Obama raises gas mileage requirements to 54.5 MPG: Trading blood for oil again

[Little-Acorn]

Obama is announcing new, superhigh gas mileage standards for all cars.

Such standards can be met in several ways:

1.) Making smaller, lighter cars. These are proven to be more dangerous for their occupants in crashes, than larger, heavier cars with equivalent safety equipment. How many more deaths and injuries will we see with these cars, as a consequence of saving how many gallons of oil? And what mathematics did the bureaucrats go through, to determine that this many gallons of oil are worth that many increased deaths?

2.) Building more hybrid cars. Being more complex technologically, these cars of course cost significantly more than an equivalent gasoline-only car. Mr. Obama has apparently decided for each one of us, that spending $5,000 or more extra on a car with no better performance or accommodation, rather than on our son's college or a new bedroom for the baby or granny's hip replacement surgery, is the correct way to spend ouur money. Funny, I don't recall him even asking me before making that decision for me.

3.) Building electric-only cars. These have long charge time and limited range, especially in cold climates where their range shrinks to uselessness, except for models costing four or five times as much as today's econocars. Even in benign climates, a one-day trip from San Diego to Sacramento to see Granny turns into a three-day (each way) voyage, requiring long stops and motel stays while the car recharges. In other words, a lot of trips get cancelled... unless you buy a second car to make up for the electric's limitations!

Automakers are happy, of course, with a law that forces everybody to buy more expensive cars from them.

Liberal extremism strikes again! It's for your own good, though. Trust them.

-------------------------------------------

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/07/obama-announces-tough-new-gas-mileage-standards----545-mpg/1

Obama announces 54.5 mpg gas mileage standard

by Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY
Updated 4m ago

President Obama is announcing tough fuel-economy standards starting in the 2017 model year, requiring automakers to average 54.5 miles a gallon.

The standard is sure to force dramatic changes in cars, making them smaller, lighter and loaded with higher-technology engines like hybrids, diesels or other fuel savers. The standard is so tough that relatively few models would meet it.

Because of the way fuel economy is calculated, window sticker labels of estimated fuel economy of individual models will be lower. Those labels will probably show values of about 40 mpg, says Roland Hwang, transportation director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Because of the differences between the laboratory certification test cycle and the on-road fuel efficiency, drivers can expect to see the average window fuel economy label to be about 40 mpg, compared to today's average of about 22.5 mpg," Hwang writes.

There are fears that the standard will force automakers to produce small cars that families won't want to buy -- or that cars will become too expensive:

"There is a realistic fear that the trigger for price increases will come from more than the new required technologies, and also by the automakers rationing demand through pricing in order to comply," says Jeremy Anwyl, CEO of Edmunds.com, a car-buying research website.

The new standard is the follow-up to the 35.5 corporate fuel average being phased in through the 2016 model year. Currently, automakers average less than 30 miles a gallon.


(Ful text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[J.T]

The Automotive X Prize for a consumer-friendly car that could get at least 100 miles per gallon goes to "Very Light Car No. 98," a vehicle made by Edison 2 (http://www.edison2.com/), a team based in Lynchburg, Va.

News of the winner, which was officially announced late this morning in a ceremony held at the Historical Society in Washington D.C. and streamed live online by the X Prize Foundation, was reported early by the Associated Press.
The challenge set for this particular prize from the famed X Prize Foundation (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20005075-52.html) was to design and build a car with a fuel economy of 100 MPGe, a new acronym for a vehicle that gets "miles per gallon or energy equivalent." In addition to getting extreme gas mileage, the winning car of the Automotive X Prize also had to pass Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The winner of the mainstream category also had to seat four people.
The winning Very Light Car No. 98 is not an electric car as one might assume, but a very aerodynamic car with a combustion engine that runs on E85, a gasoline-ethanol blend, and has a total efficiency of 102.5 MPGe


http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20016632-54.html

http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustion-Corporations-Governments-Alternatives/dp/0312359071

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/04/behold-americas/



3.) Building electric-only cars. These have long charge time and limited range

300 miles per charge (http://www.teslamotors.com/models). STFU about range, already.

[Little-Acorn]

300 miles per charge (http://www.teslamotors.com/models). STFU about range, already.

Liberals are doing an awful lot of demanding that conservatives not talk about certain things, I've noticed recently. Apparently it's much easier for them to say that, than to refute what the conservatives are saying.

Too bad, so sad..... :laugh:



------------------------------------------

http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2011/03/nissan-leaf-range-problems.html

Some U.S. drivers report that they are being left stranded by the Nissan Leaf's undependable
range.

Jalopnik's Justin Hyde
says (http://jalopnik.com/#!5780215) the car's reported 100-mile range is proving to be fiction. Even worse,
the range chart in the car changes during trips to give drivers less range than
they thought they would have. Result: The car goes to "turtle" limp-along mode,
then dies.

"It went from 17 ... to dead in about 5 miles," Jalopnik
quotes one report as saying on the MyNissanLeaf forum.

We've reported on
how Nissan has had trouble producing enough Leafs for owners who have
reservations. The range issue is a new one.

Nissan said the car would go
100 miles between charges, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rated
Leaf as having a realistic range of 73 miles. Jallopnik says many owners on
MyNissanLeaf report 60 to 80 miles of range daily.This problem is
happening with new cars- I shudder to think what will happen when the batteries
start to age!

[ConHog]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20016632-54.html

http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustion-Corporations-Governments-Alternatives/dp/0312359071

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/04/behold-americas/



300 miles per charge (http://www.teslamotors.com/models). STFU about range, already.

Hey bro, that thing got 300 miles from a charge on a completely flat test track driving a continuous 55 MPH . Bring that to the Ozark mountains where roads change elevations by hundreds of feet within a few miles and traffic is stop and go and you would see a range of about 100 miles.

Electrical cars are a technological wonder, but to act like range isn't an issue is crazy.


I am salivating over a Chevy Volt though, if they build an SUV version I'm all in.

[KartRacerBoy]

Capitalism is PERFECT at deciding things like fuel efficiency standards. I mean, look at how car makers built cars that used leaded fuel! Don't forget about leaded paint, too. That stuff was tasty and sooooooo good for kids health!

Seriously, MPG standards need to go up. How much is debatable, but that is what the whole regulation process is for. Discussion. Viability.

On the other hand, CAFE (I know you're cringing out there, fj1200) is stupid. It's a political sop. Any economist will tell you that if you want to alter economic behavior, pricing is the key (increase gas prices via taxation). If you want folk to use less gas, raise its price. In the short run, it will only affect behavior. In the long run, it will alter technology levels. CAFE is simply cover for politicians to hide the price of their regulatory requirements in car prices rather than having to raise gas taxes.

[fj1200]

Capitalism is PERFECT at deciding things like fuel efficiency standards. I mean, look at how car makers built cars that used leaded fuel! Don't forget about leaded paint, too. That stuff was tasty and sooooooo good for kids health!

Seriously, MPG standards need to go up. How much is debatable, but that is what the whole regulation process is for. Discussion. Viability.

On the other hand, CAFE (I know you're cringing out there, fj1200) is stupid. It's a political sop. Any economist will tell you that if you want to alter economic behavior, pricing is the key (increase gas prices via taxation). If you want folk to use less gas, raise its price. In the short run, it will only affect behavior. In the long run, it will alter technology levels. CAFE is simply cover for politicians to hide the price of their regulatory requirements in car prices rather than having to raise gas taxes.

Why would I cringe? CAFE is stupid and you're absolutely right that it's because of weak politicians. Maybe we should just stop subsidizing travel in the first place and stop building/expanding highways. That's a huge subsidy that allowed suburbs to flourish to the extent that they have. In other words don't blame capitalism for not deciding efficiency standards when governments built the roads for the cars that you now need to regulate.

[logroller]

Why would I cringe? CAFE is stupid and you're absolutely right that it's because of weak politicians. Maybe we should just stop subsidizing travel in the first place and stop building/expanding highways. That's a huge subsidy that allowed suburbs to flourish to the extent that they have. In other words don't blame capitalism for not deciding efficiency standards when governments built the roads for the cars that you now need to regulate.

How else is government supposed to justify it's growth if it doesn't promote social problems? It all seems pretty logical to me; foolish and inefficient, but logical. Just like having someone else pay for things I need, so I can afford more things I want:laugh:

[KartRacerBoy]

Why would I cringe? CAFE is stupid and you're absolutely right that it's because of weak politicians. Maybe we should just stop subsidizing travel in the first place and stop building/expanding highways. That's a huge subsidy that allowed suburbs to flourish to the extent that they have. In other words don't blame capitalism for not deciding efficiency standards when governments built the roads for the cars that you now need to regulate.

I thought darkrex was lurking around here and you might still be gunshy of the gasoline elasticity of demand argument we had.

You're of course also correct on the subsidy thing. I'm not sure about the hwy thing. Chicken. Egg. Rt 66. All that.

[Gunny]

Capitalism is PERFECT at deciding things like fuel efficiency standards. I mean, look at how car makers built cars that used leaded fuel! Don't forget about leaded paint, too. That stuff was tasty and sooooooo good for kids health!

Seriously, MPG standards need to go up. How much is debatable, but that is what the whole regulation process is for. Discussion. Viability.

On the other hand, CAFE (I know you're cringing out there, fj1200) is stupid. It's a political sop. Any economist will tell you that if you want to alter economic behavior, pricing is the key (increase gas prices via taxation). If you want folk to use less gas, raise its price. In the short run, it will only affect behavior. In the long run, it will alter technology levels. CAFE is simply cover for politicians to hide the price of their regulatory requirements in car prices rather than having to raise gas taxes.

Really. Who are YOU to decide what others should have? You rail against capitalism, but every time you come up with some new invention that is supposedly for everyone's good, it costs more than the old shit, and puts money in the pockets of YOUR favorite capitalists.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[KartRacerBoy]

Really. Who are YOU to decide what others should have? You rail against capitalism, but every time you come up with some new invention that is supposedly for everyone's good, it costs more than the old shit, and puts money in the pockets of YOUR favorite capitalists.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Do you favor certain laws? Who are YOU to decide what others should do or have? Oh wait, surprise! Govt is all about group decision making. Generally, majority rules. Or maybe it's that a Republican didn't make the decision and it just pisses you off. I'm guessing that's it.

If your going to comment on something I say, at least try to avoid being vapid. And try looking up the words you use. I'm not sure you know what "hypocrisy" means.

[fj1200]

I thought darkrex was lurking around here and you might still be gunshy of the gasoline elasticity of demand argument we had.

No reason for me to be gunshy about that one except not wanting to live through that trainwreck again. :laugh:


You're of course also correct on the subsidy thing. I'm not sure about the hwy thing. Chicken. Egg. Rt 66. All that.

Deep down you know I'm also right about the highway thing freedom, if they had stopped at Rt. 66 we would have a lot more trains in this country and more, arguably, sensible housing developments.

[Gunny]

Do you favor certain laws? Who are YOU to decide what others should do or have? Oh wait, surprise! Govt is all about group decision making. Generally, majority rules. Or maybe it's that a Republican didn't make the decision and it just pisses you off. I'm guessing that's it.

If your going to comment on something I say, at least try to avoid being vapid. And try looking up the words you use. I'm not sure you know what "hypocrisy" means.

Fail. Try again. I commented on what you said and drew a pretty good, kindergarten fat crayon pic even YOU could get.

Of course, your last inane comment preceded by your assuming I am a Republican; which, I am not. If I was pissed about anything it would be the usual leftist mindset of control, control, and more control via legislating our freedoms away. Or maybe it could be that while we have a major financial crisis coming to a head, Obama, who thinks properly inflating your tires would offset any oil we drill in the Gulf, comes up with yet another idiotic plan to top that one.

Or it could be the sheer idiocy of the idea itself.

[ConHog]

Here's a fucking idea Obama. You put whatever tax you would like on gasoline, provided you can get it passed. THEN you let the American public decide what kind of mileage they would the cars they are buying from manufactures to get. I guarantee you that IF consumers start telling manufactures "hey we want cars that get 100 MPG" they will start building them. Just the same as when the SUV craze first hit every single car manufacture was paying CAFE fines out the ass and smiling all the way because consumers were telling them " we don't give a shit about mileage, we want big heavy SUVs."

If consumers lined up with their checkbooks and told the auto companies that they wanted cars that ran off of Gunny's farts, someone would design a car that ran off Marine gas. That's the beauty of the free market.

Bottom line, CAFE standards are stupid. They are nothing but a governmental excuse to fine car companies if consumers aren't buying the products that the government wishes them to buy.

[SassyLady]

Liberals are doing an awful lot of demanding that conservatives not talk about certain things, I've noticed recently. Apparently it's much easier for them to say that, than to refute what the conservatives are saying.

Too bad, so sad..... :laugh:



------------------------------------------

http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2011/03/nissan-leaf-range-problems.html

Some U.S. drivers report that they are being left stranded by the Nissan Leaf's undependable
range.

Jalopnik's Justin Hyde
says (http://jalopnik.com/#!5780215) the car's reported 100-mile range is proving to be fiction. Even worse,
the range chart in the car changes during trips to give drivers less range than
they thought they would have. Result: The car goes to "turtle" limp-along mode,
then dies.

"It went from 17 ... to dead in about 5 miles," Jalopnik
quotes one report as saying on the MyNissanLeaf forum.

We've reported on
how Nissan has had trouble producing enough Leafs for owners who have
reservations. The range issue is a new one.

Nissan said the car would go
100 miles between charges, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rated
Leaf as having a realistic range of 73 miles. Jallopnik says many owners on
MyNissanLeaf report 60 to 80 miles of range daily.This problem is
happening with new cars- I shudder to think what will happen when the batteries
start to age!

My daily round trip is 95 miles. Why would I want a car that can't get me to work, grocery store, feed store and then home on one charge. I hate gassing up even once a week, why would I want to charge up 2+ times a day. Ridiculous.

Oh, and when I drive to Tucson to see grandkids it's a 1000 mile trip ... I stop twice for gas ... how many times will I have to stop to recharge?

[ConHog]

My daily round trip is 95 miles. Why would I want a car that can't get me to work, grocery store, feed store and then home on one charge. I hate gassing up even once a week, why would I want to charge up 2+ times a day. Ridiculous.

Oh, and when I drive to Tucson to see grandkids it's a 1000 mile trip ... I stop twice for gas ... how many times will I have to stop to recharge?


Look lady, You WILL have a car that runs on electricity, and you WILL like it.

- B Obama as read from a teleprompter.

[SassyLady]

Look lady, You WILL have a car that runs on electricity, and you WILL like it.

- B Obama as read from a teleprompter.

Nope .... first revolution dumped tea into the harbor ... this revolution won't be as contained.

[ConHog]

Nope .... first revolution dumped tea into the harbor ... this revolution won't be as contained.



I HOPE it doesn't come to that. IF the Republicans can come up with a decent Presidential candidate it shouldn't l.

[Gaffer]

I HOPE it doesn't come to that. IF the Republicans can come up with a decent Presidential candidate it shouldn't l.

It will come to that, just a matter of when. He's not going to go quietly.

[J.T]

It will come to that, just a matter of when. He's not going to go quietly.
Yep, just wait. Martial law before his second term is over. Bush is really closing the noose... :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

It will come to that, just a matter of when. He's not going to go quietly.



Come on now, he'll go just the same as all the others before him have gone. No telling what he's going to do between now and then; but when the time comes for him to leave office, that's exactly what he will do . Let's just hope that is 2012 and not 2016.

[gabosaurus]

One of the stupidest things I have ever heard. The only way to raise fuel efficiency is to make smaller, lighter cars. Which become death traps if you are ever involved in a wreck.
If you want to decrease dependency on foreign oil, go to gas rationing.

[red states rule]

One of the stupidest things I have ever heard. The only way to raise fuel efficiency is to make smaller, lighter cars. Which become death traps if you are ever involved in a wreck.
If you want to decrease dependency on foreign oil, go to gas rationing.


Gee Gabby I thought that the Dept of Energy (created under Jimmy Carter) was to decrease dependency on foreign oil. Of course he tried gas rationing as well as we know how that worked out

Has it ever entered your liberal mind that the best way to decrease dependency on foreign oil is to increase our own domestic oil production?

Last I checked Obama still has his drilling ban for the Gulf and do you think that lifting the ban would help the dreadful unemployment and GDP numbers?

But doing that would make sense, actually might help, lower gas prices,and piss off the enviro wackos so I know Obama would never consider doing that

[J.T]

Has it ever entered your liberal mind that the best way to decrease dependency on foreign oil is to increase our own domestic oil production?



What about we focus on getting off of oil as our primary fuel source? It is a finite resource, there is a growing demand, and we most of it is elsewhere.

[red states rule]

What about we focus on getting off of oil as our primary fuel source? It is a finite resource, there is a growing demand, and we most of it is elsewhere.

Fine - what are you going to replace oil with?

Wind? The wind does not always blow

Solar? The suin does not always shine

Son't tell me. Someday, somehow, sometime, we might come up with another fuel source other than oil. It may be cheaper. It not be as abundent. But if we "invest" a few billion dollars a year, we may have it in say 20 years

Meanwhile, don't drill. Don't expand domestic production. But do allow foreign countries to drill in the Gulf

That is the liberals energy plan and that is why we have seen gas prices double since Obama took office

[J.T]

Fine - what are you going to replace oil with?

Wind? The wind does not always blow

And?


Solar? The suin does not always shine

And?


Son't tell me. Someday, somehow, sometime, we might come up with another fuel source other than oil.

Oh, I see the problem. You think we need a single fuel source for everything everywhere because you're retarded.

Sorry, but we can't help you with that here.

why we have seen gas prices double since Obama took office

Odd, FOX said it was due to instability in the middle east. Clearly, we need to invade some more countries and kill some more brown children in order to stabilize the region. That always works, right?

[red states rule]

And?
And?

Oh, I see the problem. You think we need a single fuel source for everything everywhere because you're retarded.

Sorry, but we can't help you with that here.


Odd, FOX said it was due to instability in the middle east. Clearly, we need to invade some more countries and kill some more brown children in order to stabilize the region. That always works, right?

What I am saying Just Trolin, all the billions poured into "green energy" have produced zero results. Yet the enviro wackos refuse to expand drilling for the oil and gas we have sitting in the ground

You really are a twit and troll. Please go back to USMB and foul up their board and leave us alone

[J.T]

What I am saying Just Trolin, all the billions poured into "green energy" have produced zero results.

Zero Results?

http://www.adventure-journal.com/2011/06/aggressive-innovation-could-save-1-1-billion-gallons-of-oil-a-year-cut-emissions-13/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml

http://www.globe-net.com/articles/2011/april/6/iea-releases-first-clean-energy-progress-report.aspx

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25199/

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43438

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-07/blackbody-radiation-breakthrough-could-lead-better-thermophotovoltaics

http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/03/solar-power-research-an-energy-crisis-fix/

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/0415/Solar-power-breakthrough-could-herald-big-drop-in-costsTo

You could have made an actual point about how far we have to go. You could have highlighted the serious concerns with the most commonly forwarded alternative energy sources. You could have highlighted the fact that solar is still not all that efficient and that we've not yet fully mastered using plant-based petroleum alternatives in their construction. You could have highlighted the serious with nuclear energy as an alternative. You could have addressed the need for a distributed grid and decentralized production. You could have highlighted the concerns over feasibility of the mass adoption by homeowners and business of small-scale wind and solar production. We could have discussed the compounding effects of our failing infrastructure (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/) and the need for more intelligent investments in our nation and its future, including energy- instead of wasting over one-trillion dollars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya.

You could have not been an idiot.

Shame you decided to pull a KRB.


Yet the enviro wackos refuse to expand drilling for the oil and gas we have sitting in the ground

Obama was expanding drilling
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35223.html

Then a month after he made that announcement, the private sector decided to prove that they can't drill safely, they can't fix their messes, their tech has not changed in decades, and they can't be trusted to follow regulation- and that their is a revolving door policy that has made regulators' offices impotent. You could have addressed this issues and either show how they've been resolved or put forth a plan for moving forward. Instead you decided to parrot empty talking points and blindly attack.

You have no place at the table. You are dismissed.