. I remember standard early 1970s Impalas, Delta 88s and Galaxies easily performing that duty. Think an Accord, even one with the V-6, can do it?
Plus, saving fuel is not always the end-all and the be-all of driving. I could save fuel by toddling along at 55 mph, or driving a Fit instead of an Accord, but I like a driving 80 mph on limited access highways, and will continue to do so, and I like driving a larger vehicle. It is more pleasurable and worth the extra cost.
kdhsypder: I agree wholeheartedly about the market being the driving force in changing our behavior patterns. This is exactly the point I was making, CAFE has nothing to do with changing our buying pattern. But what you're missing is.. what will be our choices when we do change our patterns?
We won't change our patterns overnight. The automakers are working now to adapt to changing buyer preferences. And if CAFE has nothing to do with changing our buying patterns, why not let the consumers decide whether they want to buy more efficient vehicles? If consumers want them, the auto makers will provide them.
kdhspsyder: Let's hypothesize that fuel has ratcheded up to $8 per gallon by 2020 and that in the absence of CAFE 35 nothing has changed in the intervening 12 years as regards to fuel economy. Todays 18 mpg gasser trucks are still being offered as 18 mpg gassers. At that time if one is tired of paying $8 x 25 for a fillup on a 12 y.o. truck, without specific pressure on the vehicle makers to meet a new FE standard then IMO ( admittedly ) one's choices will still be 18 mpg gasser trucks.
A flawed scenario for several reasons. One, we won't go to bed one night with gas at $2.50 a gallon and wake up the next day to $8 for a gallon of unleaded. These changes will occur over time. People will have adjusted their buying patterns.
Two, if people adjust their buying patterns, the auto makers will work to bring vehicles to market that meet their desires. Or, they will go broke. They are, after all, in business to make money by producing vehicles that people want.
Three, if there are still 18 mpg trucks still on the market after gas prices have been rising steadily to $8 a gallon, then people obviously still want them, and don't care if gas is $8 a gallon, so they have every right to buy them, and companies have every right to manufacture and sell them.
kdhspyder: Wanting to save fuel, that driver would have to move down to an auto or a small 4c truck ( the market for the price of fuel has changed his buying pattern ).
Yes the market price for fuel has changed his buying pattern, so, therefore, companies will work to make something that he wants, all without CAFE.
kdhspyder: But at which autos will he be looking? Without pressure to make more efficient vehicles his choices will be the same in 2020 as they are today as they were in 1998 as they were in 1992; i.e. 30 mpg midsizers and 35 mpg compacts.
That is pure speculation. Plus, rising prices will provide pressure to improve efficiency. Some, however, will decide that they place more emphasis on power, cargo capacity, etc., and therefore will pay the extra for fuel. That is their business, not yours, or mine.
kdhspyder: Here is the key point: CAFE 35 makes it certain that the 2020 buyer that's reacting to market forces which are changing his buying pattern will have the following new vehicle choices.... ..a 28 mpg truck ( to replace his 18 mpg truck ) ..a 35 mpg crossover ( iso a 23 mpg vehicle today ) ..a 40 mpg midsizer ( iso a 30 mpg vehicle today ) ..a 50 mpg compact ( iso a 35 mpg vehicle today ) ..a 60+ mpg ultra efficient ( iso a 45 mpg vehicle today )
The whole range of vehicles being offered in 2020 will be significantly better in fuel economy than today's models. The math ensures it. The fact that it's a national regulation doubly ensures it. It's not being left to the good will and generosity of the corporate bean counters and planners.
If gasoline prices are that much higher, as I explained, then the market will have reacted long before any CAFE regulations have taken effect. If not, then CAFE was unnecessary.
kdhspyder: I don't disagree here except that by past performance the vehicle makers are not paradigms of foresight, good planning and concern for the national welfare. They are primarily concerned with their own ( shortterm ) welfare. Unfortunately.
They are in business to give people what they want, not what activists or anyone else thinks that people SHOULD want. During the 1990s, we wanted power, size, room and more refinement (increased control of noise, vibration and harshness, which requires a stiffer structure, and, thus, more weight).
We also wanted more safety equipment and better crashworthiness, which were also mandated by the government.
Auto makers manufactured vehicles that provided those attributes, just as they were supposed to.
They could of mandated across the board a 10%-15% per volume of gasoline, ethanol to eliveate production pressures or even gas prices.
I guess I will just have to disagree with you. When it takes 1 gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol, you are not gaining on imported oil at all. Not to mention all the negatives to the environment caused by expanded corn crops. I would be the first to admit the Energy bills in both 2005 and 2007 were a total JOKE. Meant to appease a bunch of flaky environmental groups and big business. They did accomplish what the lobbyist paid for. The big losers in the whole mess was working Americans.
Perfect for the new all electric vehicles.
That is a pretty broad statement. How could the technology have been put into place any sooner? The EV-1 mandated in CA was a multi billion dollar boondoggle that ended up on the scrap heap. We did get NiMH battery technology from that. So how were we to implement Li-Ion technology any sooner than we are? It is still in the experimental stages of development. It is still not even close to cost effective. With oil at $110 per barrel and gas at $4 per gallon you cannot justify the cost of a hybrid or EV with Li-Ion batteries. I have wanted an electric vehicle for running errands for several years. CA puts a roadblock on them. By the time EPA, NHTSA and CARB have their say we will be very lucky to get anything that is usable in an EV or PHEV.
In order to bring down the price of oil you need to reduce the demand and have a competing fuel other than oil.
I agree with you on that statement. The only thing I have seen come out even close is biodiesel. We are just about to the point that it is competitive with Fossil diesel. Ethanol is not even close. Ethanol would be dead if not for the very heavy subsidies to the Mega Ag corn growers and production.
I am in full agreement with your last two posts. The market will decide not CAFE what people want or need to drive. Congress in their flawed thinking, believe they can mandate changes in the laws of physics.
I am in full agreement with your last two posts. The market will decide not CAFE what people want or need to drive. Congress in their flawed thinking, believe they can mandate changes in the laws of physics.
I differ, the the laws of physics in which I am very familiar with are there. SUVs and cars can meet the cafe statndards very easily with-in the time frame. If the CAFE standards were not in place the car manufactures and oil companies will have their way and bilk the american consumer like what they are doing today.
I beleive in the free markets, but, only up to a point. Unchecked free markets, their ultimate goal is to make pure profits no matter what path the market will take. The goverment should be there not to own it or to control it but rather to steer it, especially for the critical sector such as energy. I think the CAFE standards steer the industries by law to insure the manufactures provide fuel efficient vehicles to us the american consumer for our national security, environment and our economic well being.
Ethanol gagrice So, can you answer how many gallons of gas is used to produce one gallon of gasoline??? Keeping in mind, finding, drilling, extracting, shipping, refining, then distrubiting the gas. You know I bet we use more gas to produce it the we get out of it.
SUVs and cars can meet the cafe statndards very easily with-in the time frame.
Time will tell. I think the sale of large SUVs went in the tank before the energy bill was passed. It was a direct result of the gas prices. If the automakers want to continue to sell big SUVs they will have to improve the MPG. That does not require CAFE. They could be much closer if the regulations were not so strict in the USA. I am not interested in a CRV sized SUV just so I can get 35 MPG. Not worth the risk and discomfort to me.
Ethanol: If it is such a great alternative. It should be able to go on its own. I have heard many of the arguments for the stuff. None have convinced me. And I have an FFV myself. Only one place in San Diego that I can buy E85 for more than regular gas. I say leave it in the Midwest till they get a better source of feedstock.
"So, can you answer how many gallons of gas is used to produce one gallon of gasoline??? Keeping in mind, finding, drilling, extracting, shipping, refining, then distrubiting the gas. You know I bet we use more gas to produce it the we get out of it."
Yeah, but these costs are incurred whether the gas goes in your tank, or, alternately, to produce ethanol, so I don't understand your point. Unless I'm missing something, it's not as though you bypass these costs in producing ethanol. The upshot is that the arguments regarding the energy used to produce ethanol remain unchanged.
The mandate does not specify what kind of fuel. Diesel will be the easiest to meet the 35 MPG mandate. In places like CA diesel is already taxed at a higher rate. We get better mileage and the price of fuel goes up to keep the money flowing in.
NEW YORK -- In a climate of soaring oil prices and concerns about global warming, automakers are using the New York International Auto Show to bolster their green credentials with a technology that many remember as dirty and smelly.
Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Chrysler LLC are among the automakers touting their plans to bring more diesels to the U.S. market. ."I don't think any of us should be under illusions that there (isn't) a fair amount of baggage with diesels in the United States," said Tom Purves, BMW's North America chief.
BMW will be among the first to sell diesels in all 50 states under new diesel rules that call for cleaner fuel and tighter emissions standards. Beginning in October, the German automaker will market a diesel X5 SUV and a 3 Series sedan.
I might sell my Sequoia and buy an X5 diesel. They are a great handling SUV. Kind of small. It they get 30 MPG on the highway I would consider one.
One can hope that battery technology will advance, but the blunt reality is that we're into diminishing returns from a chemistry standpoint. For example, if you think that Lithium batteries are new, I had a project that used Lithium "D" cells way back in 1980.
The Periodic Table has been pretty complete for a generation now, and its not been for lack of looking at the ones with larger electro-potential. Realistically, the only gains we've made in the past decade have been in manufacturability to make some of the 'exotic' chemistries affordable. And insofar as ideas like fuel cells that run on diesel, DoD was doing research on that as early as 2000 (that I'm personally aware of) and identified that they would have to perfect the hydrogen ones first -- so its been a decade and do we really even have the H2 ones out the labs yet?
The bottom line is that the near-term hopes are anchored basically in two "can't argue with physics" areas: higher adiabatic efficiency through diesels (higher compression ratios), but this runs afoul of very recently imposed stricter pollution standards (and ironically, the trucking industry doesn't have to retrofit, or any of the oil-based home heating systems), and through consumers being willing to accept a product with "less" performance - - acceleration, total size, etc. The big problem here has been that even if you were a consumer who saw this all coming, there were essentially zero choices in a lot of product areas. For example, where's the US import of the luxury sedan with the small motor that already gets 40mpg today in its European trim?
The CAFE in Europe already is 35mpg. When it comes to all of the arguments regarding "need", it seems to me that their families are the same size as in the USA, and yet they're able to manage without driving an aircraft carrier. Now just how is that?
While I am not a fan of Ethanol as a fuel. If it can be produced from some feedstock with a positive return. I am for it. Time will be the factor as they are saying 2 and half years to get a large scale demonstration plant on line. If it ever becomes a mainstream fuel. My 99 Ford Ranger is a FFV. I would rather it was diesel and I was waiting for a good supply of biodiesel in our area.
Thing is, Coskata claims they can make the ethanol from pretty much anything. They say that they use steam to gassify the waste, then cool it down, and have enzymes eat it and that is what produces the ethanol (in a nutshell). In theory, using trash, you then could have ethanol plants all over, thereby eliminating the need to pipe it long distances. :shades: :shades: :shades:
Sure... 35 MPG by 2020. What are GM and Ford going to do? They are dependent on gas guzzling vehicles for thier bread and butter ( and they are way in the red now). Their small car offerings lack refinement and fuel efficency and they are all built somewhere other than the USA. Where are the civics, corollas or fits in the GM or Ford line up? The domestics have had 35 years since the first oil embargo in the 70's to get thier act togther. What a bunch of dips...
Boy, another Import fanboy wanging about the domestics. They met CAFE before, and they'll do it again.
An all new Aveo is due out in a year or 2.
Yes, it's built in S.Korea, but the Fit, Versa, and Echo aren't built here either (nor are people tripping over one another to get one)
When we had oil embargoes in the '70's, we were limited to "X" number of gallons we were able to buy. Today, we can still buy ALL THE GASOLINE WE CAN AFFORD. BIG, BIG difference.
Actually if you notice, the imports are starting to get a bit more thirsty these days. Look what Toyota did with the Scion xB. The original had a 1.5 4-cyl that was EPA-rated 26/30 with the stick or 26/31 with the automatic. The new one is about 600-700 lb heavier and powered by a 2.4, and rated 22/28, regardless of transmission. FWIW, Toyota just packed as much extra weight on the xB redesign as what GM took off when they started to radically redesign their big cars way back in 1977.
Also, the 2009 Corolla is available with the 2.4, and it's not exactly a fuel sipper. Nissan is slipping Altima engines into the Sentra, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Honda jumps on the bandwagon and starts shoving Accord engines into the Civic!
Now I think GM does need to improve the efficiency of its small cars, as the Cobalt/G5 aren't that efficient. Really, neither is the Ford Focus. And with Chrysler's smallest vehicle being the Dodge Caliber, they're not exactly screaming efficiency.
GM does know how to design fuel efficient vehicles though. Their big trucks and SUVs tend to be the most efficient out there. Sure, they guzzle compared to a Corolla or Prius, but for as massive and powerful as they are, their economy is quite impressive. Heck, Toyota and Nissan could learn a thing or two from GM when it comes to building full-sized trucks and SUVs!
The Corvette and the new Pontiac G8 are also pretty fuel efficient, considering the type of car they are. And GM does a pretty good job with their mainstream midsized and full-sized cars...stuff like the Impala, Lucerne, Malibu, and Aura.
If GM offered a smaller engine in the Cobalt/G5, perhaps something around 1.8 liters, and gave it power similar to the Civic or Corolla, I'm sure they'd see a pretty big MPG boost.
If GM offered a smaller engine in the Cobalt/G5, perhaps something around 1.8 liters, and gave it power similar to the Civic or Corolla, I'm sure they'd see a pretty big MPG boost.
I think this will happen, as both GM and Ford have talked about using Turbos and direct injection in smaller engines to get more power and better efficiency. What Import Fanboy refuses to remember is that this WILL NOT happen overnite. The new Cobalt SS is supposed to get the Solstice GXP engine, good for 260 hp. Could they use a non turbo DI version in the standard car???? At 2 liters, I'm sure they could get 155-180hp out of it. If anybody wants more power, go for the 2.4 liter or an SS.
One thing to keep in mind is unintended consequences whenever the govt. mandates a solution (not an outcome).
Right now, Pizza and other food prices are going throught the roof, since floor prices are shooting up. Why? Farmers are growing more corn (subsidized) to generate ethonal. So, unless the govt makes a decision to impact other areas, they shouldn't just require a product.
What I get from the article is governments should butt out on price controls and mandates. The Ethanol mandate is a form of price control. It made corn more valuable as fuel than as food. Add to that the expanding market for meat in China and you have shortages. All caused by government sticking their nose where it does not belong.
Ethanol is the dominant reason for this year's increase in grain prices. It accounts for the rise in the price of maize because the federal government has in practice waded into the market to mop up about one-third of America's corn harvest. A big expansion of the ethanol programme in 2005 explains why maize prices started rising in the first place.
Ethanol accounts for some of the rise in the prices of other crops and foods too. Partly this is because maize is fed to animals, which are now more expensive to rear. Partly it is because America's farmers, eager to take advantage of the biofuels bonanza, went all out to produce maize this year, planting it on land previously devoted to wheat and soyabeans.
Congress was only the 'implementative' body for the new legislation. CAFE 35 was and always has been the creation of the Executive Branch, Messers Bush/Cheney. The Executive Branch has been given the info that you and I don't see, they were the ones to give Congress its marching orders on implementing new fuel standards. Keep the light focused where it should be focused and the reasoning becomes clearer.
Yes the market will have the greatest influence on the vehicles being driven but the President and his advisors want more. Think about this, 'Why does the President's team want you to use less fuel?' In this legislation when you eventually give up your 18 mpg Sequoia they want you to have the option to switch to a 25 mpg Sequoia. When I turn in my 48 mpg Prius they want me to have the option of a 60 mpg Prius... a 25 mpg Malibu for a 35 mpg Malibu.
CAFE will not determine what we drive. It will have no influence. That decision is between you and I and everyone else and the vehicle makers. We will be able to drive whatever we wish....it's just that all our choices will be more efficient than today's vehicles. That cannot be a bad situation.
I think you are wrong. The House and Senate hash out a bill and the President signs or vetos the bill. He may have input that will give the Congress an idea of what he will or will not sign. I don't think the President or Congress are interested in US using less oil. They could have given automakers reason to bring diesel vehicles that would be an automatic 30-50% cut in fossil fuel usage. They fight that at every turn. They don't want to end up with a bunch a gas reserves they cannot sell. Plain and simple. If people were given the choices they have in the EU we would also be nearing 50% diesel vehicles with a BIG cut in oil imports.
The President's State of the Union Message Jan 2007 Energy: President Bush will ask Congress and America's scientists, farmers, industry leaders, and entrepreneurs to join him in pursuing the goal of reducing U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years – Twenty in Ten. We will reach the President's Twenty in Ten goal by increasing the supply of renewable and alternative fuels and by reforming and modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and extending the current light truck rule. The President's energy plan also includes stepping up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways and doubling the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
This is the original impetus for 'modernizing CAFE'. It wasn't Congress it was the Executive Branch that wants it.....so WHY? He gave Congress its marching orders they followed. You're right it's NOT about using less oil in toto.. it's about something else.
With the price of a fill-up hovering at record highs, gas mileage has become the number one consideration for American consumers in choosing a new vehicle, even topping which automaker produces the car or truck.
That finding is the result of a AAA survey, which studied consumers' attitudes toward fuel prices. The survey, released this week, also suggests that car shoppers continue to want tougher government regulations on fuel efficiency.
Sixty-one percent of those interviewed said lawmakers should require better fuel efficiency for new cars, trucks and SUVs; 56 percent said the government should increase funding for alternative fuel research.
Sixty-one percent of those interviewed said lawmakers should require better fuel efficiency for new cars, trucks and SUVs; 56 percent said the government should increase funding for alternative fuel research.
I have to wonder how many of those people wanting the government to waste more money, pay income tax.
From personal experience right now there is a virtual flood of people asking about and buying hybrids, at least here. They are voting with their wallets, all presumably working tax-paying citizens.
I don't think a lot of people have a sense for all the developments that are just around the bend. Most have no idea about algae or celluosic ethanol.
All I care about is EV hotrods... (They just need to look good and have power) Seriously, why dont they start making "good" looking EV's? They look so fragile and ugly right now, well most of them do. I think this is where we are going, either Hybrid or EV.
From personal experience right now there is a virtual flood of people asking about and buying hybrids, at least here. They are voting with their wallets, all presumably working tax-paying citizens.
Just took the Sequoia in for 5000 mile service. I test drove a Yaris. The salesman said they are not selling that well. The Prius is still their hot mover for those looking for good mileage. Which proves the average person buys what Hollywood sells them.
The Yaris was Ok for a runabout. Much better than the last small car I drove. A Geo Metro 15-20 years ago. I was happy to get back in my Sequoia as was my wife. My wife and I got our first closeup look at the new Sequoia and Land Cruiser. We agreed it is a good thing we bought when we did. Those are Ugly SUVs. If they are not selling in your part of the country it is not the gas price it is the looks. Big SUVs are still selling here. Especially the Tahoe, Escalade and Denali...
In Cali they obviously follow what Hollywood says because they elect actors as Mayors and Governors all the time...well at least 3 times.
For the rest of the country, we're just ticket-paying-peons trying to scrape by as best we can. I think Toyota buried the country in Yaris' back in Jan in anticipation of a sudden rise in fuel during the spring. The Prius still outsells the Yaris here by almost double at prices that are almost twice as high.
The Tundra, Sequoia and Land cruiser all share that same grotesque front end. The bodies as I have commented before look like a fat girl in Spandex.
When we were looking at a new Platinum Sequoia in the showroom this morning the salesman walked up with a "She's a beauty eh?" comment. I told him I was so glad I had bought the 2007 model before Toyota designers went on drugs. He was not sure how to take the comment. He walked away.
People still have plenty of money for buying an economy car. At least the majority that are not losing their homes. The salesman said the Prius is their best seller. They had rows of 2 & 4 door Yaris in stock. My daughter and Son in law love theirs. SIL drives about 35 miles each way to work. Says the Yaris gets about 40 MPG. About the same as he was getting with his Honda 750 motorcycle. They are moving to Indiana and will not take the motorcycle with them. So I encouraged them to try the Yaris when they got upset with the local Honda store dealing on a Fit. I think the Yaris is worth $15k before the Prius is worth $25k. They are both throwaway cars.
Remember, people don't buy cars just because of price or fuel economy. Emotion and status play a huge part in the decision.
People use their cars to tell the world "I'm rich," or "I'm tough," or "I'm cool."
A Yaris says "I can only afford a $15,000 car." But a Prius says "I could be a millionaire who just wants to drive a $25K hybrid to show my enviro-hipness."
That elasticity in perception could be a big reason for brisk hybrid sales ..... along with $3.25 gasoline. .
Comments
In the short term, the development of a retrofit carburetor device for all cars, that reclaims or transmutes the carbon from the exhaust, can drastically reduce the emissions of CO2 from transportation vehicles. (The transportation sector presently contributes to 33% of the carbon emissions.) Preliminary results from this type of device shows a dramatic improvement in mileage as well, making it attractive for consumers
This briefing from 2000 claims the last administration blocked or stifled new sources of non polluting energy. The thrust of the message I read was that the Patent Office which falls under the Secretary of Commerce & the DOE were responsible for blocking new inventions that would help solve our energy dependence. It all sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory. Though I am open to hear more on the subject. I am a firm believer that any device that will save energy will find entrepreneurs with money to invest.
The report also dwells on Cold Fusion like it was a done deal. As far as I can tell with hundreds of Universities around the World experimenting with cold fusion, it is still the holy grail in the quest to get something for nothing.
Just as I think the 35 MPG mandate is so much political hokum.
I am looking for a clean pre 1995 Ford Powerstroke. Much more reliable engines with driving care would get better MPG than the current crop loaded with emissions stuff. Lots of people in CA take all the smog stuff off as they are not tested for emissions.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Today, I agree he has no control on the oil prices but a few years back while his approving the GOPs version of the energy bills, they could of put us in a much better position in utilizing more alternatives for gasoline such as ethanol. They could of mandated across the board a 10%-15% per volume of gasoline, ethanol to eliveate production pressures or even gas prices. They could of created a Strategic Ethanol Reserve to be used in times of high expense or shortages in gasoline. There's other types of fuels such as diesels or other technologies such as hybrids, electric vehicles they could of pushed for in the short term.
Now they're starting to do introduce some of these new technology vehicles. I was involved in a presentation on the new type of Lithium-Ion batteries which utilize a Nano-phospate chemistry internally inside the battery. Supposedly this new variant of the lithium-ion batt packs more punch, lasts longer, and is safer than the standard Lithium-ion batteries. Perfect for the new all electric vehicles.
This same company named, A123 Systems, offers a plug in package for your standard hybrid battery pack in which extends your current hybrid mileage by 50%. So there are some new and exciting alternatives which could eventually saves us gas and money in the short term. If these were started or implemented a few years back I believe we would of been in a much better position today.
In order to bring down the price of oil you need to reduce the demand and have a competing fuel other than oil.
http://www.hymotion.com/
http://www.a123systems.com/#
Becomes you are assuming that the more efficient vehicle will have all of the capabilities of current vehicles, which is quite a jump.
If you doubt that, try to tow an Airstream trailer with any passenger car built today. I remember standard early 1970s Impalas, Delta 88s and Galaxies easily performing that duty. Think an Accord, even one with the V-6, can do it?
Plus, saving fuel is not always the end-all and the be-all of driving. I could save fuel by toddling along at 55 mph, or driving a Fit instead of an Accord, but I like a driving 80 mph on limited access highways, and will continue to do so, and I like driving a larger vehicle. It is more pleasurable and worth the extra cost.
kdhsypder: I agree wholeheartedly about the market being the driving force in changing our behavior patterns. This is exactly the point I was making, CAFE has nothing to do with changing our buying pattern. But what you're missing is.. what will be our choices when we do change our patterns?
We won't change our patterns overnight. The automakers are working now to adapt to changing buyer preferences. And if CAFE has nothing to do with changing our buying patterns, why not let the consumers decide whether they want to buy more efficient vehicles? If consumers want them, the auto makers will provide them.
kdhspsyder: Let's hypothesize that fuel has ratcheded up to $8 per gallon by 2020 and that in the absence of CAFE 35 nothing has changed in the intervening 12 years as regards to fuel economy. Todays 18 mpg gasser trucks are still being offered as 18 mpg gassers. At that time if one is tired of paying $8 x 25 for a fillup on a 12 y.o. truck, without specific pressure on the vehicle makers to meet a new FE standard then IMO ( admittedly ) one's choices will still be 18 mpg gasser trucks.
A flawed scenario for several reasons. One, we won't go to bed one night with gas at $2.50 a gallon and wake up the next day to $8 for a gallon of unleaded. These changes will occur over time. People will have adjusted their buying patterns.
Two, if people adjust their buying patterns, the auto makers will work to bring vehicles to market that meet their desires. Or, they will go broke. They are, after all, in business to make money by producing vehicles that people want.
Three, if there are still 18 mpg trucks still on the market after gas prices have been rising steadily to $8 a gallon, then people obviously still want them, and don't care if gas is $8 a gallon, so they have every right to buy them, and companies have every right to manufacture and sell them.
kdhspyder: Wanting to save fuel, that driver would have to move down to an auto or a small 4c truck ( the market for the price of fuel has changed his buying pattern ).
Yes the market price for fuel has changed his buying pattern, so, therefore, companies will work to make something that he wants, all without CAFE.
kdhspyder: But at which autos will he be looking? Without pressure to make more efficient vehicles his choices will be the same in 2020 as they are today as they were in 1998 as they were in 1992; i.e. 30 mpg midsizers and 35 mpg compacts.
That is pure speculation. Plus, rising prices will provide pressure to improve efficiency. Some, however, will decide that they place more emphasis on power, cargo capacity, etc., and therefore will pay the extra for fuel. That is their business, not yours, or mine.
kdhspyder: Here is the key point: CAFE 35 makes it certain that the 2020 buyer that's reacting to market forces which are changing his buying pattern will have the following new vehicle choices....
..a 28 mpg truck ( to replace his 18 mpg truck )
..a 35 mpg crossover ( iso a 23 mpg vehicle today )
..a 40 mpg midsizer ( iso a 30 mpg vehicle today )
..a 50 mpg compact ( iso a 35 mpg vehicle today )
..a 60+ mpg ultra efficient ( iso a 45 mpg vehicle today )
The whole range of vehicles being offered in 2020 will be significantly better in fuel economy than today's models. The math ensures it. The fact that it's a national regulation doubly ensures it. It's not being left to the good will and generosity of the corporate bean counters and planners.
If gasoline prices are that much higher, as I explained, then the market will have reacted long before any CAFE regulations have taken effect. If not, then CAFE was unnecessary.
They are in business to give people what they want, not what activists or anyone else thinks that people SHOULD want. During the 1990s, we wanted power, size, room and more refinement (increased control of noise, vibration and harshness, which requires a stiffer structure, and, thus, more weight).
We also wanted more safety equipment and better crashworthiness, which were also mandated by the government.
Auto makers manufactured vehicles that provided those attributes, just as they were supposed to.
I guess I will just have to disagree with you. When it takes 1 gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol, you are not gaining on imported oil at all. Not to mention all the negatives to the environment caused by expanded corn crops. I would be the first to admit the Energy bills in both 2005 and 2007 were a total JOKE. Meant to appease a bunch of flaky environmental groups and big business. They did accomplish what the lobbyist paid for. The big losers in the whole mess
was working Americans.
Perfect for the new all electric vehicles.
That is a pretty broad statement. How could the technology have been put into place any sooner? The EV-1 mandated in CA was a multi billion dollar boondoggle that ended up on the scrap heap. We did get NiMH battery technology from that. So how were we to implement Li-Ion technology any sooner than we are? It is still in the experimental stages of development. It is still not even close to cost effective. With oil at $110 per barrel and gas at $4 per gallon you cannot justify the cost of a hybrid or EV with Li-Ion batteries. I have wanted an electric vehicle for running errands for several years. CA puts a roadblock on them. By the time EPA, NHTSA and CARB have their say we will be very lucky to get anything that is usable in an EV or PHEV.
In order to bring down the price of oil you need to reduce the demand and have a competing fuel other than oil.
I agree with you on that statement. The only thing I have seen come out even close is biodiesel. We are just about to the point that it is competitive with Fossil diesel. Ethanol is not even close. Ethanol would be dead if not for the very heavy subsidies to the Mega Ag corn growers and production.
I differ, the the laws of physics in which I am very familiar with are there. SUVs and cars can meet the cafe statndards very easily with-in the time frame. If the CAFE standards were not in place the car manufactures and oil companies will have their way and bilk the american consumer like what they are doing today.
I beleive in the free markets, but, only up to a point. Unchecked free markets, their ultimate goal is to make pure profits no matter what path the market will take. The goverment should be there not to own it or to control it but rather to steer it, especially for the critical sector such as energy. I think the CAFE standards steer the industries by law to insure the manufactures provide fuel efficient vehicles to us the american consumer for our national security, environment and our economic well being.
Ethanol gagrice
So, can you answer how many gallons of gas is used to produce one gallon of gasoline??? Keeping in mind, finding, drilling, extracting, shipping, refining, then distrubiting the gas. You know I bet we use more gas to produce it the we get out of it.
Time will tell. I think the sale of large SUVs went in the tank before the energy bill was passed. It was a direct result of the gas prices. If the automakers want to continue to sell big SUVs they will have to improve the MPG. That does not require CAFE. They could be much closer if the regulations were not so strict in the USA. I am not interested in a CRV sized SUV just so I can get 35 MPG. Not worth the risk and discomfort to me.
Ethanol:
If it is such a great alternative. It should be able to go on its own. I have heard many of the arguments for the stuff. None have convinced me. And I have an FFV myself. Only one place in San Diego that I can buy E85 for more than regular gas. I say leave it in the Midwest till they get a better source of feedstock.
Yeah, but these costs are incurred whether the gas goes in your tank, or, alternately, to produce ethanol, so I don't understand your point. Unless I'm missing something, it's not as though you bypass these costs in producing ethanol. The upshot is that the arguments regarding the energy used to produce ethanol remain unchanged.
NEW YORK -- In a climate of soaring oil prices and concerns about global warming, automakers are using the New York International Auto Show to bolster their green credentials with a technology that many remember as dirty and smelly.
Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Chrysler LLC are among the automakers touting their plans to bring more diesels to the U.S. market. ."I don't think any of us should be under illusions that there (isn't) a fair amount of baggage with diesels in the United States," said Tom Purves, BMW's North America chief.
BMW will be among the first to sell diesels in all 50 states under new diesel rules that call for cleaner fuel and tighter emissions standards. Beginning in October, the German automaker will market a diesel X5 SUV and a 3 Series sedan.
I might sell my Sequoia and buy an X5 diesel. They are a great handling SUV. Kind of small. It they get 30 MPG on the highway I would consider one.
The Periodic Table has been pretty complete for a generation now, and its not been for lack of looking at the ones with larger electro-potential. Realistically, the only gains we've made in the past decade have been in manufacturability to make some of the 'exotic' chemistries affordable. And insofar as ideas like fuel cells that run on diesel, DoD was doing research on that as early as 2000 (that I'm personally aware of) and identified that they would have to perfect the hydrogen ones first -- so its been a decade and do we really even have the H2 ones out the labs yet?
The bottom line is that the near-term hopes are anchored basically in two "can't argue with physics" areas: higher adiabatic efficiency through diesels (higher compression ratios), but this runs afoul of very recently imposed stricter pollution standards (and ironically, the trucking industry doesn't have to retrofit, or any of the oil-based home heating systems), and through consumers being willing to accept a product with "less" performance - - acceleration, total size, etc. The big problem here has been that even if you were a consumer who saw this all coming, there were essentially zero choices in a lot of product areas. For example, where's the US import of the luxury sedan with the small motor that already gets 40mpg today in its European trim?
The CAFE in Europe already is 35mpg. When it comes to all of the arguments regarding "need", it seems to me that their families are the same size as in the USA, and yet they're able to manage without driving an aircraft carrier. Now just how is that?
-hh
Gagrice, this may give us some hope for ethanol.
P.S. These are indeed rose colored shades :P
An all new Aveo is due out in a year or 2.
Yes, it's built in S.Korea, but the Fit, Versa, and Echo aren't built here either (nor are people tripping over one another to get one)
When we had oil embargoes in the '70's, we were limited to "X" number of gallons we were able to buy. Today, we can still buy ALL THE GASOLINE WE CAN AFFORD. BIG, BIG difference.
Also, the 2009 Corolla is available with the 2.4, and it's not exactly a fuel sipper. Nissan is slipping Altima engines into the Sentra, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Honda jumps on the bandwagon and starts shoving Accord engines into the Civic!
Now I think GM does need to improve the efficiency of its small cars, as the Cobalt/G5 aren't that efficient. Really, neither is the Ford Focus. And with Chrysler's smallest vehicle being the Dodge Caliber, they're not exactly screaming efficiency.
GM does know how to design fuel efficient vehicles though. Their big trucks and SUVs tend to be the most efficient out there. Sure, they guzzle compared to a Corolla or Prius, but for as massive and powerful as they are, their economy is quite impressive. Heck, Toyota and Nissan could learn a thing or two from GM when it comes to building full-sized trucks and SUVs!
The Corvette and the new Pontiac G8 are also pretty fuel efficient, considering the type of car they are. And GM does a pretty good job with their mainstream midsized and full-sized cars...stuff like the Impala, Lucerne, Malibu, and Aura.
If GM offered a smaller engine in the Cobalt/G5, perhaps something around 1.8 liters, and gave it power similar to the Civic or Corolla, I'm sure they'd see a pretty big MPG boost.
I think this will happen, as both GM and Ford have talked about using Turbos and direct injection in smaller engines to get more power and better efficiency. What Import Fanboy refuses to remember is that this WILL NOT happen overnite. The new Cobalt SS is supposed to get the Solstice GXP engine, good for 260 hp. Could they use a non turbo DI version in the standard car???? At 2 liters, I'm sure they could get 155-180hp out of it. If anybody wants more power, go for the 2.4 liter or an SS.
Right now, Pizza and other food prices are going throught the roof, since floor prices are shooting up. Why? Farmers are growing more corn (subsidized) to generate ethonal. So, unless the govt makes a decision to impact other areas, they shouldn't just require a product.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
More interesting factoids in this Economist article from last December.
Ethanol is the dominant reason for this year's increase in grain prices. It accounts for the rise in the price of maize because the federal government has in practice waded into the market to mop up about one-third of America's corn harvest. A big expansion of the ethanol programme in 2005 explains why maize prices started rising in the first place.
Ethanol accounts for some of the rise in the prices of other crops and foods too. Partly this is because maize is fed to animals, which are now more expensive to rear. Partly it is because America's farmers, eager to take advantage of the biofuels bonanza, went all out to produce maize this year, planting it on land previously devoted to wheat and soyabeans.
Congress was only the 'implementative' body for the new legislation. CAFE 35 was and always has been the creation of the Executive Branch, Messers Bush/Cheney. The Executive Branch has been given the info that you and I don't see, they were the ones to give Congress its marching orders on implementing new fuel standards. Keep the light focused where it should be focused and the reasoning becomes clearer.
Yes the market will have the greatest influence on the vehicles being driven but the President and his advisors want more. Think about this, 'Why does the President's team want you to use less fuel?' In this legislation when you eventually give up your 18 mpg Sequoia they want you to have the option to switch to a 25 mpg Sequoia. When I turn in my 48 mpg Prius they want me to have the option of a 60 mpg Prius... a 25 mpg Malibu for a 35 mpg Malibu.
CAFE will not determine what we drive. It will have no influence. That decision is between you and I and everyone else and the vehicle makers. We will be able to drive whatever we wish....it's just that all our choices will be more efficient than today's vehicles. That cannot be a bad situation.
The President's State of the Union Message Jan 2007
Energy: President Bush will ask Congress and America's scientists, farmers, industry leaders, and entrepreneurs to join him in pursuing the goal of reducing U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years – Twenty in Ten. We will reach the President's Twenty in Ten goal by increasing the supply of renewable and alternative fuels and by reforming and modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and extending the current light truck rule. The President's energy plan also includes stepping up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways and doubling the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
From the WH website..
2007 SotU Msg
This is the original impetus for 'modernizing CAFE'. It wasn't Congress it was the Executive Branch that wants it.....so WHY? He gave Congress its marching orders they followed. You're right it's NOT about using less oil in toto.. it's about something else.
From the Detroit News..'make them produce more fuel efficient vehicles'
With the price of a fill-up hovering at record highs, gas mileage has become the number one consideration for American consumers in choosing a new vehicle, even topping which automaker produces the car or truck.
That finding is the result of a AAA survey, which studied consumers' attitudes toward fuel prices. The survey, released this week, also suggests that car shoppers continue to want tougher government regulations on fuel efficiency.
Sixty-one percent of those interviewed said lawmakers should require better fuel efficiency for new cars, trucks and SUVs; 56 percent said the government should increase funding for alternative fuel research.
I have to wonder how many of those people wanting the government to waste more money, pay income tax.
I don't think a lot of people have a sense for all the developments that are just around the bend. Most have no idea about algae or celluosic ethanol.
A little algae joke for the earthy-crunchy Klamath Lake crowd. :shades:
(They just need to look good and have power)
Seriously, why dont they start making "good" looking EV's? They look so fragile and ugly right now, well most of them do.
I think this is where we are going, either Hybrid or EV.
Just took the Sequoia in for 5000 mile service. I test drove a Yaris. The salesman said they are not selling that well. The Prius is still their hot mover for those looking for good mileage. Which proves the average person buys what Hollywood sells them.
The Yaris was Ok for a runabout. Much better than the last small car I drove. A Geo Metro 15-20 years ago. I was happy to get back in my Sequoia as was my wife. My wife and I got our first closeup look at the new Sequoia and Land Cruiser. We agreed it is a good thing we bought when we did. Those are Ugly SUVs. If they are not selling in your part of the country it is not the gas price it is the looks. Big SUVs are still selling here. Especially the Tahoe, Escalade and Denali...
In Cali they obviously follow what Hollywood says because they elect actors as Mayors and Governors all the time...well at least 3 times.
For the rest of the country, we're just ticket-paying-peons trying to scrape by as best we can. I think Toyota buried the country in Yaris' back in Jan in anticipation of a sudden rise in fuel during the spring. The Prius still outsells the Yaris here by almost double at prices that are almost twice as high.
Toyota cuts back truck, SUV production
Butt Ugly
When we were looking at a new Platinum Sequoia in the showroom this morning the salesman walked up with a "She's a beauty eh?" comment. I told him I was so glad I had bought the 2007 model before Toyota designers went on drugs. He was not sure how to take the comment. He walked away.
People still have plenty of money for buying an economy car. At least the majority that are not losing their homes. The salesman said the Prius is their best seller. They had rows of 2 & 4 door Yaris in stock. My daughter and Son in law love theirs. SIL drives about 35 miles each way to work. Says the Yaris gets about 40 MPG. About the same as he was getting with his Honda 750 motorcycle. They are moving to Indiana and will not take the motorcycle with them. So I encouraged them to try the Yaris when they got upset with the local Honda store dealing on a Fit. I think the Yaris is worth $15k before the Prius is worth $25k. They are both throwaway cars.
People use their cars to tell the world "I'm rich," or "I'm tough," or "I'm cool."
A Yaris says "I can only afford a $15,000 car." But a Prius says "I could be a millionaire who just wants to drive a $25K hybrid to show my enviro-hipness."
That elasticity in perception could be a big reason for brisk hybrid sales ..... along with $3.25 gasoline.
.