White House Finalizes 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standard 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.
Air resistance. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
The laws of Physics do not apply to politicians.
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
Yes they do [metacafe.com]. At least Gravity applies to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J394yXbZZEs [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThQ4hgw3iI0 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Nor does thermodynamics, how else could they spout so much hot air when they talk?
Re: (Score:3)
Where do you live that Interstate speed limits are as low as 55/65? Where I live, speed limits on Interstates are 70. And there are places where the limits are higher.
Re: (Score:3)
Where do you live that Interstate speed limits are as low as 55/65? Where I live, speed limits on Interstates are 70. And there are places where the limits are higher.
Many states don't have those high speed limits. I live in Oklahoma, and travel all over the states for work. At home speed limits are mostly 65 mph on highways outside of the city. 70 on interstates. 75 on turnpikes in certain parts of the state. In TX, I commonly see 70/75 mph speed limits in the South and West parts of the state. In Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Mississippi.. sometimes just 45, most often not more than 55 mph speed limits. It depends on what the terrain allows. So I would exp
Re: (Score:3)
Speed limits are at 50 in Portland, OR. 55 on I-5 in the urban areas, up to 65 in the rural areas. Washington state is at 60 in the urban areas, and 70 in the rural areas (though traffic realistically goes at about 85 in the rural areas).
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Informative)
In fact the tests are done on a dynomometer so wind resistance isn't accounted for. I think it should be but the mileage standard the President is implementing will be based on the EPA test cycle, not you hauling ass down the freeway.
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true. See here [fueleconomy.gov]:
The energy required to move the rollers can be adjusted to account for wind resistance and the vehicle's weight.
You can quibble about how accurately drag is accounted for, but you can't say that it isn't.
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Air resistance. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
55 mph is not inherently more efficient ... (Score:5, Informative)
So they'll just re-introduce the 55 MPH speed limit, which was done to save energy.
It depends entirely on the design of the car and engine. I get 4 additional miles per gallon (mpg) when cruising at 65 rather than 55. I was surprised and repeated the measurements several times. Verified the onboard computer's reported mpg against the odometer and actually gas consumed (top off at same fuel pump before and after).
Perhaps 55 was some sort of average efficiency point for vehicles of the 1970s but I expect a higher efficiency point with today's designs.
Re:55 mph is not inherently more efficient ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So they'll just re-introduce the 55 MPH speed limit, which was done to save energy.
It depends entirely on the design of the car and engine. I get 4 additional miles per gallon (mpg) when cruising at 65 rather than 55. I was surprised and repeated the measurements several times. Verified the onboard computer's reported mpg against the odometer and actually gas consumed (top off at same fuel pump before and after). Perhaps 55 was some sort of average efficiency point for vehicles of the 1970s but I expect a higher efficiency point with today's designs.
Cars used to have only 3 (for automatic) or 4 (for manual) gears. 55 was probably around the speed while in top gear that the engine was in it's most efficient range. Today, cars have 5 or 6 gears (with some luxury automatics having as many as 8). Those top-end overdrive gears allow for driving at higher speed while in the RPM sweet-spot for efficiency.
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
There's not a single car sold in America that gets 50+ mpg, which does not mean that such cars don't exist or are impossible
12 years ago I zipped all around Japan for a couple weeks in a Honda Today, got something like 60ish MPG, cruised right along at freeway speeds, power windows, AC -- it was a great car.
Here's an example of new minicar:
http://www.honda.co.jp/LIFE/webcatalog/spec/ [honda.co.jp]
The base model gets 22km/l (51.7mpg). The turbo 4wd model gets 18km/l (42.3 mpg).
This looks like an interesting microvan:
http://www.honda.co.jp/Nboxplus/ [honda.co.jp]
Efficiency range is 18.8 km/l (bigger engine 4wd) to 21.8 km/l (smaller engine FWD).
http://www.honda.co.jp/Nboxplus/webcatalog/spec/ [honda.co.jp]
Anyway, the reason we don't have cars with 55 mpg is merely because they aren't sold here. Not because of physics.
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Informative)
There's not a single car for sale that gets 54mpg on the highway.
Here is a link listing 15 from 2009. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/02/report-all-of-europes-15-most-fuel-efficient-cars-get-better-t/ [autoblog.com] All sold in Europe. So there may be some market impediment to good mileage in cars in the US, but it ain't physics.
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Informative)
The full size Volvo V70 estate does ....wait for it... 54 miles per gallon.
Its mind blowing to sit here and watch a discussion where people question whether it is "Physically possible" to build such cars, or whether they will be around in 2025. You can buy (and many do) a full size family station wagon that does 54mpg! You don't have to get a "subcompact" or even a "compact"! http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/v70/first-drives/volvo-v70-1.6d-drive-se [autocar.co.uk]
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Insightful)
There were cars that got over 50 mpg. The 90's Geo Metro was just such a car.
Getting to 54 mpg will actually be fairly easy. There's a ton of low hanging fruit auto manufacturers have simply been ignoring. Aerodynamics is a big, big one where it's easy to improve. Smooth the underside. Add skirts to the rear wheels. Change the rear into a "beaver tail" or "boat tail". Add some dimples like they have on golf balls to the trailing edges. Make grill openings smaller.
That's just aero. There's also plenty to be had in weight savings. Use carbon fiber, it's lighter, cheaper, and stronger than aluminum. Weight savings tends to snowball. If you aren't dragging around as much weight, you can have a smaller engine, saving even more weight. Your structural components can be lighter. Get the weight under 2000 pounds, and you can omit the power steering, for yet more weight savings.
Another area ripe for improvement is the torque converter on the classic automatic transmission we've been living with for decades. Those torque converters impose a 20% hit to fuel economy! It's disgusting that the industry couldn't be bothered to switch to more efficient designs, and that the public didn't demand it. Even just a lock for the torque converter helps. You don't have to have a manual transmission and clutch pedal to dodge that 20% hit.
Why don't we already do all this? In the case of rear wheel skirts and smaller grill openings, the reason is pure cosmetics. People think such things look ugly! That we've been willing to burn all this extra gas over such frivolous considerations is a sign of just how much waste, slop, and slack there is.
Re:Air resistance. (Score:4, Informative)
I was with you until you go to the transmission. Lock up torque convertors are nearly universal in automatic transmissions.
Since you don't know that simple detail I'm forced to wonder how much of the rest of your post is also ignorant.
Also the 90's Metro much touted for its high mileage was a HUGE, and stripped to the bone, pile of junk, something that its praise singers always forget.
Re:Air resistance. (Score:4, Informative)
Add difficulty to tire changes and chaining up in the winter.
Make cooling less effective, which reduces engine efficiency.
And harder to repair. Steel can be fixed with a welding torch and a grinder. Aluminum requires special welding techniques. Patching carbon fiber is a pain, and is nowhere near as strong as the original part.
Everyone uses locking torque converters these days, and designs have improved to take less than a 5% hit to efficiency compared to manual. Once the reliability problems are solved, they'll be switching to CVTs, which beat manuals by always hitting exactly the right gear ratio for conditions, where a discrete gearbox can only manage a series of near-misses.
Please, if you're going to complain about car designs, look at what the manufacturers are actually doing, not at what you think they're doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No such thing as freeway driving, just freeway parking. If the whitehouse could bring freeway speeds up to 50MPH california would erect a 100ft gold statue of Obama and create a week long holiday in his honor.
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Funny)
And it's thinking like this that keeps California in such debt. Honestly, people, does the statue have to be any taller than 57 ft?
Re:Air resistance. (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see the advantage of some future 70mpg car if I'm burning-up $200 a month recharging it with electricity.
All you've done is switch the country from pollution by gasoline to pollution by coal or natural gas. Plus you're not saving energy. It's still the same consumption level. I would be more impressed with a non-plugin car that actually squeezes 70 miles out of each gallon (like my insight or a Lupo TDI).
I spend about $20 on 100% renewable (wind and small hydro) electricity (at about a 25% surcharge for it), and that eliminates about 35 gallons of gas I burn a month. Those are hard numbers -- that $20 translates into about 1400 miles of driving.
So its much cheaper, and zero pollution for those miles.
You choose to fail to see the benefit because you choose to ignore facts to try to fit reality to your beliefs.
Got this wrong.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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.. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Oh dear.
Here we go again, "everyone will get 54 mpg"
No, the automakers are behind this because it allows for MORE shenanigans, and they can say "look we're struggling cause we're having to be green"
Remember, this is NOT based on MPG.
It's carbon output. WITH "incentives"
EPA is establishing standards that are projected to require, on an average industry fleet
wide basis, 163 grams/mile of carbon dioxide (CO2) in model year 2025, which is equivalent to
54.5 mpg if this level were achieved solely through improve
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Overcomplicated solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
I just don't think they're doing it to protect oil from solar. That's just not particularly convincing. Solar isn't really going to be all that comprehensive a source, and no one likes oil as fuel anyway. Even oil companies would make more money using oil for things like plastics than burning it up for cars.
The subsidies are there to keep them making gasoline for cheap operation of cars because we need cars to get around. That's due to less public transit and suburban sprawl. Decry that all you like, b
Re:Overcomplicated solution. (Score:5, Informative)
$10/gal for gas has really forced European manufacturers to produce 80 MPG cars and reduce the amount they drive. Oh wait....
Re: (Score:3)
Or, make it even simpler.
The government only taxes people to pay its bills.
The government stops giving people/companies money, tax breaks, subsidies, loan guarantees, etc. So no money needs flow out from government unless they are buying something.
The sad thing is that this is an absolutely crazy, radical idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Gas will hit $10/gal and the problem will take care of itself.
In The Netherlands we are paying € 1,871 per liter [brandstofprijzen.info] = € 7.08 = $ 8.89 with the current exchange rates. Nevertheless, the number of cars on the roads has only increased in the past few decades.
The only effect it that i absolutely hate to drive my fscking car that takes up to a minute to get from 0 to 100kmh/62mph, and that I have less money to spend on things I actually like. But I'm definitely not driving any less, because if I don't go to work, I don't get paid.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Very good points that I hadn't considered. Certainly, highway funding is how the federal government is able to apply political pressure and force state's hands on creating certain laws outside the scope of what the federal government is allowed to do. However, our road infrastructure is vast. Isn't maintenance outside the scope of what state and local governments can afford at current tax rates? Would it not take a monumental effort to change the balance of taxation from federal to state to account for
The most efficient car is a city (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
We got over 130 inches of snowfall in my home town last year. Although the muni plows streets, it doesn't plow sidewalks or bike paths until it gets around to it (read that: "maybe some time next week" after any significant snowfall). I hiked six miles home after work when my old motorcycle wouldn't start a couple of years ago; I've even roller bladed to work just for the lulz, so I'm in reas
Re: (Score:3)
It's certainly possible to plow sidewalks and bike paths expeditiously. In Denmark, bike paths are plowed nearly instantly, before streets are.
Re: (Score:3)
Except "The American Dream" would have to change first.
The goal of most people is the big house in the 'burbs (cause that's the cheapest) with a big lawn and 2 cars and multiple "toys". Anything less is seen as being "poor" and "unsuccessful".
Never mind that once out there, you have no choice but to drive everywhere. Never mind that your choices for food are limited to the processed crap in a frozen box (due to the cost of that big home and all those vehicles and your shrinking wages). Never mind the s
CAFE Standard Loopholes are numerous.... (Score:3)
I got rid of my car about 1 year ago, and have never looked back.
Realistically, many cars will no longer run on gas (Score:3)
Motorcycles? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
We're nothing but peasants and serfs, here to serve the government, who apparently can take care of us better than we can ourselves.
what really needs to be done... (Score:4, Insightful)
What really needs to be done is to cut the tax breaks and subsidies for energy production in this country. The government gives massive handouts to the oil industry making the gas at the pump unrealistically cheap. What you pay is incredibly low because the companies are getting government handouts (in form of subsidies and tax breaks). If we paid the true price of gas at the pump, driving a giant SUV would show its true impact on our wallets. With the government handouts, the true price of fuel is shared among all Americans, so even if you're driving a Chevy volt and you're not spending any money at the pump, you are paying through the nose for the gas that your neighbor puts into his Chevy Suburban. The subsidies and tax breaks are in the billions, and we're all sharing in that burden. If people want to drive giant cars, let them drive giant cars, just don't make me pay for their damn fuel.
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 c
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. I can't tell you the number of times I've wondered what the heck I would do if we didn't have a Honda Pilot or something of a similar/larger size. We routinely use all the seats and/or storage capacity, tow stuff, etc. I prefer driving smaller cars, but you can't beat the utility of something like an SUV or pickup.
Actually, this is a good time for a question. For those of you who only have compacts or subcompacts, what do you do in situations where you need to haul stuff? Or is my family just
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:5, Interesting)
Hypothetically because smaller cars are less safe. Not that I subscribe to that theory.
Re:it's an arms race (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sort of like survival of the unfittest.
In this context, the fittest do survive but the world may not define "fittest" the same way you do.
In that example, the soccer mom may survive and continue her genetic line not because her driving habits make her "fit", but other factors may. Maybe she can afford a minivan with excellent safety features, and because of those she survives. Or maybe someone else buys those features for her. Selection pressures in those cases would include her ability to earn pay, or her ability to socialize.
We have to be awar
Re:it's an arms race (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always the fittest who survive, you're just unhappy about who that turns out to be.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, if anything, your little anecdote is a rationale for people to drive nothing but SUVs.
Yes, I completely agree, but why limit ourselves to the SUV? In a wreck between a giant SUV and an HEMTT [wikipedia.org] everyone in the SUV dies while everyone in the HEMTT is left unharmed... in fact the HEMTT can completely run over the SUV and keep driving.
I will not stop until we have legislation requiring everyone to drive around in HEMTT's, because in collision with any other vehicle they're completely safe. So what if it only gets 2.5 miles per gallon? Think of the children that die every year in compact cars! B
Re: (Score:3)
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: The subcompact driver has a significant advantage in avoiding the accident altogether due to better maneuverability and better awareness of road conditions.
Re:it's an arms race (Score:5, Insightful)
soccer mom texting in her gas guzzling behemoth, when wrecking with a subcompact, tends to survive better than the poor guy in the subcompact
Simply not true. The behemoth is safer in a head-on collision, sure, but that's only a tiny percentage of accidents.
In almost all other types of collisions the SUV will roll over and kill everybody inside.
(After wrecking everything else in the area with all that kinetic energy...)
Re:it's an arms race (Score:5, Interesting)
(After wrecking everything else in the area with all that kinetic energy...)
I've always said we need to tie liability insurance rates to vehicle mass. Pick a reasonable number for the denominator, like 3000lb or so (mid-size sedan territory), and use the actual vehicle weight as the numerator. Multiply the final insurance rate by the resulting fraction. Want to buy an 8000lb truck because you think it'll keep your precious brand new driver safe? Well, you'll be paying $5k+ a year to insure it.
Give them small car, and save on gas *and* insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
It happens to be the smallest most efficient SUV I could get. Ford Escape Hybrid. 35mpg. I've been surprised to find that it is not big enough. We went on vacation last week and it would not fit a week's luggage and the required baby items. We took my work truck because we n
that's part of the arms race (Score:3, Interesting)
now some other dude is putting his kids in a larger behemoth to survive a wreck with you, at your expense. the larger and more ridiculous gas guzzlers only affordable to those richer than you. which is the whole point of this nonsense: it is not about survival of the fittest, but about survival of the richest
at some point the american people will give up this ridiculous social darwinist religion and understand that you need to curtail the excess abuses of a social system where those with money win more mone
the fallacy of the immaculate marketplace (Score:5, Insightful)
just admit that you want energy companies deciding US policy rather than the actual american people
stop with the bullshit nods to the miraculous marketplace, which has no meaning in this conversation. we are just talking about a choice between two different monopolistic modes: energy companies, or the US government. i don't understand people who see so much menace in their own democratic government, and less menace in oligopolistic multinational energy corporations (that corrupt your democratic government). personally, as a resident of a democracy, i'll go with the organization that is entrusted with our willpower, however flawed, than the organization entrusted with making profit by any means necessary
Re:it's an arms race (Score:5, Informative)
In the town of Dimock, Pennsylvania, 13 water wells were contaminated with methane (one of them blew up). Arsenic, barium, DEHP, glycol compounds, manganese, phenol, and sodium were also found in unacceptable levels in the wells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
When I can't drink my own water because it combusts out of the tap next to a flame, I don't really give a fuck how fracking drives down natural gas prices.
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what they say... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You know what they say... (Score:4, Funny)
....when the only tool you have is a sledgehammer....
Everything looks like a watermelon?
Re:You know what they say... (Score:5, Funny)
A horse.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
27% of pickup owners have *never* hauled anything in the bed. 78% do so once a month or less. [1] Face it, the average pickup truck driver is some suburban cowboy poser who is commuting to his office park. If we're serious about oil consumption, we're going have to move about 50% of pickup buyers back to cars.
[1]Polk Pickup Truck Usage Study (sorry no url)
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:5, Interesting)
Face it, the average pickup truck driver is some suburban cowboy poser who is commuting to his office park.
Ironically, a lot of pickup/SUV owners aren't necessarily "cowboy posers", but just people who think that if they ever do get in an accident, they'd rather be driving the bigger car when it happens. So smaller cars are more dangerous because there are so many big trucks on the road because so many people are afraid of getting hit by big trucks, thus perpetuating the problem.
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:5, Insightful)
True, and that ticks me off. I live on a farm and my less than 2-year-old pickup is beat to hell in the bed and covered with scratches because I USE it.
Seeing lots of pristine, clean pickup trucks driving around is a joke.
Re: (Score:3)
And you probably overbought on your computer purchase. What's your point?
Overbuying on a computer purchase doesn't have anywhere near the negative externalities that unnecessarily buying a giant pickup or SUV does.
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:4, Informative)
I did some trawling of the Wayback Machine and this seems to be the study that the GP is referring to: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/83383916/4873_PickupSurveyReport.pdf [dropbox.com]
Found at http://web.archive.org/web/20070713221433/http://www.edf.org/documents/4873_PickupSurveyReport.pdf [archive.org]
The stats are what he claims, and I don't have a spin on them. Decide for yourself.
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:4, Insightful)
You're completely unable to comprehend what you read.
The GP wrote that small cars are unsafe when most other drivers are driving trucks. He is correct. It's not the truck driver he's worried about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:5, Informative)
Not intended just for you, but for anyone who says "bigger cars are safer".
Here's [youtube.com] what 50 years of automotive engineering has done. The driver of the '59 would have been dead. The '09 driver would have injured their knee.
A few hundred pounds lighter, almost triple the MPG (13 mpg vs 29 mpg), and is way safer.
To keep saying "bigger cars are safer, thus don't work on smaller cars" is not really thinking this through.
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if you take a big car with no safety features and compare it to a smaller car with safety features, the smaller car is going to be safer. That goes without saying. That said, a modern big car with equivalent safety features would be safer than a modern small car. You have to compare apples to apples.
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
You know, this is something that amazes me about auto manufacturers and, to an extent, the government -
We all know that race car drivers enjoy a fairly low fatality rate due to 2 key safety devices: The roll cage, and the multi-point restraint system. With modern alloys, building a rollcage into the frame of every car off the line should be a trivial matter, right? So why, then, are cars filled with all manner of airbags and other expensive (especially in terms of power:weight ratios) "safety" features, w
Re: (Score:3)
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:CAFE Kills (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Don't know who makes Outback, but Audi and Subaru both have the best AWD of all time. Subaru is actually kicking ass. I drive a Mazda, I tend to light rail, I bicycle less now because I'm lazy but I envy a Trek 2.3 Apex.
Sorry, I should have been more specific -- it's a Subaru Outback. I've been quite happy with both the AWD and reliability of the car.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:even assuming your lame premise (Score:4, Insightful)
status conscious assholes should not drive our energy policy
You've used that term twice now, I assume because you need to demonize the people whose vehicle choices you disapprove of. Invective isn't much of a convincer.
Re: (Score:3)
this is a thread on slashdot, not a political plank. i will leave the carefully chosen words that actually have more venom than mine to the professional politicians. who apparently you will follow, because you seem to be the type who prefers serene lies over ugly truths
the problem according to you is word choice, not rationale. this is why we have the kind of snake tongued leaders we have in the world
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
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:effectively raising the cost of vehicles once a (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
proof? And is that a problem? (Score:3)
Care to show evidence that vehicle prices are increasing due to regulatory compliance? And if they are, then I see it as a way of "internalizing the externalities"--that is, making car owners pay for the costs of reducing their effects on everyone else.
We have one compact car in the family, I bike when I can. I think gas should be double the current cost like it is in Europe. Carbon-base fuels are currently way too cheap, there's no incentive to conserve.
Re: (Score:3)
Your stupid, stop driving
Stop posting. Same reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Savings" (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad the vehicles will cost $16,000 more (unadjusted for inflation).
Do you have a source for this?
2012 Prius C (53/46mpg) - $19,000
2012 Toyota Matrix (21/29mpg) - $19,000
2012 Camry Hybrid (43/39mpg) - $26550
2012 Camry conventional (25/35mpg) - $22155
Toyota is already selling hybrids today that are close to meeting the new standard for a few thousand dollars more than (or the same price as ) a conventional car.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tell a better lie (Score:4, Insightful)