Slashdot Mirror
Auto Mileage Standards Raised to 35 mpg
Ponca City, We Love You writes "The Senate just passed a bill that will increase auto mileage standards for the first time in three decades. The auto industry's fleet of new cars, sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans will have to average 35 mpg by 2020, a significant increase over the 2008 requirement of 27.5 mpg average. For consumers, the legislation will mean that over the next dozen years auto companies will likely build more diesel-powered SUVs and gas-electric hybrid cars as well as vehicles that can run on 85 percent ethanol. Automakers had vehemently opposed legislation in June that contained the same mileage requirements and Fortune magazine reported that American automakers were starting the miles-per-gallon race far behind Japan and that the new standards could doom US automakers. At the time, Chrysler officially put the cost of meeting the proposed rules at $6,700 per vehicle. The White House announced the President will sign the bill if it comes to his desk."
I'm glad they're finally getting to this. As for Detroit, they'd have been better off if they hadn't had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this if the bill gets signed. Although given that the deadline is 2020 it seems like they have more than enough time to do this. Between nutating and gerotor engines it seems like the technology is just waiting to be taken seriously by an industry stuck in the 1960's.
Since Big Oil has decided to raise the prices to triple what it was 5 years ago, I see no reason why I can't expect my auto manufacturer to attempt at least double my MPG from 5 years ago.
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
I own a Ford Escort from the turn of the century. It may not be very pretty, or very fast, but gets roughly 40 MPG. I can't understand how people are content with their goddamn SUVs getting 25 or less miles to the gallon. Oh well.
~ C.
And I'm not really thrilled with the other provisions of the bill, namely requiring 15% of every utility's power from every state to come from non-renewable sources. This is going to draw a lot of capital away from Nuclear energy, and in the states without wind or clear skies, will likely prompt a lot of wasteful programs(Apparently, burning Forests for energy counts as renewable energy).
And the CAFE standards? I don't care enough to fight about it(mainly since it seems the market is heading that way anyway), but I would prefer more specific mandates that don't smack of populism. CO2 emissions are pretty poorly tied to gasoline consumption, and regulation on tail-pipe CO2 emission would make a lot more environmental sense(And cost a lot less money), at least until a carbon credit scheme is implemented.
The funny thing, is that nobody is even considering implementing CAFE standards for the military and other government agencies. The Government's massive purchase of fuel inefficient cars, since agencies have very little incentive to save on gas costs, has a surprisingly discretionary effect on the production decisions of American Car Makers. We've all seen police drive around in SUVs.
Instead of saddling American consumers with extra costs, why don't we mandate that all agencies that receive money from Congress must not use cars with a MPG below 35? This includes charities, police departments, the Military, and even foreign governments.
35 mpg average, not including all the except vehicles in their fleet, like the Hummer.
Seriously, why else do you think Bush is going to sign it -- it looks like a good thing when it isn't.
Legislation that's just good enough to keep pace with the status quo is exactly what the auto industry wanted. They know that if they completely succeeded in opposing the legislation, that they'd face consumer revolt. And as long as everybody else has to keep up with the status quo -- the most cost-effective manner for them -- then they don't have to worry too much about being undercut by companies in Korea and China that don't have emission controls. Instead, they only have to worry about Japanese and European cars, which they'll likely never be able to beat.
All in all, it's a good deal for the auto industry, and a bad deal for the customer, as we'll never get an incoming Democratic administration to support higher CAFE standards in the future. Last time they were raise significantly was during Reagan. His administration also introduced the catalytic converter as a requirement, too. *sigh*
By 2020 the world may very much on the other side of the peak.
... but it's a start. If my car (big old 80s thing) was getting through that much fuel I'd check that it wasn't on fire.
The whole idea of engine design and track testing is to get the most out of your pint of gasoline. I's called cash economy. If a car maker isn't prepared to do their homework and give me an engine that will pull the maximum mileage out of my hydrocarbons then I'm not going to apologise for going elsewhere. I mean, /just what exactly is the point/ of building a car that does 150-200mph, when the only place you can open up to that kind of speed is on a racetrack??
/old/ standards, and /two years/ to build one that complies with the /new/ standards. Then cry open season on the local market for the foreign makers who are /already there/ with their ecobugs. That's right, drop the insane tariffs on foreign cars and give people real choice: SUV that pulls 8 to the gallon or the Honda that does 60.
/ten Dollars US/ per gallon of gasoline! So, DAMN RIGHT we're preferring economical cars. Not all of us can afford a £55 bill every time we fill up, particularly considering the forty five minutes each of us spend commuting to and from work /every single day/. Just waiting in the queues burns petrol, and most people I know if they get stuck in standing traffic will turn the engine off. Just to save money.
Two things need to happen here for the automakers to get their fingers out of their arses or die like the dinosaurs of the 1970's.
1. Tell the automakers they have zero time to build a car that complies wit hthe
2. Give the people incentive to choose the ecobug. Hike gas prices to come in line with eg the UK. We're paying the equivalent of
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
...so before all us Brits start going on about how our cars perform so much better, you need to multiply US MPG figures by 1.2 to make them equivilant to UK MPG figures, as an Imperial gallon > US gallon.
There were cars getting better than that average in the late 70s and all that took was the threat of people refusing to buy gas guzzlers because of the oil shortage. The problem is they just spent 15 years convincing people they needed to drive tanks and now they have to figure out either how to make the tanks get good gas mileage or convince people they no longer need SUVs. With hybrids I'm sure they can reach those standards. The real problem is trying to figure out what the mileage is on a rechargeable hybrid. They'll either try to overstate the mileage to offset the gas sucking giants or they won't want to produce them unless they get to take additional credit for the extra mileage potential. I can't see they not trying to use it as a barginning chip. Unless it directly benifits profits or numbers of cars sold the auto industry has a history of resisting change.
I dont think US automakers like Tesla Motors or Phoenix Motorcars will cry much about this. They are aiming for complete zero emissions vehicles anyway.
Look, the crying from automakers is silly, like the DaimlerChrysler announcement that "we cant make it". Well, tough luck. Innovate or die. Its a market and competition, you dont have any birthright to sit there and dictate things.
Auto industry is long overdue for some serious shakeup, and the ones that get with the future sooner will likely survive.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
And by 2020 the rest of the world will be on 70mpg. And then there's electric cars. The Tesla Roadster has proven that the technology is viable - by 2020 there will surely be a wider and affordable range of electric vehicles.
The smart thing for the American manufacturers to do would be to start using Japanese or European engines and start achieving 30-40mpg now, while they develop their own technology.
I was looking for alternative fuel to my self back in the early 1990s. I commuted to work, and fuel at $1.00/gal was an expense, a legit expense but regardless. My first choice for a retrofit was Natural Gas as your typical carbonated vehicle, which was normal at the time requires very little modification. Just shut off the petrol supply and add an air air mixer, adjust the timing and poof. The ONLY reason I didn't shell out the couple of grand to do the conversion was the simple fact that there was NO place with in 30 miles I could fuel up.
Ethanol looks attractive, more so now that fuel is in excess of $3.00/gal. Brazil tried switching in the 1980s IIRC and last I checked continued to promote the use of the sugar beet surplus to make Ethanol.
Turbo diesel engines on the other hand look even more attractive. Diesel makes MORE sense for SUVs and trucks than petrol or Ethanol, and AFAIK is are much more flexable as far as the fuel medium due to the very high compression ratio and fuel injection at the top of the stroke cycle.
Methane, while not as practical to store as fuels which are liquid at standard pressures, is another form of fossil / renewable we should look into as well. We produce a ton of waste, some is converted to tegro, a form of fertilizer made from human waste.
But regardless of the path America decides to go as far as fuel, we NEED good public transportation.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
But still do not know under which circumstances these 6.7l shall be attained. City traffic, highway, or total mix? I have trouble keeping my moderately motorized car on 7l/100km in city traffic, it can do much better on the autobahn (if i don't push it too hard).
The thing is, the CO2 is not from carbon being pulled out of the ground but instead from carbon dioxide being scrubbed by crops from the atmosphere, so it's atmospheric CO2-neutral regardless of the efficiency.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Beyond that, the original poster missed this from the E85 article:
In other words, in a flex-fuel engine you're probably not going to see better emissions since cylinder compression will be set to the fuel with the lowest requirement. In an E85-only engine, you can run a higher compression and burn your fuel more efficiently, thus creating fewer emissions.Actually 6,7 L/100KM is moderate for now, but in 2020 that should be considered more or less crap. In example new BMW 3-series with 3 liter diesel gets 6,1 L/100 KM and the 2 liter version gets 4,8 L/100KM. Even X3 with 2 liter diesel gets 6,5 L/100 KM. So in that sense that todays cars can get to that standard easily, it's really abysmal to set the standard for the future on the level what can be achieved in today.
In my opinion the standards should be set so that they make the car industry to invent and make innovations in order to stay in business. Actually in developed markets, I would say that it's actually a good way to protect own car industry by setting the standards higher as then the low cost low R&D manufacturers from developing countries can be easily closed from the markets. Thought as the US car industry really hasn't spend any money to R&D in the last 20 years, maybe in the point of view of US administration, that wouldn't be so good idea.
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
Oil - proved reserves for the world (billion barrels):
1,312,000,000,000 bbl
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html
(notice Canada's oil shale is second to Saudi Arabia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
Oil - consumption for the world (bbl per day):
82,590,000 bbl/day
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html
I agree that, even now, we will be seeing an exponential increase in the price of oil. That doesn't diminish the fact that Hubbert's "peak oil" is real, and will occur on a global scale in a matter of decades if not already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Conservative_predictions_of_future_oil_production
I work in the oil exploration industry.. Oil isn't so easy to find, you know.
-metric
"For consumers, the legislation will mean that over the next dozen years auto companies will likely build [...] vehicles that can run on 85 percent ethanol."
Bah, in Sweden I've got a Mazda 626 from 1988 and that run perfectly well on a mix of 50% gas (==95% petrol and 5% ethanol) and 50% "E85" (==85% ethanol and 15% petrol), that is, effectively 55% petrol and 45% ethanol.
In Sweden, almost all gas already got 5% ethanol mixed in, and I think old as well as new cars handles that perfectly well. So, next *dozen* years, sounds like a really slow progress in order to reach a 15% mix in.
Disclaimer: I'm a European and am not familiar with the US Auto Mileage Standards regulation, or the US in general. Still, as most Europeans, I find the American love for big cars a bit funny.
I somehow think that the $6700 extra per car is highly exaggerated. Your average European or Japanese car is already there, and they're not more expensive than the American cars (at least not in Europe, if you exclude the luxury cars). I mean, you can get an *entire new car* for about $9000 (not a very big one, though). On the other hand the current development of the Euro and the US Dollar will probably make European cars less and less attractive for US residents. I don't know about the Japanese ones, though.
Assuming that the average car does 100k miles in its lifetime, the new regulations imply that it'll use 100k/35 = 2857 gallons instead of 100k/27.5 = 3636 gallons. That's 779 gallons saved. At a price of $4 per gallon that's $3116 saved. Which is less than $6700.
Assuming that it does 200k miles that's $6232. Still less than $6700, but much closer.
At European gas prices (I'm taking $7/gallon) the saved costs would be $5453 and $10906.
Assuming that gas prices in the US go up another bit, that the $6700 are exaggerated and that your car will run 150k miles, I don't see the big deal. The costs are about the same, with the additional benefit of wasting less fuel. If you don't buy a bigger car than what you actually need, you might even save some money.
Dear sir, please complete the following before posting on Slashdot again:
1. Finish your drug bender.
2. Look into grouping sentences which share a theme into seperate blocks (commonly called "paragraphs"), why this is a good idea, and how to do this on Slashdot.
3. Try to focus on one or a few topics when writing your post; Incoherently stumbling through a dozen or so makes for a poor reception.
Although without a basic understanding of geology, thermodynamics, and governance your post will still be devoid of meaningful content, at least it can be devoid in style. Okay? Cheers!
I don't mean to be offensive but it seems from my POV in the UK that Americans (and other countries like Australia?) need to stop putting such damn big engines in cars/pickups. I mean seriously, there is no need for everyone to own a vehicle with a 3.0 litre or bigger engine. A big engine in a normal car (non sport) in the UK is around 2.0 litre? Something like a Ford Mondeo? My car (Peugeot 107) has a 1.0 litre engine, it does upto 60MPG, although I usually get 50 - 55 out of it in the current cold weather, and it gets me to and from work fine and is plenty fast enough for motorway driving too. It has extremely low emissions, one of the lowest of any car you can buy at the moment. Unless you need to carry passengers regularly or your constantly transporting things in your car then there is no need for a big car with a big engine, its just pointless! Wasting your money, wasting oil and ruining the environment!
35mpg....come on!
-- Fuck Beta
I would hope by 2020 we have mostly moved away from petrol and diesel, as with the current consumption rates worldwide by 2020 were going to be struggling to keep up with demand for oil based fuels. Perhaps it would be better to write bills that clearly define a set of environmental impact limits, ie a maximum CO2 per mile limit or some other such way of determining the impact on the environment. And by definition does that mean that all electric cars will be illegal as they don't use any gallons of anything?
Regulating fuel consumption (and exempting the really big guzzlers) is just the wrong way to manage technology. All it does is tell the industry to get up to current standard (in 13 years) and not to innovate any more than needed.
The best way to improve efficiency is market forces. Once gas is expensive enough to be a real consideration when buying a vehicle, people might actually see past the marketing hype and realize they don't need that huge StupidUglyVehicle after all.
Yes, gas got expensive enough to get people to complain. But for most families it's still less than their cable bill. Clearly not something that would change habits.
Another major component in reducing fuel consumption or CO2 emissions is modifying our behavior: number of trips, distances traveled, and god help us car-pools and public transport. Raising the mileage standard does nothing on any of these fronts. Increasing gas prices gives a strong incentive to reduce consumption in any way possible.
European regulation requires car manufacturers to average 100 kilometers on 5 liters, which is roughly 47 mpg. This is in 2012, not 2020!
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
CO2 is not a pollutant.
If you want an economical car, go ahead! I'm not trying to stop you. But don't tell me what car to drive when it's not hurting anyone. "No oil" will not happen, the price will just continue to increase until there is a natural (i.e. free market) transition to alternative energy sources. So the price of plastic will increase...big deal, it's super cheap anyway right now. I certainly won't be spending $6,500 more on plastics if the price of oil goes to $300/barrel.
If we were really serious about cutting gasoline consumption, we would take a serious look at land use and zoning, so that people didn't have to drive such long distances to get to work or shop.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
In case you aren't aware, gasoline-ethanol blends are subject to a little trick known as the water scam. As you are probably aware, water is not soluble in gasoline - but water is soluble in ethanol, and this ethanol-water mix is partially soluble in gasoline. In short, water can be mixed into gasoline-ethanol blends.. I'm sure you can see where this is going.
As high-ethanol blends such as E85 become more widespread, and fuel prices climb, the opportunity and ability to scam the consumer will multiply. Fortunately, testing for water in gasoline blends is relatively simple, requiring only a simple, inexpensive test kit.
Believe it or not, I actually managed to get an Amoco station shut down (temporarily) in the late 1980s for pulling just this scam. I was in tech school at the time, and noticed that fuel from this station had a way of making my fuel-finicky BMW motorbike run very badly. Did the test, found something like 8-10% water, and called the regulatory authority. Saw the closed sign on the station several days later..
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
35 miles per gallon = 0.067 liters per kilometer
If a company sells one pure electric car, which get infinite miles per gallon, the fleet average will be infinite miles per gallon!
one electric car at 0L/100km doesn't do anything to the average if it's a big fleet.
It's not. You are absolutely correct. The main useful effect of subsidizing corn/maize derived ethanol is to drive up food prices. Much/most of the food eaten here in the US has some corn/maize component in it. It does not in any substantial way reduce our oil dependency, it uses valuable arable land, and it is basically a handout to farmers who are already subsidized quite heavily. Like steel tariffs it benefits a few at the expense of the rest of society.
I have no beef with ethanol being a part of our energy supply, particularly from bio-waste. Diversity in energy sources is a good thing. But corn derived ethanol is just a terrible product to subsidize.
So true. Remember how they cried wolf when the Clean Air act passed and mandatory air efficiency guidelines were set into effect? That too was going to cost the consumer "thousands" of dollars and also be the end of the American auto industry. Didn't happen.
Unfortunately, while 35MPG sounds good the bill is little more than a whitewash, with a loophole large enough to drive an SUV through. Apparently once again the 35MPG is a "fleet" standard, so not every vehicle has to meet it as long as the fleet as a whole does.
Worse, vehicles get a 50% milage "credit" if they're ethanol-friendly. Add $50 or so worth of corrosion-resistant fittings and seals to that Chevy Subdivision so it can burn E85, and bingo: that 20MPG land bruiser now gets 30MPG in the eyes of the bill, raising fleet averages considerably.
And which in passing gives yet another sop to the corn/ethanol industry.
Did you honestly think they'd pass a bill that managed to do something positive?
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The answer is simple. And you will likely not believe it. The reason is that there simply is no demand for it. People, on the whole, are demanding that cars have lots of horsepower, lots of acceleration. They don't want little wimpy cars. All of the major US auto makers (Ford and GM at the moment; Chrysler is not a US automaker anymore) have made little gutless, high-mileage cars, and they can't sell enough of them to even pay for the R&D costs of developing them. So despite the outcry on slashdot, as a whole people just don't want what the government is seeing fit to mandate. In Europe and Asia, cars are smaller and much more efficient. The people there don't seem to want bigger, more powerful vehicles. So those companies are producing cars with higher mileage and doing just fine. Sadly here in the US we're the ones responsible for what GM and Ford are. And forcing through regulation rather than trying to change the attitudes of consumers, will just end up in the end killing Ford and GM and eliminating 10s of thousands of jobs from our own economy.
Oh and electric cars? No demand on the scale that would break even the costs. It wasn't GM that killed the electric car back in the 90s (whenever that was). It was a combination of very immature technology and total and utter consumer apathy. GM lost a lot of money on that little venture. They couldn't actually sell the cars because to do so would have been a huge loss for them, so they just leased them. And when the car was deemed "finished," GM brought them all back and destroyed them. Because the cost to GM of leaving them with the few people that wanted them would have been far too high in terms of GM's maintenance obligations.
Ironically, it's these large, gas guzzling SUVs that stand to benefit the most from hybrid technology. They are already large enough to easily replace the transmission with the hybrid module. Then in city driving an SUV should actually get close to 30 MPG, and have the perceived increase in acceleration (perceived power) that people think they want.
In short, it's all of us who keep the auto industry back. Computer-controlled, constantly variable transmissions for optimal engine efficiency? Nope, it feels too unnatural and the acceleration feels poor, even though it's actually better: put in artificial shift points so I can feel my body pushing back into the seat as I accelerate in spurts. Electrically-controlled breaks? No way! what happens when a wire is cut? Too dangerous! More efficient vehicles? Oh yeah, as long as I can accelerate off the light to 25 MPH in 1 second flat! Oh, and I might need to go 90 MPH on the freeway too. Oh, and I want to be able to drive 500 miles on on tank of gas. But it's so wrong that it costs me $130 to fill up my tank every day. Someone needs to do something.
I hate measuring consumption instead of mileage. Calculating range is easier when using distance per quantity: multiply the quantity left by the constant and there you go.
Also, mileage lends itself to handier values; as cars improve, the mileage numbers grow and occupy a higher range of values. With consumption, values asymptotically approach zero. Comparing 100mpg with 80mpg is easier for most people (and probably quicker for all people) than comparing 2.35L/100km with 2.94L/100km. If you start getting into very high efficiencies, it's the difference between comparing 500:600mpg and .470:.392L/100km. While both are mathematically similar, the former is more intuitive for most people.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
As Congress has sought to target the increasingly large vehicles that Americans seek to buy, the auto makers response is to market larger and larger GVW vehicles to the consumer segment of the population. While many people will end up buying the more economical vehicles, there is a certain segment of the population that cannot deal with the tradeoffs* in performance and will switch to the next larger size. Currently, our local GMC dealer is beginning to carry pickup trucks based on the 4500 Series. They are selling like hot cakes. Larger vehicles are also possible, depending on how the MPG standards are written.
*One interesting tradeoff has nothing to do with fuel economy, but rather with the IRS's treatment of vehicle expenses allowed for 'cars' (and other light vehicles) vs those allowed for heavy trucks. People who use vehicles for business purposes, even if these do not involve the hauling of goods or equipment, realize such a tax savings by purchasing a vehicle that qualifies as a large truck, that fuel costs just vanish in the economic equation. Until the IRS removes the penalties for using smaller vehicles, I anticipate that this trend will only continue.
Have gnu, will travel.
E85 is made mostly of diesel fuel from the tractors and harvesters used to grow the corn. If we went back to by-hand weeding and harvesting there wouldn't be a problem for jobs and we wouldn't be using oil to make ethanol. Sure, it is about a 1.1 to 1 ratio so there is a benefit to ethanol, but most of this benefit is a gift to highly mechanized corn farming.
*Sigh*.
Guess it is time to buy another Corvette in the near future...while they still MAKE a fun, high powered sports car.
Why doesn't the govt. try a different route, rather than dictating what car companies have to do....why not give them tax breaks and incentive, to build more efficient and alternative fuel cars? Then, let the market sort things out.
I mean, with gas prices now....people, at least the poorer ones, are gonna start shedding those SUV's pretty soon anyway. This is another area we don't need the govt. involved in. By the way, what constitutional power enumerates the govt. regulating private businesses like this? I forget.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
50kms = half of 100kms so if I get 12l/100km and I only need to drive half of that I'll consume 6l and gas right now is about $1.00/litre so it's an easy $6.
That's the beauty of metric. It's all base-10. Slide a decimal place around and calculations are almost non-existant.
Your rant reminds me of an American gentleman who once scorned the metric system because he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1/4lb of meat is enough for a healthy sandwich so he doesn't have to think at the deli counter. (Strange, since that equates to 113 grams. When working in restaurants I've always made sandwiches with about 80 grams, but I suppose 113 grams or thereabouts would make a healthy sandwich. {shrug} I guess you can insert some sort of American weight stereotype here :)
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.