Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House Finalizes 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standard

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the couldn't-you-pick-an-integer dept.

Democrats 1184

The Obama Administration announced today it has finalized new fuel efficiency standards that will require new cars and light-duty trucks to have an average efficiency of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. This adds to the requirement that 2016's new cars must average 35.5 miles per gallon. "The final standards were developed by DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA following extensive engagement with automakers, the United Auto Workers, consumer groups, environmental and energy experts, states, and the public. Last year, 13 major automakers, which together account for more than 90 percent of all vehicles sold in the United States, announced their support for the new standards." According to the administration, the standards will reduce dependence on foreign oil, save money at the pump, protect the environment, and everything else that sounds good in an election year.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CAFE Kills (-1, Flamebait)

skywire (469351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153001)

US traffic injuries and fatalities will increase sharply in 2016, and again in 2025.

Re:CAFE Kills (1)

JamesRing (1789222) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153069)

Why?

Re:CAFE Kills (4, Interesting)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153153)

Hypothetically because smaller cars are less safe. Not that I subscribe to that theory.

Re:CAFE Kills (-1, Troll)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153311)

They're only more dangerous if every other fucking idiot on the road is going grocery shopping in their fucking Dodge Ram with the two wheels side-by-side rather than a normal human-sized car.

Also, 55mpg in fifteen years? *yawn*.

The goal should be to have 90% non-fossil-fuel vehicles by 2025. This is even less fucking ambitious than "we should land a man on the moon again by 2025".

Re:CAFE Kills (5, Insightful)

jpedlow (1154099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153517)

Sorry, I use my dodge ram (with Duallies, thats what we call them) to go grocery shopping, to pull my boat, to pull a horse trailer, to help friends move. But saying that I'm unsafe because I drive a pickup is pretty narrow minded. I'd imagine that I'm less dangerous than 20somethings with sportbikes or a sports cars. Oh or the soccer-moms texting&driving with a minivan full of kids. Jackass.

it's an arms race (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153321)

soccer mom texting in her gas guzzling behemoth, when wrecking with a subcompact, tends to survive better than the poor guy in the subcompact

so the real solution is to just get rid of the gas guzzling behemoths

but i guess some people want status conscious assholes driving our energy policy

Re:it's an arms race (5, Funny)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153503)

soccer mom texting in her gas guzzling behemoth, when wrecking with a subcompact, tends to survive better than the poor guy in the subcompact

Sort of like survival of the unfittest.

Re:it's an arms race (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153617)

soccer mom texting in her gas guzzling behemoth, when wrecking with a subcompact, tends to survive better than the poor guy in the subcompact

so the real solution is to just get rid of the gas guzzling behemoths

Why, so everybody dies, instead of just the guy in the tin can?

Hell, if anything, your little anecdote is a rationale for people to drive nothing but SUVs.

Re:it's an arms race (1, Insightful)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153627)

but i guess some people want status conscious assholes driving our energy policy

Also known as "consumers". I'd rather have the market deciding what's needed than have it come from officious busybodies in a Politburo who want to dictate energy policy from on high, "for our own good" of course. If you want an example of what a more unfettered energy policy can do, North Dakota and natural gas fracking is one. Natural gas prices have fallen so low that manufacturers are relocating to the US just to take advantage of the new cheaper resource. Even car companies are looking into making vehicles that run on the stuff.

Re:CAFE Kills (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153383)

Hypothetically because smaller cars are less safe. Not that I subscribe to that theory.

Lighter cars are less safe in collisions with heavier ones. It's basic physics. And if you suddenly reduce the weight of all new cars, any time they collide with older, heavier cars, they're going to be at a disadvantage. Thus, injuries and fatalities would increase sharply in 2016 and 2025 if sudden drastic weight differentials are created (They won't, but that's the theory he's operating under, so I'll go with it).

What isn't mentioned, however, is the long and constant downward slope that would follow both those sudden, hypothetical increases...

Re:CAFE Kills (1)

shine (1502) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153597)

NHTSA said back in the eighties* that smaller cars are safer b/c they are less likely to hit something or be hit b/c of their size. It makes sense that when you are hit, it's a greater catastrophe but you'd be hit less often.

~S

*I had a Toyota Corolla, a very small car then, now have a Prius. It consistenly gets 45 mpg or better and is a mid size car.

Re:CAFE Kills (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153393)

Short answer, heavier cars have lower fuel efficiency (more energy to drive a larger mass) but are safer than lighter cars (more mass to play with to add additional safety features – and mass does provided safety) – it’s a known trade off.

They have more mass and (generally) more volume so the impact and deformation of the crash can be spread out over more time.

If a heavy car hits a light car the light car is going to move further. If a heavy car hits a light pole, the longer hood will dissipate more of the energy.

Now lighter cars are getting pretty innovated in safety features – but you can almost always apply those features to larger vehicle.

Re:CAFE Kills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153411)

All the things mentioned that sound good in an election year are based on a reduction in average consumption.

CAFE sets an average mileage (inverse of consumption) requirement. This promotes a bimodal distribution in vehicle size, as manufacturers make money on big cars and bring up the fleet mileage with tiny cars. Accident statistics show the resulting size disparity in collisions leads to more injuries and deaths.

An average consumption requirement would better serve all the stated goals. But, this is less politically favorable and Americans can't do math anyways, so...

 

Re:CAFE Kills (1)

dinsdale3 (579466) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153497)

Why?

Because the easiest way to improve gas mileage is to reduce the weight of the vehicle, meaning less steel protecting you in an accident.

Re:CAFE Kills (3, Funny)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153121)

US traffic injuries and fatalities will increase sharply in 2016, and again in 2025.

Not in 2025.. The oil would have run out by then.

Re:CAFE Kills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153159)

Probably a good chance of that given the physics involved. And?

I suppose we could start lowering the fuel efficiency standards and drive tanks, but it would probably have an undesirable effect on fuel consumption rates and road wear.

Would lack of any regulations do a better job for road safety or fuel efficiency?

Re:CAFE Kills (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153219)

Would lack of any regulations do a better job for road safety or fuel efficiency?

What exactly is wrong with letting individuals decide how safe and economical they want their vehicles to be?

Do you really want to be hit by a truck while driving a Fiat 500?

Re:CAFE Kills (4, Insightful)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153301)

If the truck you're hit by is an 18-wheeler transport truck it won't matter if you're driving a Fiat or an F150. If you only have a standard driver's license then you're nowhere near the biggest thing on the road, and should probably learn how to drive defensively rather than depending on the size of your vehicle to save you in a crash.

Re:CAFE Kills (5, Interesting)

SuperQ (431) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153553)

Yea, I would much rather be driving a Fiat 500 than an F150. The Fiat can get out of the way or stop much faster than an F150. Just being able to avoid an accident beats size way more often.

The fact that people have given up avoiding accidents is a sad description of the state of driver education in the US.

Re:CAFE Kills (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153305)

Would lack of any regulations do a better job for road safety or fuel efficiency?

What exactly is wrong with letting individuals decide how safe and economical they want their vehicles to be?

Do you really want to be hit by a truck while driving a Fiat 500?

Well no, I'd rather be hit be a similarly sized 2500lb (1000kg) car. But if everyone else is driving 6000lb (2500kg) Ford Expeditions, then I'm forced to buy a larger car to compensate. So why should I be forced to pay more money for a larger, less fuel efficient car just to keep up with everyone else?

Re:CAFE Kills (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153585)

You drive a Volvo, don't you?

/I will be in an accident, so I must have a safe car

Re:CAFE Kills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153307)

Because it effects everyone not just themselves. If there were no negative externalities involved by letting people do what they want you might have a point.

Re:CAFE Kills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153433)

Do you really want to be hit by a truck while driving a Fiat 500?

I don't really want to be hit by a truck in any car

Re:CAFE Kills (2, Insightful)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153167)

Cite or GTFO.

My mother, in her little blue Ford escort, was crushed to death under an oncoming SUV that was gigantic relative to the size of its passenger, and barely controllable on an icy Buffalo-area road in winter. I am, understandably, dubious about this constant "CAFE kills" blurp that occurs in every last conversation of fuel economy. I'm willing to bet that if most people used the same size vehicles, rather than vehicle size being related to income level, everyone would drive more carefully and charitably.

Re:CAFE Kills (4, Interesting)

jdastrup (1075795) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153547)

Some families are larger than others and need a vehicle that can hold several people. Busses exists. Tractor-trailers exists. Some people need larger vehicles to haul boats and toys, haul work equipment, haul [insert large object here]. You will always have large and small vehicles on the road. It's a fact that most of the increase in fuel economy over the last few yeas is attributed to smaller and lighter cars, thinner sheet metal, plastic parts, etc. Hybrids, electricity, the air-powered cars in India, and other mileage-increasing technologies typically just move the carbon-generating from the vehicle itself to somewhere miles away.

even assuming your lame premise (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153273)

we could have those deaths in the middle east instead, where we send our young people to die, so we can fill our gas guzzling behemoths back home

personally, i'd rather just kill the gas guzzling behemoths. status conscious assholes should not drive our energy policy

Air resistance. (4, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153061)

At some point you just have to account for the laws of physics.

Pushing a vehicle at 80MPH down the highway is going to be hard to do and get 54.5 MPG. No matter how "hybrid" the car is, no matter how good your regenerative breaking.. once you're at highway speeds, air resistance becomes insurmountable.

Re:Air resistance. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153149)

The laws of Physics do not apply to politicians.

Re:Air resistance. (5, Funny)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153387)

Au contraire....drop them from high enough and they still go *splat*...

The issue is, we're not dropping enough of them...vote 'em out!

Say "No" to Robomney

Re:Air resistance. (2)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153507)

Nor does thermodynamics, how else could they spout so much hot air when they talk?

Re:Air resistance. (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153599)

Could we possibly tap that hot air as an alternative energy source?

Re:Air resistance. (0)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153535)

Well, this is somewhat true.

The solution is to not test the vehicles at 80 MPH and, instead, test them at 55/65 MPH, which is the speed limit. If you choose to go over the speed limit, your gas mileage will suffer.

Re:Air resistance. (5, Funny)

Zemplar (764598) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153215)

While I agree with the intent of your comment, air resistance is certainly not "insurmountable." If it were, cars wouldn't be able to move at all.

Re:Air resistance. (2)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153223)

Gosh, it's a good thing there are very few places where you can legally drive 80 MPH then, isn't it?

Re:Air resistance. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153463)

There are tons of places where it's legal (or at least unenforced) where you can drive 80. I recently drove all the way across the country and I was doing 80 in every state that had 70 or 75mph limits (about half of them).

Re:Air resistance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153595)

Gosh, it's a good thing there are very few places where you can legally drive 80 MPH then, isn't it?

But 75 mph is the legal highway speed limit in many places, and the prevailing traffic flow tends to hover around 80.

Re:Air resistance. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153327)

Yeah I don't see how they will do it. There's not a single car for sale that gets 54mpg on the highway. And since this is an average it means they have to sell several 75-80mpg cars to offset the low 35-40mpg SUVs. Not even my two-seat Insight scored that high (current rating is 64).

I bet like the CARB requirement for 10% ZEVs (electric cars) by the year 2010, this new 54mpg standard will eventually be eliminated or modified. (The ZEV requirement was changed to gasoline SULEVs that have 150,000 mile catalytic converters. So still no electric cars.)

On the other hand maybe we'll see more cars imported from Europe. They used to have a car that scored 80mpg on the highway. They still have versions that get 65mpg.

Re:Air resistance. (2)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153447)

There's not a single car for sale that gets 54mpg on the highway.

...

On the other hand maybe we'll see more cars imported from Europe. They used to have a car that scored 80mpg on the highway. They still have versions that get 65mpg.

Was the first part sarcasm?

Re:Air resistance. (1)

blueturffan (867705) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153355)

At some point you just have to account for the laws of physics.

Pushing a vehicle at 80MPH down the highway is going to be hard to do and get 54.5 MPG..

I can see a few responses to this:

1. Conspiracy Theorist -- The government knows this and is just using CAFE as a way to lower freeway speeds to 50 MPH.
2. Pie-in-the-sky Optimist -- Engineers will develop a clever solution to the wind resistance problem. Perhaps something akin to noise cancelling headphones, but a 'wind cancellation' solution.
3. Pragmatist -- These standards will be seen as unrealistic and subsequently revised downward by a future administration.

Re:Air resistance. (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153391)

At some point you just have to account for the laws of physics.

Pushing a vehicle at 80MPH down the highway is going to be hard to do and get 54.5 MPG. No matter how "hybrid" the car is, no matter how good your regenerative breaking.. once you're at highway speeds, air resistance becomes insurmountable.

I do most of my driving at around that speed, and average about 45mpg on the occasions my car is actually running on gas.

To meet the averages, it just needs to be quite a bit better at city speeds. When estimating those miles, regeneration helps quite a bit. And if you are a hybrid (series or parallel), that counts, too.

What the requirements basically are going to do is push most new cars to be EV, hybrid or EV with a series-hybrid range extender.

While it may take 12 years for those costs to come down, I fail to see the downside in that. If it was 1999, sure, but today you've got good examples in all the categories that meet a wide range of requirements.

Re:Air resistance. (3, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153407)

So they'll just re-introduce the 55 MPH speed limit, which was done to save energy. [wikipedia.org]

There's also the fact that once on the highway, you won't be taking advantage of regenerative braking or other aspects that make the car more efficient. Then again, you could daisy chain cars together ala NASCAR and save wind resistance, but that would introduce computer control. Oh wait, that's being tried now anyway [drivesteady.com] , so by 2025, the Government will:

1) Reintroduce the 55 NMSL.
2) Put GPS Tracking in your car and charge you by the mile.
3) Mandate Computer Controlled Driving in the name of safety and fuel efficiency.

It's all being done for your protection and to save energy. The Government can't force public transit on you so they'll just regulate cars to make them behave more like public transit.

Blah.. I don't think I'll want to drive in 2025 then.

Re:Air resistance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153417)

Which means all engines won't break 1L displacement and the new national highway speed limit will be 35MPH

Re:Air resistance. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153421)

For fucks sake people. This is completely attainable and not an unrealistic goal. Fucking shill posters out in force early.

I had a car in the 80s that exceeded the 2035 guidelines. A civic hatchback with an 80hp 4banger. It was cheap, useful, and lasted 20 years before I got rid of it.
I'd buy one today.. BUT NOBODY MAKES THEM ANY MORE.

Have you seen cars today? Gigantic, heavy, creature-comfort cocoons that cost an arm and a leg. And that's it. Nobody sells a value care in America.
Initiatives like this force the industry to re-inject some sanity in to the market. Cheap credit has distorted the auto market. We all drive luxury vehicles.

And don't give me that fucking bullshit narrative about mandatory safety features the culprit for added weight. Want proof? EVERY FUCKING CAR IN EUROPE SOLD TODAY.

Re:Air resistance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153441)

With suitable collision avoidance, following closer to the vehicle ahead of you puts you in air where the speed difference between it and you car is reduced. That and optimized shape can do much for reducing air resistance.

Of course regenerative braking, or some other way to minimize the stops and speed changes, is very important to real world results. Some sort of wireless coordination service to increase ride-sharing would go a long way towards fuel savings and reduced congestion. Have some way of rating drivers and riders as being trustworthy to be with. Maybe even help pick some with mutual interests for the sake of better conversation. You might not always be in the mood for a teabagger.

Re:Air resistance. (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153453)

At some point you just have to account for the laws of physics.

Pushing a vehicle at 80MPH down the highway is going to be hard to do and get 54.5 MPG. No matter how "hybrid" the car is, no matter how good your regenerative breaking.. once you're at highway speeds, air resistance becomes insurmountable.

But add in a smart network letting cars drive down the freeway with a few feet of spacing between them, then air resistance is less of a factor at higher speeds. When the lead car can send its sensor data down the line to the trailing car so they can all react to obstacles and road conditions simultaneously, cars can safely drive close enough to reduce wind resistance. Periodically have the lead car drop back to be the trailing car to help even out the gas mileage of all cars.

All of the major car manufacturers back the higher standards, so they must feel that they are achievable.

Re:Air resistance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153509)

This would be relevant if the CAFE standards measured mileage at 80MPH.

Fuel Consumption Per Capita (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153063)

Will increase in 2016 and then again in 2025 as it costs less to travel farther and traveling farther will seem more appealing.

If you want to decrease the dependency on foreign oil, decrease efficiency of the cars.

Re:Fuel Consumption Per Capita (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153199)

Except the price for gas will be so high by then that even with the increased efficiency it will be much more expensive to travel that it is today.

Re:Fuel Consumption Per Capita (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153521)

Invest in Horses and Hay now!

Wait Apple will introduce a new hay that has rounded corners and will be rectangular. You will also have to be linked to an ITunes subscription to get more hay.

Re:Fuel Consumption Per Capita (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153427)

Or make the fuel more expensive? Gas is dirt cheap in the US compared to most of the industrialized world. If you tax it, it will be more expensive to travel in wasteful ways and consumption will decrease.

Doesn't matter (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153071)

It doesn't matter, what ever might be on the books now will certainly change before they get enacted.

Obama will have done more than run out of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153077)

Of course, it'll be 13 years from now.

Yay! (1, Insightful)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153091)

I, for one, am glad to have overlords confident enough to legislate physics.

Re:Yay! (2)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153607)

It's not a matter of physics. Such cars can be made right now, and 2025 is still 13 years away.

Got this wrong.. (5, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153093)

This adds to the requirement that 2016's new cars must average 35.5 miles per gallon.

I hope they mean AT LEAST 35.5 miles per gallon, or my 60 miles per gallon super-car is doomed..

Re:Got this wrong.. (2, Informative)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153211)

Physics isn't going to change for the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline.
My 400 pound motorcycle gets about 50mpg. It could get more if it wasn't so much fun, but I don't see much hope of a 3,000 pound car getting much more than that without changing fuel sources.

Re:Got this wrong.. (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153455)

Physics isn't going to change for the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline.
My 400 pound motorcycle gets about 50mpg. It could get more if it wasn't so much fun, but I don't see much hope of a 3,000 pound car getting much more than that without changing fuel sources.

So stop burning gasoline. If you RTFA, that's the whole point of the law. You don't have to somehow magically get 55mpg on gas, you just need to burn less than a gallon of gas per 55 miles you drive. Use electrons. Use hydrogen. Lots of ways to do that.

And clearly the car companies agree. A quote from the NYT article:

Thirteen major automakers, including General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, have endorsed the new standards.

Re:Got this wrong.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153555)

Thirteen major automakers, including General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, don't want any electric only or specialized car makers to have an option of popping up and taking their money.

Re:Got this wrong.. (2)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153523)

Physics isn't going to change for the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline.
My 400 pound motorcycle gets about 50mpg. It could get more if it wasn't so much fun, but I don't see much hope of a 3,000 pound car getting much more than that without changing fuel sources.

A 2500lb prius-C is rated at 46/53mpg. Granted, the 53mpg is during city driving, but that's where most people do most of their day-to-day driving.

Re:Got this wrong.. (2)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153557)

That surprises me. Why is your bike's mileage so poor? We just drove a 4,000 (unloaded) minivan cross country and got 25MPG average, giving it 20x (!!!) better weight-to-mileage ratio. Your bike would need to get at least 250MPG to be half as fuel efficient as our giant sailboat-of-a-van with a cargo carrier on top and 4 screaming kids.

Re:Got this wrong.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153577)

Physics isn't going to change for the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline. My 400 pound motorcycle gets about 50mpg. It could get more if it wasn't so much fun, but I don't see much hope of a 3,000 pound car getting much more than that without changing fuel sources.

Your motorcycle engine is tuned for power-to-weight, some of which is at the expense of efficiency. There already are cars out there that average 50+ (US)mpg. The Insight and Prius, for instance. Both use Atkinson Cycle engines which sacrifice power density for increased fuel economy.

There's more that can be done to increase engine efficiency. Modern cars develop several times the power they did thirty years ago, while getting much better mileage at the same time. We can always reduce power and increase the efficiency even further... but not many people like that idea.

/gets 35 mpg in his 200 HP VW GTI

Re:Got this wrong.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153631)

My 2006 3,000 lb Honda Civic hybrid gets just about 40 mpg already, maybe you should trying tuning your bike's engine for fuel economy rather than an obnoxious rumble most seem to think is mandatory.

Re:Got this wrong.. (4, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153635)

My insight's only 2000 pounds and gets very close to 90mpg (89.something). The 3000 pound Civic I testdrove using the same techniques scored over 60 mpg. That was the CVT version; the stick shift is probably better yet.
(Actual EPA ratings are 65 and 47 respectively.)

 

Re:Got this wrong.. (2)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153257)

The idea is that Car Company Foo's average MPG - fleet-wide - should be at least 35.5MPG. Sales of your 60MPG car help offset their 25MPG pickups. It does not mean that every single new car must average exactly 35.5MPG.

Re:Got this wrong.. (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153261)

Just give me your address. I'll come over and siphon enough gas so you meet the requirement. It will help me meet it, too. WIN WIN!

Yawn (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153125)

Force all new cars to use some alternatve fuel, one that doesnt just move the pollution and I will be happier.

Re:Yawn (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153161)

Force all new cars to use some alternatve fuel, one that doesnt just move the pollution and I will be happier.

To be fair, they might as well say 'all cars will run on magic moonbeams by 2025', because it's about as likely to happen.

Re:Yawn (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153295)

OMG! Ponies!

Then Why the Industry Support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153501)

Force all new cars to use some alternatve fuel, one that doesnt just move the pollution and I will be happier.

To be fair, they might as well say 'all cars will run on magic moonbeams by 2025', because it's about as likely to happen.

Huh, that's odd ... from the summary:

Last year, 13 major automakers, which together account for more than 90 percent of all vehicles sold in the United States, announced their support for the new standards.

So it's not going to happen but 90% of the auto industry are on board with it? Somebody's not telling me something ...

Overcomplicated solution. (5, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153185)

We should just stop subsidizing the oil and car industries. Stop subsidizing refineries. Stop giving tax brakes to oil companies. Stop subsidizing road development out of regular taxes. Gas will hit $10/gal and the problem will take care of itself.

Re:Overcomplicated solution. (2, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153279)

That's right! And I would dearly love to see the laughter from the audience in the debate where that policy is expressed. That would be pure comedy gold.

While we're at it, I also suggest that we stop using electricity and only eat food that we grow within 10 square miles of our local village. And all our clothes should be made out of hemp.

Do I hear a convention speech coming on? I think I do.

Re:Overcomplicated solution. (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153323)

Gas will hit $10/gal and the problem will take care of itself.

Well, yes and no: The "yes" part is that yes, gas consumption will drop. The "no" part is that millions of people, particularly rural people, will be unable to get to work or to retailers to buy the things they need.

I agree it would be worth having the price of gas reflect its true cost, but you have to do it in a way that allows people to adjust.

Re:Overcomplicated solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153515)

you forgot the other part, country people is where the "food" is produced.

Re:Overcomplicated solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153591)

will be unable to get to work or to retailers to buy the things they need.

That's okay though, because the price of food and everything else people need will skyrocket to impressive levels as a result of the 3x oil prices, so they wouldn't be able to afford anything anyway..

Re:Overcomplicated solution. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153379)

Oil companies don't get tax breaks aside from normal ones that every other person and business gets.

We don't subsidize car industries. We subsidize+bailout corrupt and inefficient auto unions so they can continue to give 80% of their union dues to the politicians whom bail them out. I'm all in favor of ending this vicious cycle of corruption.

If road development was solely funded by state and local governments, the federal government would lose its stranglehold power over them over domestic policy issues e.g. drug legalization, minimum drinking age, education, medicare funding, etc. I'm all in favor of that too.

You dare us libertarians to have freedom as if you think its a bad thing. I dearly wish you would put your money where your mouth is.

Re:Overcomplicated solution. (4, Informative)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153559)

$10/gal for gas has really forced European manufacturers to produce 80 MPG cars and reduce the amount they drive. Oh wait....

Looking for the day... (1)

bshellenberg (779684) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153191)

That someone has the balls and foresight to come up with something more like "As of 2015, vehicles of all types sold, operated and licensed in the US may not be powered directly or indirectly by a non-renewable energy resource.". Engineers..... GO!

Re:Looking for the day... (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153299)

I hope your engineers are acquainted with flying pink unicorns, because it'll take a few of those to eliminate all gasoline, diesel, propane, and CNG powered vehicles in three years. Oh, and you won't allow existing vehicles to be operated? I presume you want the government to buy those and crush them? Or would you rather just destroy the lower and middle classes?

Re:Looking for the day... (1)

bshellenberg (779684) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153351)

Reset, restart. The problem needs to be dealt with eventually. This is an absolute. You are USA. You lay claim to being the greatest country in the world with the greatest technology in the world. Prove it; unless you believe "rounded corners" is a sufficient standard for innovation.

Re:Looking for the day... (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153531)

I think you underestimate America and Americans. What makes this country great is that we can set ourselves a goal like this and do it. We have both the greatest engineers in the world, and the greatest businessmen to organize them and the flow of capital to them.

There are many, many, ways to handle the problem, to handle it technically, to make sure that every person in the country still has transportation post-2015. You'd see engine replacement programs for existing vehicles, you'd see all manner of new types of vehicle introduced at every price point. You'll see a resurgence of privately run unsubsidized public transportation - we're seeing this in Florida right now.

I appreciate the America and American-haters, the people who consistently underestimate what Americans can do, who refuse to look at the astonishing achievements brought by America's industrialists, its unionized workers, its scientists and engineers, its thinkers and intellectuals, who built its railroads, its industries, and who put a man on the moon; I appreciate those haters may piss and moan and whine that it can't be done. As usual, you're just fooling yourself.

Re:Looking for the day... (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153375)

Everything's renewable. All the energy we're pulling out of the ground traces back to the sun. It's only a matter of how long it takes to renew.

Re:Looking for the day... (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153435)

Balls maybe, foresight, not really. We could power vehicles with all sorts of alternative fuel supplies, the problem is there is no infrastructure for it. That's why everyone is going with hybrids and electrics: there is already an electrical infrastructure in place and gas can be used to extend its range as needed.

Furthermore, its not necessary. I would not suggest rolling out a promising alternative fuel source until it is absolutely ready. We should be able to engineer vehicles to the point where we can save gas. If you force an untested alternative with no infrastructure by some short date, you will find it becoming hated before it even takes off.

I get that things may need a deadline, but cars had no deadline to take over from horses, it just happened on it's own as cars and roads got better. I'd work more on making a good alternative and less on expecting the government to make people do so.

effectively raising the cost of vehicles once agai (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153193)

This time by about $2500-$3000. What a shame, really.

Re:effectively raising the cost of vehicles once a (3, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153413)

Suppose there are two cars that irreparably die at exactly 100,000 miles, and that gas stays at its artificially and temporarily low $4 a gallon. If Car A gets 28MPG, and Car B gets 35.5MPG but costs $3000 more, then you'll end up paying the same ($purchase_price + $fuel_price) for each.

If you exactly that to a perfectly reasonable 150,000 miles, then Car A would have to get at least 30.2MPG to make it a better deal. If gas goes to $10 a gallon like it is in UK, then Car A would have to get 33.1MPG to make it cheaper than Car B.

Basically, your math only holds for cars that aren't driven. If you actually use the multi-thousand-dollar vehicle you purchase, better gas mileage directly converts to cheaper per mile to operate.

FUCKIN COMMUNISM YO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153207)

we don't have enough engineers to pull it off, better lower expectations instead.

"Savings" (0)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153237)

The administration estimated that the new standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs, resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025.

Too bad the vehicles will cost $16,000 more (unadjusted for inflation).

Re:"Savings" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153337)

Too bad the vehicles will cost $16,000 more (unadjusted for inflation).

[citation needed]

These standards aren't strict enough... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153247)

It doesn't matter that these stricter fuel consumption standards will be in place in 13 years, because by then there will be so many more cars on the road than there are now, that we will *STILL* be consuming and polluting far more than we are today.

These standards need to be made to keep *AHEAD* of the curve, and account for the fact that the number of vehicles being used daily is continually rising. Instead of coming up with these standards for 13 years in the future, they should be making them for 3. If automobile manufacturers can't pull it off with all new cars by then, then it means less automobiles on the road anyways.... so it's win-win!

Re:These standards aren't strict enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153369)

The Global warming fairy (tale) will get us by then. Your stupid, stop driving and ride a bike if your so worried and hell you and the dumb Democrats/liberals can force everyone to ride a bike or mass transit.

Re:These standards aren't strict enough... (2)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153565)

Your stupid, stop driving

Stop posting. Same reason.

The most efficient car is a city (5, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153361)

He's got the wrong target. The most efficient vehicles are the ones that aren't on the road at all. Further proof that "if you can measure it, you can mismanage it".

The most efficient "car" I ever drove was a condo in the city. I even went without a car for a while. Driving was OPTIONAL there.

I have a car now, but still live close to commuter rail and within walking distance of many shops.

Policy makers should focus on making development more walkable. It wouldn't be bad for the economy either. You would get construction stimulus from building residences in commercial areas, and commercial buildings in areas such as the vast residential tract that I grew up in. With these spaces encouraging people to walk, ride bicycles, and drive less there would be knock-on benefits in health.

Re:The most efficient car is a city (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153621)

you have to take a 50 pound sack of potatoes to the homeless shelter, in the next city in america, how? And say you are a 70 year old lady, or Ill be generous and say you are a 65 year old man, how will you do it in your future?

CAFE Standard Loopholes are numerous.... (2)

mcwop (31034) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153365)

I wonder what new ones will be introduced. This is a political game. O makes nice sounding announcement for meaningless rules. You want better mileage, crank up the gas tax and make drivers pay for their environmental externalities. http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/6-ways-detroit-gamed-the-cafe-standards-flex-fuel-loophole#slide-1 [popularmechanics.com]

I got rid of my car about 1 year ago, and have never looked back.

What about sports cars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153399)

What about if you want to drive a sports car? I want as much MPG as I can get for a commuting vehicle. But If I'm using a sports car for leisure on the weekends, I don't want it's power restricted by MPG standards.

2 different factors (1)

x181 (2677887) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153479)

The cost of gas and the amount consumed are two different issues. If you need gas to travel to and from work, you have no choice but to spend the money. This is where subsidization comes into play, an amount which is probably enough to maintain a stable economy. Then you have the issue of actual consumption per mile, which is affected by how much oil the US is able to secure and for how long it is able to secure it. There is a finite amount of oil and if the government knows exactly how much oil it has in its reserves, how much oil it consumes and how much oil it can import based on projected geo-political situations in oil producing countries, one factor in reducing dependance is to force car companies to increase fuel efficiency.

And it will save the average consumer nothing (1)

Bugler412 (2610815) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153483)

It will save nothing because of the exotic lightweight materials and processes required to make an 80mpg car (CAFE is an average!) that meets current safety standards. This will drive the cost of the car up so far that it will more than balance any savings in fuel/energy. Not to mention that road use taxes of various sorts will have to be invented and implemented to compensate for the "loss" of fuel tax revenues by the government. The net change in cost of driving is very unlikely to favor the consumer in this setup.

Realistically, many cars will no longer run on gas (2)

romanval (556418) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153499)

by 2025. Hybrids are a hot commodity now, and gas extended electrics are just beginning. Soon there will be a point where a gas engine will cost a lot more to build then electric... (In an engineering standpoint, the drivetrain of a petrol car is way more complex then electric. We're just waiting for battery packaging/recharge/swap technology to catch up, and once that's done they'll be no turning back to petrol except for edge cases.

Motorcycles? (5, Interesting)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153519)

Just got back from a trip to GenCon on my motorcycle (Hayabusa). According to the bike (likely off by a little due to the stupid bike things), I averaged at least 50mpg for the entire 2,500 mile trip. Since the mpg indicator doesn't go higher than 50mpg, it could be even higher.

My wife had a smaller 250cc bike (Ninja) and was getting upwards of 100mpg and 75ish on her 650cc bike (Ninja).

I'd love to see more folks on bikes. Have motorcycle only lanes just like there are bike only lanes; split a current full sized lane into two dedicated motorcycle lanes :)

[John]

Mandating = Tyranny...We are peasents and serfs (4, Funny)

ilikenwf (1139495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153575)

This is just an effort to get the greenies to reelect the big O. It's also an unconstitutional mandate of private individuals in what they can purchase, and businesses in what they can produce.

We're nothing but peasants and serfs, here to serve the government, who apparently can take care of us better than we can ourselves.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?