hyperv6

Detroit News: Hillary Calls for 55 MPG BY 2030

52 posts in this topic

Hillary Clinton calls for 55 mpg by 2030

David Shepardson and Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposed hiking fuel economy standards to a combined fleetwide average of 55 miles per gallon by 2030.

She also pledged to offer domestic automakers $20 billion in low-interest government loans to help retool factories.

Clinton, the New York Democratic senator, has courted the United Auto Workers and met with domestic auto CEOs, but been at odds with them on fuel economy requirements.

In a speech Monday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, she joined Democratic rivals in taking a hard line on requiring substantial increases in fuel economy requirements. Clinton proposed a boost significantly beyond what the Senate approved in June, which is to hike combined fleet-wide standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2020. That's a 60 percent increase over the current 25 mpg standard.

A less-aggressive proposal would cost automakers at least $85 billion by 2020.

She argued that engine technology has stagnated, noting that Henry Ford would immediately recognize the engine in a car made today.

"Imagine over the last century if we had advanced as far in powering our autos as we have at making them safer," she said.

Of auto companies, Clinton said: "I want to be a partner, a good partner, to help them transition to the clean economy." She also said she would work with them on legacy health care and retiree costs.

The Senate in June voted 65-27 to increase fuel economy standards to a combined 35 mpg by 2020 -- a 40 percent increase.

The Detroit Three and Toyota have backed a softer increase that would hike fuel economy standards by between 28 and 40 percent by 2022 to between 32 mpg and 35 mpg.

House and Senate staffers are working behind closed doors to try to reach a deal on an energy bill. The House sidestepped the issue of fuel economy when it passed an energy bill in August -- in part because more than 160 House members had backed the increased supported by automakers.

Clinton's presidential campaign rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, has been running ads in New Hampshire touting the fact that he spoke to the Detroit Economic Club in May to tell automakers directly they need to do more.

"I went to Detroit to insist that we had to increase fuel economy standards," Obama says in his ad.

Another presidential rival, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., would hike fuel economy standards to 50 mpg by 2017 and former Sen. John Edwards has said Americans should be encouraged to give up their SUVs.

Sen. Clinton is taking a much tougher line with automakers today than she did in May 2006, when she declined to directly endorse a specific fuel economy increase.

"I do believe it's vital we make progress on fuel- efficiency standards. We can't separate, however, the challenge of making auto manufacturing more energy-efficient and the challenge of making U.S. manufacturing more competitive," she said then at a National Press Club forum. "I believe we could do both. We need to be sure that our high standards don't provide an easy excuse for more auto jobs to leave the U.S., but I don't think that's the reason not to do it."

But since then the ground has dramatically shifted as automakers have lost a series of battles -- in the courts and on Capitol Hill -- amid growing momentum to raise passenger cars standards, which haven't been raised since 1985.

Clinton's campaign said by 2030 "these tough CAFE standards will save consumers more than $180 billion per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730 million metric tons."

Clinton signed a letter last week raising her opposition to a provision in the Senate bill would weaken a provision of U.S law designed to keep 17,000 small car production jobs in the United States -- a key concern of the UAW.

Her 16-page plan notes that "Domestic automakers face serious competitive challenges due to higher labor costs, older equipment, and higher health care costs than their competition."

She would also create $20 billion in low-interest "Green Vehicle Bonds" so automakers could get "immediate help to retool the oldest auto plants to meet her strong efficiency standards."

U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, in February proposed up to $20 billion in federally backed loan guarantees to automakers and suppliers to cut the cost of obtaining capital.

Automakers could also get a " tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans to offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures that exceed a certain threshold."

She would also move to accelerate production of plug-in electric hybrids -- though none are currently commercially available in wide numbers.

Clinton also said she would:

*Invest $2 billion in research and development to reduce the cost and increase the longevity and durability of batteries. Last year, automakers asked President Bush for $500 million in new battery funding -- a request that wasn't granted.

*Offer consumers tax credits of up to $10,000 for purchasing a plug-in hybrid

*Add 100,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to the federal fleet by 2015.

One auto official said "it's futile to comment when the candidates are engaged in one-upsmanship."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm..... I wonder if you asked her what the Chevy Volt was if she would have a clue?

Second: I wonder if she has a clue to how much reshearch 2 Billion would buy you?

Third: I wonder if she has a clue how much $20 billion in loans would do to retrofit all the pants to meet this goal?

I know things need to improve but these canadates needs to engage someone who has a clue.

It is just so sad Americans as a whole are getting so uniformed that people running for office can say anything and get away with it so easy.

What is even more sad is there are few in the news media smart eough to call her on this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like these Presidential candidates are getting into one-up mode when it comes to fuel economy solutions, to show the sheep voters how commited they are in saving the planet and who is better, without thinking scientifically, financially and literally.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the government should not be a business! ...this idea is what the article/clinton is talking about, but she wants it to be a business

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Leyland was run by the British Goverment.

And today MG is a car from China.

Those who can do those who can't run for office.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool. $10K for a Volt. And plug-in hybrids will definitely boost manufacturer averages. The proposed method to calculate FE of range-extender-EVs is to drive "repeatedly through federal city cycles (6 miles) until the ICE kicks in, then it is driven one more. The fuel economy would then be calculated as the amount of gas used divided by the miles and controlling for electric consumption."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$20 billion to update the Big Three's factories?

That'd be a start...for, oh, say...Ford's Michigan plants.

Edited by AxelTheRed
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so the ICE kicks in after 6.6 city cycles (40 miles), and then it will run for 1 more cycle (6 miles).

The Volt uses 8 kWh per 40 miles. 600g CO2 are produced from a NG power plant per kWh, so that's 4.8 kg CO2 in EV mode over 40 miles. 4.8kg CO2 is equivalent to .55 gallons of gasoline, so that means a Volt (running on electricity from NG) gets an equivalent 73 MPG in EV mode. Factor in the 50 MPG in gas mode over 6 miles, and that's an average of 66 MPG.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it, I'm running for candidacy: I declare 60 MPG by 2020. I can do it, vote for me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's hoping we improve fuel economy AND emissions before these power-hungy self-serving lawyer vampires use the lack therof to take over one more part of our lives. God help the USA.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bicycles for everyone!

Recent scientific study funded by Al Gore shows that bicycles pollute!

I will make 5 miles of daily walking mandatory by 2010, and increase that to 10 miles by 2015! And then finally 16 miles by 2020! By then, daily walking should cover the average American commute, potentially decreasing vehicle emissions to 0%!

Vote for me!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent scientific study funded by Al Gore shows that bicycles pollute!

I will make 5 miles of daily walking mandatory by 2010, and increase that to 10 miles by 2015! And then finally 16 miles by 2020! By then, daily walking should cover the average American commute, potentially decreasing vehicle emissions to 0%!

Vote for me!!

Uh, I will make it a point to eat as many beans and heads of broccoli I can so when I'm doing this 16 mile per day walk, I assure you, although vehicular emissions will be down, other emissions will be on the rise :AH-HA_wink:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I consider myself a bit of a Republican and yes 55 is a high number and yes there is a lot of one-upsmanship going on, but at least Hillary is the first candidate to offer some help. Hopefully what follows is a better combination from another candidate...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A proposal so stupid, only a politician could think it up

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure TWENTY years after the introduction of the Volt, we *will* see an average of 55 MPG. These changes don't happen over night, but we have to get started eventually.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we invest more in hydrogen infrastructure and forget about the MPG bull$h! by 2030.

because hydrogen is not a fuel source.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or we could take away the ban on pebble bed nuclear reactors put in place by the Carter Administration to reduce the chance of nuclear proliferation. The pebble bed reactors that Westinghouse is developing for China could be used here.

The some nice things about pebble bed reactors is they have an inherent, natural, safety system so that if there is a catastrophic loss of coolant, the reactor goes into idle mode. This happens without any human interaction at all. Secondly, the nuclear fuel is recyclable. They don't use water as a coolant so there is no need to locate them near rivers. They use helium as a coolant which is about the most benign element there is. It doesn't pick up radioactivity like most other elements do... so if the coolant escapes, it's not a health hazard.

Then we could replace all those dirty coal plants.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sen. Clinton is taking a much tougher line with automakers today than she did in May 2006, when she declined to directly endorse a specific fuel economy increase.

That statement right there is the meaning behind this entire situation.

Hillary doesn't give a rats ass about the environment (Nobody does in Washington) She's merely trying to get votes. In May 2006, being 'green' wasn't favored among voters, but now that it is and politics = business her advisors have told her to whisper exactly what the public wants into it's ear.

So now, we have this 'tough stance' on fuel economy that isn't about the environment or foreign dependence on oil. It's about pleasing the voter who is pissed about paying $3/gallon for fuel.

I can't wait for the day that exciting cars are no longer produced. I guess the liberals decided that they couldn't kill Detroit, so they'd just kill the car entirely. It'll be funny to see how much of this is actually implemented when the reality of the situation proves that these politician's mouths are writing checks their asses can't cash.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$20 billion to update the Big Three's factories?

That'd be a start...for, oh, say...Ford's Michigan plants.

:yes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That statement right there is the meaning behind this entire situation.

Hillary doesn't give a rats ass about the environment (Nobody does in Washington) She's merely trying to get votes. In May 2006, being 'green' wasn't favored among voters, but now that it is and politics = business her advisors have told her to whisper exactly what the public wants into it's ear.

So now, we have this 'tough stance' on fuel economy that isn't about the environment or foreign dependence on oil. It's about pleasing the voter who is pissed about paying $3/gallon for fuel.

I can't wait for the day that exciting cars are no longer produced. I guess the liberals decided that they couldn't kill Detroit, so they'd just kill the car entirely. It'll be funny to see how much of this is actually implemented when the reality of the situation proves that these politician's mouths are writing checks their asses can't cash.

Maybe I should pick up a few cars now... :scratchchin:

And upping the MPG is going to save us now.....4-5 bucks a gallon of gas should throw us into a nice recession.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because hydrogen is not a fuel source.

But it is a possibly much more efficient means to store energy than traditional batteries (key word is possibly). And it can be generated using clean methods such as solar just like electricity. Here's something cool.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is a possibly much more efficient means to store energy than traditional batteries (key word is possibly). And it can be generated using clean methods such as solar just like electricity. Here's something cool.

Really, it doesn't matter. *Everything* needs energy, whether you're creating electricity for li-ion plug-ins, hydrogen for fuel cells, or biofuels for ICEs, so we need to find a way to produce more of it cleanly and to reduce individual consumption of it. There isn't a no-compromise magical bullet; conservation has proven to be the most immediate, cost-effective, and feasible.

Edited by empowah
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the best proposal of all. In order to offset the increased emissions of power plants powering electric vehicles we will institute mandatory treadmill runs for 45 minutes a day on treadmills which will generate electricity based on the running of all the obese people in the US. Think of the reduced cost to feed/house all the obese people and the reduced health care costs associated w/ lowered obesity in the US.

Remember a vote for me is a vote for 91z4me!!! :pbjtime:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...