PDA

View Full Version : Obama: 54.5 Miles per Gallon by 2025


MikeC
08-28-12, 04:25 PM
This will cost automakers to implement, but with government assistance, this requirement is a great way to lessen our dependence on oil and gas, which currently has a limited supply.

By decree of the Obama Administration, passenger cars and trucks in the U.S. will require a fuel economy equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The new fuel-efficiency standard will affect cars starting in 2017, meaning automakers will need to start making incremental increases in fuel efficiency to hit a combined average of 34.1 MPG within five years. By 2025, the goal is to approximately double the efficiency of today's vehicles, and the new requirement has the support of 13 major car manufacturers, which account for 90 percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/08/2025-mpg-regulation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top +Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

sillyeagle
08-30-12, 01:54 AM
It's a good thing, but I hope we don't get stuck with whimpy cars in the future. I like to have about 300lb-ft of torque, just for driveability. lol

vampireuk
08-30-12, 02:13 AM
That is beyond stupidity. We already have cars in the UK capable of reaching that mpg figure but surely it should be consumer choice if they wish to purchase such a vehicle and not for the government to force such a thing upon you. How on earth are you going to make a truck that is capable of performing a heavy duty workload when it cannot go below 54mpg.

sillyeagle
08-30-12, 04:08 AM
I think the 54mph is a fleet wide average, so they can still balance in a few more powerful choices. I'm guessing turbo/superchargers will be common since they allow V6 power from a small 4 cyl for exmaple. Engines are strong enough these days to told hold up to plenty of boost. Supercharged V6 trucks will become more common I'm sure. That would give V6 economy with V8 power.

vampireuk
08-30-12, 04:44 AM
At 54 mpg you are not balancing power with economy, look at the current range of vehicles in europe that offer these figures, they are hardly the most powerful of vehicles. This is why we have a range of vehicles with a range of different consumption figures, it gives the consumer the choice of if they wish to buy a small economical car or if they require a large van or truck to haul things around. I'm endlessly amazed that in a nation where people seem to talk about their freedom they are more than happy to let the government dictate their lives to them.

Europianist
08-30-12, 10:52 AM
Not a good idea, especially if we wind up only with cars that accelerate as slowly as a Prius. It's a possibility that it will turn out okay though.

vampireuk
08-30-12, 06:07 PM
The 1.9 diesel van I have at work gets nowhere near 54mpg and it struggles when it comes to long steep hills. Whereas my L200 pickup will glady sit with a full load in the back and go anywhere, which also gets not even half of the requirement.

rhink
08-31-12, 05:59 PM
This will cost automakers to implement, but with government assistance, this requirement is a great way to lessen our dependence on oil and gas, which currently has a limited supply.



http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/08/2025-mpg-regulation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top +Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

It's a horrible idea. The market has already been doing an impressive job of improving fuel economy on its own as gas prices climb. That's what the free market does best- it's the most efficient way we know to allocate resources, when resources are constrained.

But in order for it to work we have to stop interfering with oil & gas, too. We have plenty of the stuff right here n the US. But we do everything we can to frustrate drillers- we won't open up offshore areas. We won't open up anwar. We harass people in the bakken with frivilous lawsuits, and refuse to build the pipelines we need to get oil from canada and the bakken to the market.

So we artificially constrain supply then try to compensate by raising the fleet AVERAGE to above the current best fuel economy vehicles on the market. What if I don't want the $35,000 shoebox on wheels this is going to mandate?

edit: here's a summary of what we can do if we unleash oil exploration in the US:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/north-american-energy-independence-by-2020/

Oil supply is limited only due to bad policy. We don't need expensive, arbitrary mileage standards.

jcrox
09-06-12, 01:26 AM
The problem with drill baby drill is the theory relies on private, for profit, oil companies injecting more product into the market to bring the price as a whole down.

If they merely replace existing product, i.e. inject 500,000 barrels a day from the U.S. but the Saudi's cut back 500,000 barrels a day, it's a zero net sum and nothing changes.

So, we have to believe that...

1. All the new exploration will result in MORE product in the market, not replacement product
2. Private for profit oil companies are willing to self-inflict lower profits by over producing in a market which proves everyday it will bear the current costs.

I'm not buying #2 for a single second.

Until consumption drops to a point that oil company's profits are harmed the price of fuel isn't going anywhere no matter how many permits we hand out.

Cream
09-06-12, 04:19 AM
I think it's a case of they have to do something, Consumers clearly arn't willing to do it, So they will have to force manufacturers to implement it.
I'm sure it won't all be bad news, Electric cars while not having the performance at the moment will soon give a good performace boost while increasing the fuel efficiency of a car.
Why hydrogen isn't being looked into more I'm not sure, That stuff is everywhere :-)


BTW I'm not a eco warrior, Currently drive a Subaru impreza WRX 265bhp and 348Nm torque.

rhink
09-08-12, 11:33 PM
The problem with drill baby drill is the theory relies on private, for profit, oil companies injecting more product into the market to bring the price as a whole down.

If they merely replace existing product, i.e. inject 500,000 barrels a day from the U.S. but the Saudi's cut back 500,000 barrels a day, it's a zero net sum and nothing changes.

So, we have to believe that...

1. All the new exploration will result in MORE product in the market, not replacement product
2. Private for profit oil companies are willing to self-inflict lower profits by over producing in a market which proves everyday it will bear the current costs.

I'm not buying #2 for a single second.

Until consumption drops to a point that oil company's profits are harmed the price of fuel isn't going anywhere no matter how many permits we hand out.

How can you say that when it's easy to see oil prices fluctuate all over the map over the course of a year or two? If I remember correctly prices were down under $60/barrel ~4 yrs ago, now they're hovering around $100. The market isn't bearing the current costs- demand is declining, and current oil prices are part of the reason it's tough to break out of this recession.

You're right that oil is a fungible commodity and if another country drops production enough, prices stay stable. The problem with that is, once the US and Canada produce enough of it, the power of OPEC is broken. Free market forces start to come back into play, and the cartel can no longer control prices effectively. If north america produces 5,000,000 barrels/day and Saudi Arabia cuts back 5,000,000 barrels a day..... well, they just won't do that, because that's half their production and they'd be screwing themselves.

rhink
09-08-12, 11:41 PM
I think it's a case of they have to do something, Consumers clearly arn't willing to do it, So they will have to force manufacturers to implement it.
I'm sure it won't all be bad news, Electric cars while not having the performance at the moment will soon give a good performace boost while increasing the fuel efficiency of a car.
Why hydrogen isn't being looked into more I'm not sure, That stuff is everywhere :-)


BTW I'm not a eco warrior, Currently drive a Subaru impreza WRX 265bhp and 348Nm torque.

WHY do they have to do something? If oil is cheap, burn the crap out of it! Again- let the market decide. There's not a lot of downside to the stuff, assuming we can get a pretty hefty stable supply of it in the US and/or friendly/stable countries.

Hydrogen is everywhere, but it's expensive to use. Because it's so reactive most of it is chemically bound up in some stable molecule- like water- which means it takes a lot of energy to produce the stuff. It's also tough to store, and it's even tougher to store in a way that's as energy dense as gasoline.

MikeC
09-09-12, 04:05 AM
WHY do they have to do something? If oil is cheap, burn the crap out of it! Again- let the market decide. There's not a lot of downside to the stuff, assuming we can get a pretty hefty stable supply of it in the US and/or friendly/stable countries.Very good. The law of supply and demand.

Although I've been thinking about pollution caused by using oil and gas. That may be a reason we want to wean ourselves from it.

rhink
09-09-12, 09:02 AM
No matter what, producing a lot of energy is going to cause pollution.

There's a couple different forms of pollution we can be talking about with gasoline- smog, which is a problem in certain areas (in particular LA), but usually we talk about CO2 these days. The thing is, CO2 just isn't the problem it's made out to be. Human CO2 emissions have had some influence on temps, but a much larger influence has been natural cycles. We see the same patterns now as happened in the 1930's and 1950's.

Now I don't want to derail this into a political debate on global warming. Even if you are concerned about global warming, the truth is the oil and gas industry are driving DOWN CO2 emissions, and by a tremendously larger margin than any green initiative we've seen so far. There's several reasons (for example economics, politics, etc) but the biggest one is natural gas. It is suddenly plentiful due to fracking, produces far less CO2 than coal, and it's replacing coal.

Here's the first article I could find on the topic:
http://grist.org/climate-policy/u-s-leads-the-world-in-cutting-co2-emissions-so-why-arent-we-talking-about-it/

In particular, look at this graph.... coal demand has collapsed the last couple of years:
http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/eia-electricity-generation-source-2000-2012.png

What does this have to do with transportation fuels? well, for one oil & gas are usually found together. But the bigger point is: we can reduce CO2 emissions cheaply without replacing every car with an expensive hybrid or artificially constraining gasoline supply.

sytaylor
10-12-12, 08:41 AM
Obama is using legislation to solve an economic problem. Interesting, it's a policy that will really play into the polarised political sphere that is the US. The coasts will love it. The tea party will feel it violates the constitution in some way.

I can't see those with a pick up, who enjoy hunting, particularly liking this requirement. Although there doesn't appear to be any law against owning an older vehicle, it will just become progressively more expensive. Like owning a car from the 90s is now...

We've already passed peak oil and global net consumption is being driven up by the BRICs (especially China) so oil is only going to get more expensive. The real problems are energy independence and security. These can only be solved with investment. Investment in the current economy is hard to come by, since we wasted all the good times money on tax cuts, Washington pork, and trying to fix the middle east.

I'm waiting to see an impressive move from efficiency to new sources of energy. It took a while for the combustion engine to replace steam, but by the 1930s you could really see it. I wonder what 2030 will look like for alternative energy sources?

rhink
10-27-12, 03:00 PM
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=oil&graph=production

Does that look like we're past peak oil t you?

In fact economic data suggests we'd be producing even more oil the last few years, except demand has dropped.

See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/oil-prices-are-collapsing--is-that-a-good-thing/2012/06/05/gJQAYm3zFV_blog.html

Investment in energy isn't that hard to come by. Take a look at what's going on in North Dakota and Saskatchewan. The deal is: that's petroleum. Investment in economically dubious "green" sources is hard to come by, which is why so many of the green energy companies the US gov't has thrown money at the last few years have failed. The market doesn't want their products, even at subsidized prices. Throwing money down the drain to prop up companies the market doesn't want is bad economic policy.

There is no economic incentive to shift away from oil at this time. There's a lot of economic incentive to pursue energy independence by exploiting oil reserves around the world & at home. If peak oil does occur, the market is more than capable of responding by diversifying energy sources when the need comes... because the free market is the most efficient way we know to allocate scarce resources.