Sign in to follow this  
NINETY EIGHT REGENCY

Obama wants rules requiring 60 mpg cars by 2025

22 posts in this topic

Obama wants rules requiring 60 mpg cars by 2025

08:42 AM

Automakers are barely into the run-up to a government-required 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016 and they're about to be staring at a 60-mpg standard, it appears.

A proposed mileage rule is expected from the Obama administration this week, listing an overall auto-industry standard in 2025 that could range from about 47 mpg to 60 mpg. The process for finalizing such rules means it wouldn't be set in concrete until late 2011 or early 2012.

One big backer of the 60 mpg number is the Natural Resources Defense Council. The NRDC's transportation issues czar, Roland Hwang, blogs about the issue extensively. He tells Drive On that the technology required for automakers to average 60 mpg (1.67 gallons per 100 miles) would boost the average price of a 2025 vehicle $2,700 in today's dollars. Such a vehicle would repay its owner via fuel savings in about 4.5 years, assuming gasoline is an average of $3.40 a gallon in today's money, he says.

In NRDC's view, hewing to a softer line than 60 mpg would allow the automakers to stagnate into uncompetitiveness with rivals in China and other fast-moving economic powerhouses:

He acknowledgers that the only way for car companies to hit such a target, even as far out as 2025, would be for about 55% of cars sold to be hybrids and 15% to be plug-in hybrids or pure battery-electric vehicles.

The clever reader (that is, all Drive On readers) will begin to wonder about now how electric vehicles can get "miles per gallon," given that they use no gallons.

What happens is that a standard for carbon emissions is set, and it's translated into mpg or miles-per-gallon-equivalents (mpge). Hwang says today's models might emit around 300 grams of carbon per mile, while electrics -- which have no so-called "local" emissions -- would cause 120 gm/mi. of carbon emissions after you factor in what comes from the utility plants that generate the juice to charge the electrics.

So, set the carbon standard low enough and you force a rapid move away from petroleum-burning machines. Carbon emission are blamed for greenhouse gas accumulation, which is blamed for climate change.

The integrity of the "global warming" argument took some hits when purloined emails showed the scientists couldn't always prove what they were asserting. A good early report on the controversy by the New York Times is here.

link:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/09/60-mpg-required-by-2025---/1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... just... Wow.

We really have to clean house in DC.

I'll support such a thing, but only if all government vehicles meet the requirement by 2020.

I imagine that this will crash whats left of the economy by 2026, and bring on the second revolution by 2028.

So... whats next? Obama wants rules requiring cancer and AIDS to be cured by 2020?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is poor long range planning in one way...you can't mandate what we can't now build....

This is why the whole electrical vehicle mandate for California fell on its arse, IIRC. We would be better off with a realisitic budget for alternative fuels....

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid, stupid, and even more stupid.

These jackasses need to lose their jobs.

the problem is that the incoming jackasses may be much worse than the jackasses we already have...

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy peasy when it's an industry-wide average. Something like the Leaf gets hundreds of miles to the gallon, which can offset a 30 MPG (CAFE) F-150 EcoBoost. With electrification, the efficiency improvement potential is limitless. We need to fundamentally change the way we fuel our cars whether it's for health, the environment, or our national security.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy peasy when it's an industry-wide average. Something like the Leaf gets hundreds of miles to the gallon, which can offset a 30 MPG (CAFE) F-150 EcoBoost. With electrification, the efficiency improvement potential is limitless. We need to fundamentally change the way we fuel our cars whether it's for health, the environment, or our national security.

Thats already in the article... its difficult to put a mileage figure on what the Leaf or Volt actually gets in "average" usage.

The problem here is that nobody is taking into account the losses between the electric generation and the Leaf... which can be upwards of 35%... and that we are trading a million relatively clean engine emissions for a single massive filthy coal plant. Sure it fixes one problem... our supposed "dependence" on foreign oil... but trades it for who knows how much air pollution.

_IF_ electric cars are allowed into the equation (which I'm not sure they will be ultimately), massive electric car use will overload an already overloaded grid and the need for more electric plants will bring the question of nuclear power to the forefront (which may not be a bad thing).

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind power is profitable at 10c a kwh today, with increased production windmill production that price would come down to coal levels. In my area the coal rate is 8.3c a kwh. The only problem here is that as the demand for coal decreases, the price for coal electricity will drop, creating cries of "But renewables cost so much more!"

I use about 450kwh a month, which work out to about a $7 per month price premium...... not a lot to pay to have clean air and no mountain top removal coal mining.

One of the things about home charging stations is that they'll eventually hook up to the grid for smart charging/metering. You may plug in your Volt when you get home at 6:30, but it might only trickle charge till 1 am when it starts a full charge. You'll also be able to tell your Volt the next time you think you'll need it so that it will stagger the charging to keep the batteries in optimal condition, yet full when you need it. However, that's also shows the importance of the onboard generator for those unforeseen times when you forgot to get milk. All of this goes into making the most of what infrastructure we have today.

Before anyone harps on me about the instability of wind power, let me point this out: If we had taken the $1.7 trillion dollars we've spent on Iraq and Afghanistan and installed windmills instead, we would have had triple redundancy in the network and been able to shut down every fossil fuel powered plant out there.

There are 140 million private, single family, homes in the U.S.. At an average cost of $10,000 per installation, we could have equipped every single one of those homes with solar panels and still spend less money than we've spent in the Mid-East.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 140 million private, single family, homes in the U.S.. At an average cost of $10,000 per installation, we could have equipped every single one of those homes with solar panels and still spend less money than we've spent in the Mid-East.

I get what you're saying, but I just want to point out that $10,000 per house won't power the average McMansion... let alone two additional electric SUVs.

And this free electric bliss is not going to come about easily... I know firsthand that in one township, in the sticks, in south Jersey... it seems that the electric company has worked their magic in getting the local politicians to severely limit the total KWs of Solar one can park on your roof... and have legislated that solar panels can not be more than 8 inches above the roof... and any other power, like non-roof mounted solar panels or windmills have limitations on height and number, as well. You are not allowed to generate more power than your house can use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, but I just want to point out that $10,000 per house won't power the average McMansion... let alone two additional electric SUVs.

Didn't say it would, but it would remove entirely the need for new coal plants.

And this free electric bliss is not going to come about easily... I know firsthand that in one township, in the sticks, in south Jersey... it seems that the electric company has worked their magic in getting the local politicians to severely limit the total KWs of Solar one can park on your roof... and have legislated that solar panels can not be more than 8 inches above the roof... and any other power, like non-roof mounted solar panels or windmills have limitations on height and number, as well. You are not allowed to generate more power than your house can use.

Which is why we need at least state wide standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why we need at least state wide standards.

but if that state limits it like his example.... your idea is flawed.

other than noise ordinances, if someone owns the property, they should be able to install as much as they want/can afford. tada, his example becomes nullified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is poor long range planning in one way...you can't mandate what we can't now build....

yes.... but we got to the moon basically in 9 years. but we had no budget constrictions for that since it was the gov (everyone) paying for it. if the motor companies can't make it, assuming this becomes law, everyone will pay for it, either in fees on the companies or subsidies paid to them to get to the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REPORT: OBAMA ADMIN EYES 62 MPG AVERAGE BY 2025

By Mark Kleis

With each passing year the requirements imposed on automakers to create environmentally friendly vehicles continue to grow even more far reaching and stringent, with the latest changes aimed at increasing the required fleet-wide miles per gallon average to be 62 by 2025.

The suggestion that the next national average requirement would reach 62 mpg by 2025 comes from environmentalists who are familiar with the discussions taking place by members of the Obama administration, says Bloomberg.

Although talks are still ongoing, the Obama administration could announce its decision as soon as later today. It is believed that the decision will call for an increase in fuel economy of three to six percent each year starting with model year 2017 vehicles, at least according to Dan Becker, a member of the Safe Climate Campaign, who has inside knowledge of the discussions.

Should the government decide that a six percent annual increase is both feasible and best for the country, or at least the environment, then that standard would result in the 62 mpg figure in 2025. The current rate is set at 5 percent, by the Obama administration, and calls for a 35.5 mpg average for model year 2016 vehicles.

"It should be six percent because that is consistent with the best technology, " says Becker, who in addition to being director of the Washington-based Safe Climate organization is also the former head of the Sierra Club's own global warming program. Becker went on to suggest that it is simply a matter of "auto mechanics," and then said that is "has to be done."

Automaker's take?

Also present at the talks were representatives from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Washington trade group representing companies such as General Motors, Chrysler and Ford.

When asked to comment on the specifics of the matter, representatives declined to speculate pending a decision from the Obama administration, but did offer some insight into their position, “We’re hopeful that the notice recognizes the challenges and the cost associated with introducing advance-technology vehicles,” said Charles Territo, the alliance spokesman. “It is important that manufacturers have the necessary lead times needed to implement new technologies at an affordable cost.”

link:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/report-obama-admin-eyes-62-mpg-average-by-2025.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is just great, the regime has even bigger and better plans for us. "For the greater good." Love the president or hate him, I don't care you cannot defend flawed logic like this. Sure could all cars get 62 mpg, of course. We will like the cars they sell that get 62 mpg? I for one won't. This is why we have to vote these progressive clowns out of power. The free market will take care of what kinds of cars people want to buy, NOT the DOT or EPA. They are going to have to pry me out of my fullsize gasoline powered vehicle. If you want a new RWD V8 powered vehicle truck or car get one while you still can. They will be gone before we know it. I am thinking about voting libertarian next time!

Edited by gm4life
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relax guys. Eight cylinder trucks are not going anywhere, and neither is rear-wheel drive.

If enacted, that's fifteen years from now. Here's proof that meeting the average won't be terribly hard, AND you can still have fast, rear wheel drive vehicles.

It's expensive now, but in five years, you can bet this drivetrain will be affordable. Technology always saves our ass.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technology always saves our ass.

Maybe not always, but often enough....and I think our grand children will have some pretty awesome stuff to play around with if they are still hot rodding cars.

Suppose you had a time machine...how much fun could a group of 17 year old gearheads from 1956 had with a modern LS1?

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this