A week ago the administration met with the large 3 U.S. car manufacturers to talk about having all vehicles and light trucks fulfill a standard of 56.2 miles per gallon requirement by 2025. While the program would increase the price of vehicles, advocates say it will be made up by customers in lower fuel expenses. Opponents, however, see the program as too difficult.
What the discussion was about
Ford, Chrysler and General Motors all met with the administration officials in private meetings to talk about a plan. To meet the requirements, vehicles would have to increase in value on average about $2,100. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will work together with the EPA (EPA) to choose on the rule. September 30 is when it has to be done by.
Picking the 2016 requirement
The proposed figure is a compromise. By 2016, automakers have to get to 35.5 mpg already. The Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency have said they would consider a requirement in the range of 47 mpg to 62 mpg for improvements between 2017 and 2025. The new requirement, if set, would mean an additional 5 percent improvement per intervening year.
Requirements are even increased for some
The 62 mpg standard is something most environmental groups are hoping for. Roland Hwang is at the Natural Resources Defense Council. As the transportation program director, he said, "Fifty-six mpg, while not as ambitious as the level we have been advocating, is a doubling in fuel efficiency from today's average passenger vehicle and would cut drivers' fuel bills in half."
Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign at the Center for Auto Safety, warns, "It is not just the number that matters. It's the loopholes underneath it. And automakers will look to turn whatever number it is into Swiss cheese."
Vehicles would need to be gas-electric hybrids though if they were to actually fulfill the 62 mpg.
Auto dealers discover the strategy 'overly ambitious'
The 56.2 mpg figure isn't a realistic one as reported by National Automobile Dealers Association spokesman Baily Wood. "Overly ambitious standards set 14 years in the future risk severe economic harm if customer wants and needs are not met," he said.
Statements made by two of the three
It could be attainable for General Motors. This was echoed in the comment the North American General Motors president had. "When you put those things in for the first time, they may be more expensive. But this is a volume and scale industry. What was very expensive in the past is no longer very expensive."
It is something Ford is more cautious with. This was apparent in what Ford spokeswoman Christin Baker said. She said Ford would support a "national program that is data driven and factors in the impact of this rule-making on jobs, the economy, consumers and safety." The 56 mpg figure was not talked about at all by her.
At this time, there has not been a remark made from Chrysler.
As long as they don't make it illegal to drive the cars we have now. I love my car and put a lot of work into it so I'm not planning on getting a new car ever. Unless I come across a wealth of money that is.
Will the cars of now be frowned upon if the majority of the nation are driving those electric cars in 2025? Will I be ticketed for noise disturbance even with stock exhaust? Will girls in 2025 be turned on about how quiet the car sounds than with a loud ass hemi?
This was possible back in 1984, well before any hybrids.
it will be awesome when in 2025 ppl are driving this little 100mpg tin cans and you and I rolling on 2000-2009 4L engine beasts
"they don't make it illegal to drive the cars we have now"
I doubt they'll make they it illegal, but you never know.
If the price of oil doesn't push oil to the $8 level (and it will), then federal taxes could and should (like adult countries in Europe that aren't controlled by the oilcos).
The could also be an annual tax on cars based on its Fed mileage tests. You wanna roll in a 10 mpg Bentley or Hummer, you pay for the "privilege" of wasting oil
As part of the annual state inspection, there should be an exhaust emissions test. You spew over the limit, you're car must be tweaked until it's legal.
Are you even paying attention to what's currently going on in those "adult countries"?
LMMFAO
I wonder why this piece of only gets 33 city/41 hwy?
We won't reach that for probably a decade or 2. I do agree that the gas tax should be increased. I like the plans that include an increased gas tax that reduces itself during temporary es in cost to insulate the consumer from fluctuations.
I've long said the state government should create a sliding scale on vehicle registrations based on EPA rated estimated mileage and age. As gas mileage increases in the future, there will need to be an alternate income to replace declining gas tax revenues (one of the reasons the gas tax needs to be increased), and that's a good start on finding it.
Could be nice. They check to make sure the exhaust system is installed and connected properly and to make sure the gas cap provides a good seal, but they don't really measure the exhaust output.
Well, in Houston, Dallas, Austin, and El Paso MSA's, they now do emissions testing for gasoline powered vehicles no including motorcycles.
This type of vehicle is worth 2.5 lbs of pubies in my home country. However, it will kill you if you crash into this same amount of pubies
Exactly, I do wonder why these micro cars aren't well over 40 mpg.I wonder why this piece of only gets 33 city/41 hwy?
The Jetta diesel, not a microcar, of earlier years was being reported in various driving web sites at getting 50 or more highway, and 40+ reliably.
Data points:
1999-2009 average Chinese rate of growth in oil consumption: 6.7%
Most recent estimate of Chinese oil consumption 2010:
9.2M barrels per day.
Implied average growth rate: 6.7%
US oil consumption, 2010
17.4M barrels per day
Most optimistic estimate of current "spare" OPEC capacity + full Libyan capacity:
5.6M barrels per day
Year at which Chinese consumption will surpass 100% of best estimated full OPEC capacity:
2018
I say "best" estimate, because there appears to be some data that suggests OPECs actual capacity, especially for light sweet crude, is non-existant.
Refineries set up for light sweet crude cannot process the heavier sour oil.
As the light sweet supply tightens, demand for that will go up markedly, and you will see a refining bottleneck. Scott could probably speak to that.
Year at which Chinese oil consumption is projected, based on this historical average, to pass that of the US:
2020
I don't think we need government mandated fuel economy. The car companies have access to the same data, and know full well what is about to happen to the cost of a gallon of gas.
Links:
OPEC spare capacity:
http://www.businessinsider.com/opec-...picture-2011-6
Chinese oil consumption:
http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/...oil-dependency
... as well as many others. Most data is as of 2009, stratfor seemed to have 2010 data. 2009 Chinese oil consumption 8.6M pbd seems to be the average consensus
Almost all of the Chinese new consumption will have to be imported. If Chinese production falls or trails off, as is likely, its import requirements will actually grow faster than its consumption.
I am fairly sure that Chinese growth is going to be quite constrained by a likely slowdown in the next few years.
Note I haven't said a word about the *other* billion-person economy growing at similar rates, India.
India consumption:
1.2M bpd 1990
3.0M pbd 2009
Implied growth rate:
4.9%
Year at which China and India together will consume all of the best case spare OPEC capacity plus all of Libyan capacity, assuming no change in rate of growth:
2017
But there is always more oil out there that they will discover, right?
No, not really.
Have fun with that.
The Jetta/Rabbit to the Passat/Jetta had a minimal amount of emissions requirements = less force needed to eject exhaust = higher efficiency
Old Jetta, Civic CRX HF, etc were light cars..so they were economical. But they'd kill you in a minor accident.
The Smart car is relatively heavy and safe, that's why the MPG is not so spectacular.
RG makes a good case for us to have our own oil supplies.
As long it's just a suggestion and not a mandate, then it's a noble goal... We'll know how feasible it is when we get closer to the deadline...
"RG makes a good case for us to have our own oil supplies."
then why aren't US oilcos drilling the 1000s of leases they have now? Maybe they know somwthing you don't?
half the motorcycles made now get less than 40mpg.
We have our own supplies. We have about 2% of what is left.
It isn't sufficient to supply us for any meaningful length of time, and it certainly won't enable us to meet all of our needs under any possible scenario.
The correct conclusion is that the shrinking supply, coupled with massive increases in demand will force the price point up.
The market based response will be to shift energy consumption to other forms of energy and use less oil overall.
You do know how the free market works, right?
I think making the companies start researching now will give them a chance to get out ahead of the trend.
It would probably be helpful to mandate it, but given that the market will force them in that direction anyways, but it isn't totally necessary.
They aren't because the rigs to do so cost $500M and up.
That is a lot of cash even for a big oil company, and they are building the deep water rigs about as fast as the shipbuilders can make them.
The problem though is that the oil companies are somewhat hesitant to run out and commit to these major expenditures as they got badly burned in the 90's.
Bust cycles will do that. It also clears out the "amateurs".
They have 1000s of leases ON SHORE, don't need $500M for an onshore well.
Avg oil well production in USA is 5 - 10 barrels/day, 50K wells.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-01-2011 at 04:36 PM.
Eyup.Bust cycles will do that. It also clears out the "amateurs".
From what I read that is part of the problem with the current oil/gas boom.
A lot of people just moved on to other industries, so now companies are getting caught short-handed.
I have a buddy with a degree in petroleum engineering or something similar that got out of school in the mid-nineties and couldn't find a job.
(or maybe didn't bother to, never did find out how hard he tried, just that he gave up on finding a job with his degree and went on to other things)
The costs are somewhere in the neighborhood of 250,000 - 500,000 per day to drill....lot's of variables in that figure. You've got to factor in the geologic studies, lease payments, and crew costs. Typical rigs in my old stomping grounds might be drilling for 3 to 4 weeks (some damn deep wells on the caprock), so you're looking at 10+ million per well...if nothing breaks.
Man, I can remember when petroleum engineering was a guaranteed homerun. Those dudes could pull down some serious cash right off the bat. Course, that was 40 years ago.
Dammit. 40 years? *sigh*
did some research recently about hybrids to find out which to buy. turns out there isn't any compe ion as the prius slays everything in every category (mpg, cost, interior room, reliability)
its a shame its so ugly
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
