Senate passes 35MPG minimum by 2020

jeffy210 submitted on 12/15/2007 Official AutoSpies Timestamp: 9:09 AM
from: www.nytimes.com

[34] user comments | category: Misc News

Tags: mpg, senate

Tag Links:

mpg

senate

Senate passes 35MPG minimum by 2020

The senate passed an updated energy bill yesterday.

The bill calls for the first major increase by Congress in required automobile fuel efficiency in 32 years, something the auto companies have fought for two decades.

The car companies will have to achieve an industry wide average 35 mile per gallon for cars, small trucks and SUVs over the next 13 years, an increase of 10 mpg over what the entire fleet averages today.

And it would boost use of ethanol to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a nearly sixfold increase, and impose an array of new requirements to promote efficiency in appliances, lighting and buildings. Read Article

Comments:

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters):
[img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]

DaHarder - 12/15/2007 12:08:13 PM

+5 Boost

Let's hope that this brings 'horsepower wars' and senselessly over-sized vehicle manufacturing into perspective.

Intelligent/innovative engineering will be the key to successfully achieving future fuel efficiency goals, which is the direction we should have been traveling all along.

Let The Fuel Efficiency Wars Begin!

reply to this comment

CLK63BlackSeries - 12/15/2007 1:08:08 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

oh BS, horsepower wars will never end! not as long as WE are here...

DaHarder - 12/15/2007 2:27:24 PM

+5 Boost

I don't think that they should 'end' entirely (nor is that what I posted), they just need to be 'brought into perspective'.

There'd be very little need for 250 - 300hp in your family hauling CamCordAltiBu if manufacturers would simply endeavor to make these vehicles lighter and more space efficient.

There is a substitute for Cubic-Inches/Horsepower, and it called Intelligent Engineering.

finalheaven - 12/15/2007 5:21:32 PM

+1 Boost

I agree in that HP will not matter as much soon. I think I see a parallel in the computing industry. Everyone bought their CPUs/Processors based on Mhz. Now that's not the case. People are buying more energy efficient cheaps while AMD and INTEL battles it out using watts and not Mhz or Ghz.

But then again everyone still benchmarks each chip to get the relative HP feel out of it. But most companies, businesses, and people are now willing to sacrifice a few Mhz in computing power for less watts.

ThierryHenry14 - 12/15/2007 2:08:53 PM

+2 Boost

Its a shame because if the companies with big performers can't make the 35mpg, they won't sell it here in the US. simple.

reply to this comment

huu76 - 12/15/2007 3:16:46 PM

+4 Boost

They should've included emissions as well. If a car has really low emissions, then they should cut them some slack since the new emission-reducing technology probably adds weight.
Example would be the GS450h. Right now it gets 23mpg combined, drop in Toyota's 2.4L and it'd probably hit 30mpg easy, but not more because of the added weight (Camry-hybrid gets 34mpg combined).
Limiting emissions would effectively kill trucks and diesels.

If it's a ZEV (or close), it should be exempted although most probably already get over 35mpg anyway.

reply to this comment

acd6 - 12/16/2007 1:50:21 PM

+1 Boost

It's a good point. But i would imagine that the bill was also created to reduce overall fuel consumption, as well as lowered emissions.

c36amg - 12/15/2007 3:42:13 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

ya then only bicycles will achieve that... goodbye to cars

reply to this comment

toolatetorace - 12/15/2007 3:55:11 PM

0 Boost

and don't forget Toyota;s most recent cash cow , the monsterously monsterous SUV's and the Tundra

bluedart - 12/15/2007 9:31:19 PM

+1 Boost

look at the bright side, that would help cut down the number of elderly drivers

BMW995 - 12/15/2007 3:58:20 PM

-1 Boost

What a horrible mistake!
The govt. acts and as usual makes the wrong decision that will cost the American public a bundle. Auto prices will soar and auto companies will make many models that the public will not want or buy.
The Govt. has no courage..what they should have done to save energy is to raise the gasoline tax. That way auto companies will automatically adjust to changes in buyers taste in cars and the excess $$$s that would have gone to Saudi Arabia will stay in this country to be used as the govt. sees fit (they would probably foul that up too, though).
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are complete idiots and should be impeached.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 12/15/2007 4:38:41 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Eh, just wait for the Dems to come in. It will work itself out in due time.

Monk - 12/15/2007 5:22:51 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

This was the Senate, not the Bush administration. Does Bush have power to veto this or not?
I don't like many of the Democrats in power right now. They kept saying they would fix things, but right now they have nothing in order. I am a conservative, but would vote for the best person that could be in office. Reid and Pelosi are annoying. H. Clinton gets most of her fame from B. Clinton. Obama is pretty good I think. Huckabee seems to be the best of the Republicans.

finalheaven - 12/15/2007 5:24:37 PM

+2 Boost

Uh... you think the democrats are the blame here? Republicans went to war for Oil, Bush and the republican crew cannot lose face and increase oil prices. They will stop it all costs. Democrats wanted higher oil prices and better fuel mileage LONG LONG time ago. The auto industry loves Republicans. Hell funny how Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger drives a hummer. heh

Monk - 12/15/2007 5:25:21 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

ALSO: NO MORE ETHANOL HYPE! It is a ridiculous fuel that as "demand" grow for corn, will increase food and fuel prices. I could say another hundred bad things about this, but just ask Rupert - I think he can recite everything
With a energy quotient lower than gasoline, yet being more expensive, ethanol IS NOT THE WAY.
hydrogen, biodiesel (food waste oil), or diesel are the way to go

finalheaven - 12/15/2007 5:27:19 PM

+2 Boost

About Ethanol i can't agree more.

Monk - 12/15/2007 5:30:33 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

well, I was mean the republicans' greed screwed the party up and started the Iraq war, which is draining America of prosperity. But then again, the Democrats haven't done much either.

finalheaven - 12/15/2007 5:41:09 PM

+1 Boost

yea, but democrats can't be blamed 'yet' since mostly republicans have been in power in the last 8 years. although im not naive and i know that if a democrat becomes president for the next 8 years, they'll be on the receiving ends of criticisms.

but for now its the republicans! =P

1995e34 - 12/15/2007 7:07:04 PM

0 Boost

unfortunately, this won't eliminate demand for inefficient vehicles. it will just remove them from the market. while, i think the automakers surely need to change, most americans need to change too.

i think the feds have good intentions, but they may not be taking the best approach. i saw a figure that for every penny/gallon tax that's added to the price of gas, $1 billion is collected. Increase the gas tax by 5 cents/gallon/year over the next twenty years, while using the money collected to fund green technology. invest in geothermal power, and sell it to india/china as their economy grows. world saved.

Rupert - 12/15/2007 8:07:55 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Ethanol BOOOOOOO!!!!!

I like how suddenly I am the resident expert on ethanol...but it really makes no sense.

Worse MPG (???), raises food prices across the world, leading to poverty and famine in poorer nations who can't afford the food, encourages rainforest destruction (save Brazil and Indonesia!!)...and corn-based ethanol is way less efficient than sugar cane ethanol...what argument is there for ethanol, except reducing America's dependence on foreign oil??

1995e34 - 12/15/2007 8:26:17 PM

0 Boost

i don't think ethanol is intended as a replacement, but as a supplement. and i hear switchgrass would be the plant matter fermented eventually.

1995e34 - 12/15/2007 7:58:07 PM

+2 Boost

senate approval ratings are low cause we're still in iraq

reply to this comment

holmstar - 12/17/2007 12:46:04 AM

+2 Boost

The dems really don't have as much power right now as everyone seems to think. They only have a slight majority, so they cannot override a veto. In other words, the bush administration still has ultimate control of everything that is currently passed into law.

reply to this comment

bluedart - 12/15/2007 9:27:41 PM

-1 Boost

so, what's next? they are gonna pass a law that requires all the new houses to be energy efficient too? and when are they gonna stop? we are just a step closer to a new form of socialism.

reply to this comment

1995e34 - 12/15/2007 9:45:05 PM

+1 Boost

we wouldn't need the government to do it if we did it ourselves. but is that very likely?

holmstar - 12/17/2007 12:51:53 AM

+3 Boost

If we ever have a real energy crisis, something like 0.50/kwh for electricity, then we will see a huge voluntary increase in energy efficiency. This is not that unlikely given that our electricity consumption is rising faster than the construction of new power plants.

bambamsd - 12/15/2007 10:44:28 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

I have to agree with Rupert on Ethanol. I will NOT put Ethanol in my car!!! I got terrible gas mileage compared to just regular gas and vowed I will never do it again. I kind of feel like a traitor to the area that I live in. I'm from South Dakota and ethanol is big business here. The farmers are making money and I feel bad that I won't be helping them out and building a business that will help my state. I have an '06 Honda Civic and Ethanol just sucks in my car. I'm big into getting the best mileage that I can and Ethanol doesn't do it for me.

reply to this comment

tiradan - 12/16/2007 12:20:43 AM

+2 Boost

Autospies Fanboy feuds over cars = annoying
Autospies Fanboy feuds over politics = ++anoyying

reply to this comment

holmstar - 12/17/2007 12:57:18 AM

+1 Boost

It is a political article. Expect political comments.

TheSailor - 12/16/2007 8:44:09 AMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

I somewhat agree with the anti-Ethanol people here... We need to start using other means to produce the required biomass to produce bio fuels than food products if they are to have any future. As of now, bio diesel might seem like a better solution. The problem with bio diesel is that it isn't as easy to produce as ethanol as you need something you can extract oil from meaning that you need a designated oil source (like carnola). Ethanol you can produce by means of fermentation of sugars. And since all plants have glucose and different polysaccharids it is much easier to produce than bio diesel. Also, plants construct their sugars from CO2, therefore fuel produced from plants can be (it isn't yet though) CO2 neutral unlike fossil fuels.

So the real issue here is to find a proper alternative sugar sources to food products. Fortunately, science have come a long way and it wont be many years before we see algae farms which can produce hydrogen... And the dead algae can be collected and used for bio fuel as they still contain large amounts of carbon-based biomass... Scientists have even come up with the technology for producing bio ethanol from poplar wood with a fuel yield of almost 100% (meaning that you don't actually waste any of the energy in the bio mass)... Corn in comparison has a yield of between 10 and 20%...
Another technology being developed is the use of enzymes to break down some of the tougher sugar chains meaning that you can break down ANY bio mass into almost pure glucose (which is the easiest sugar to ferment) getting us close to that fantastic 100% fuel yield!

As to the lower energy density of ethanol, that issue is easily fixed! If you don't emmit any extra CO2, it doesn't matter how much you emmit, so if people really want the same kind of power in their cars, it is just a matter of building engines with the equivalent extra output.
Also, a pure ethanol engine (not the flexi fuel engines) have higher compression ratios than gasoline engines giving you higher efficiency and better torque. This is not the case with a flexi-fuel engine as it has to have lower compression ration to prevent knocking when using gasoline.

The idea of bio ethanol isn't all that bad... The present technology still need a lot of refinement and we need better fuel sources, but when a proper fuel source is found and better production systems have been developed, you'll have a completely clean energy source. There are no waste products in the exhaust gas except CO2 and H2O (equivalent to the amount of water and CO2 consumed by the plants if the fuel yield is 100%)... With Bio diesel, you still have the problem with particulate matter and unwanted biproducts... And as I mentioned, bio diesel need a designated fuel source bio ethanol potentially doesn't.

reply to this comment

To post a comment for this story, you must first Login.

If you do not have an account, you will need to Register (It's Free!).