Market Currents
The White House has proposed a rule whereby all new vehicles would have to have a fleetwide...
-
Sunday, June 26, 2011, 5:25 AM ETThe White House has proposed a rule whereby all new vehicles would have to have a fleetwide average of 56.2 miles to the gallon by 2025, sources say. The plan would double current fuel-economy targets and probably raise prices in some cars. Final numbers for 2017-2025 are expected in September.
Other date
Latest Articles
This news story has 135 comments:
Obama's green standards are all countered by the mere fact he is trying to release US oil reserves to keep oil prices down. If he were really green he'd let market forces dictate the replacement of oil with alternatives as it rises. Sadly Obama is just about everything save a believer in capitalism or the free market.
Very soon, they are going to tell us that climate change is destroying trees, so they would tax us for the oxygen we breath so they can plant more trees.....
Most people that grow marajuana, supplment natures CO2 with additional to stimulate growth.
Perhaps the left will soon embrace higher levels, given the newfound push for legalization.
More crop yields should equate to more tax revenues too.
YES, LETS GET GOVERNMENT OFF THE BACKS OF THE FUNERAL INDUSTRY.
In the 1960s and 1970s the Big Three North American auto manufactures resisted strenuously the efforts by the emerging consumer movement and federal governments in the US and Canada to improve standards of automobile safety, arguing that consumers really wanted exciting cars at the cheapest price and would not pay for safer construction. Governments enacted legislation imposing new standards but the Big Three continued to resist the implementation of these changes. Foreign manufacturers, responding to similar demands in their own domestic markets and in North America for safer vehicles, responded more quickly and with better vehicles.
We all now have much safer vehicles, consumers expect this to be so and the Big Three have suffered a dramatic loss of market share over the past 50 or so years by reason of their slowness to respond to this challenge
Are the Big Three about to do a sequel to this bad movie with fuel efficiency staring in place of vehicle safety standards?
There is a role for the market place and capitalism as you envision it in these contexts but there is also a role for society through its government to help set the framework within which capitalism and the market do their thing. Let's hope the Big Three understand where they stand and what's at stake this time (i.e. by adapting creatively without delay to the new fuel efficiency standards).
And Hitler was in charge in the 1930's.
That was then, this is now,
So, What's your point?
Apparently you are not up to speed on the subject, and have not read my earlier posts.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
My remark has nothing to do with what, if any, regulations are justified for the auto, or any other, industry. I am railing against the usurpation of Legislative powers by the Executive branch of Government under the guise of "rules" and in direct contravention of the Constitution of the United States.
with the Energy and Conservation Act of 1975. This act, duly passed by elected representatives and signed into law by then President Gerald Ford, directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue rules on fuel economy for manufacturers. EPA is charged with calculating the average MPG. The act is still in effect, and it is the Executive Branch's responsibility to carry out this law.
So the answer, you dumb ass, is yes, the White House gets to make the rules on this because Congress has authorized them to.
The government has invented NOTHING useful for the Automotive Industry, aside from quick-rinse bankruptcies and casually blowing off previous investors and stakeholders. It is almost literally like The Government sees The Industry try something as an optional upgrade, then decide that it was a really good idea, then mandating it for the rest of the industry to copy, after most of them already have done so.
It could easily be a multi-billion dollar cash crop, that readily grows almost literally everywhere, and yet it is banished to the back alley. It would even be an excellent source plant for making biofuel or ethanol fuel - even better than corn - due to its ultrafast growing biomass capability. But we are talking about The Government here, who knows about these things much better than Mother Nature.
It wouldn't be so if cars generally were smaller. As it i now we're all in a veritable arms race with each of us trying to drive the biggest tank on the road for fear that someone with a bigger tank will cream us.
It's as if on the way to work each day we're re-enacting the 1943 Battle of Kursk on the plains of the USSR.
Unhappily there appears to be no reasonable way out of this predicament (i.e. unless the price of gas goes up exponentially - which would be a cure worse than the disease).
make the smaller cars more confusing to drive, maybe with mandatory stick shifts so senior citizens will be preferentially offed, before they load FICA and Medicare for 25 years.
And, mandate more added sugar into food while we're at it - that way, obesity and heart attacks will firther help "solve" the unfunded $44T promises.
I can't wait to see a Republican commercial with Granny dying in a flaming wreck, mandated by Obama, "because it's fair", of course.
Yes there will always be some heavy duty work trucks out there for people that absolutely need them to move materials and such, and yes these will (almost) always win in a head to head battle in spacetime with small cars that try to take over a truck's personal space. That's physics.
Oh and yes, we will also have plenty of jack@$$&$ out there who jack up their truck suspensions to look "cool" and "offroady" and "monster-trucky", so that their bumper is now about window-high on the rest of traffic. If the US and State Governments want something to do, it would be to set bumper heights or blocker beams to be 100% compatible across all roadworthy vehicles, so the smaller vehicles at least have a fighting chance to properly absorb some of the collision forces as designed.
The Laws of Physics.
Why not just make it 100 MPG?
That would be a nice round number too.
Sheer genius!
I am surprised this administration hasn't come up with this one yet.
"does 53 Miles per **Litre** "
That would be about 200MPG!
What have you been smoking?
Are you sure you are not really from California?
Please provide Data.
Maybe "combined driving" means he gets out and pushes for 155 miles for every gallon driven.
www.car-emissions.com/...
Much of the issues you refer to have been recently addressed.
Ala Mecedes Blue-Tec etc, and Urea injection.
Refining processes in the US have yet to adapt however, due to the Hydrocracking in the US based on the Gasoline/Diesel Ratio, thereby keeping diesel expensive in the US.
If I may add.
If one took the Technologies you refer to ( Diesel) and added Hybrid or Mild Hybrid tech, even further advances are currently possible.
Nobody has yet commercially combined diesel with Hybrid, at least Yet.
The Ford Fusion Hybrid, for example, is quoted by EPA at 41 mpg, but actually achieved 85 mpg in tests with expert hypermiling techniques.
And bicycles have better than 56.2 MPG.
Why,
'cause people like you will find a problem with that too, that's why.
articles.nydailynews.c...
Notice how oil collapsed to 30$ a barrel when price discovery was allowed for a brief period in time in 08-09 and speculators were out of the market?
Peak oil is bullshit.
this sort of edict reminds me of the sort of garbage that used to come out of Gosplan in the former Soviet Union
it is like the incandesecent light bulb ban
let the market decide, let people decide,
the prices arewrong. put a $1/gallon clmate change tax on gasoline, do the same with electricity derived from coal - put a 2c/kwh climate change surcharge on ot. Then just get out of the way.
and if someone wants to pay and have a big car with lousy fuel economy and chooses incandescent bulbs in a house fueld by coal based power - let them. it is their right.
Anyone but Obama 2012
(except Palin, Paul, Gingrich, Bachman and Santorum - all loathsome and objectoinable)
E
no, hes not far ahead.
1. His approval, while down from its post-bin Laden high, is at 47 percent. He can certainly win reelection next year with a number in that range: President Clinton had a similar approval rating this time in 1995.
2. Pitted against nearly every potential GOP candidate, Obama would be suppprted by a majority of voters.
instead of climate change surcharge
we_need_your_money surcharge
instead of $1
your_$
hard codes should be avoided
======================...
How much of GOSPLAN have you read ?
(sport utility moped)
This regulation is a fleet average which would include all of the plug-in electric and hybrid variants which achieve very high “calculated MPG.” Add some of the extremely efficient new diesel vehicles (the new ones don’t smoke and stink any more) and the fleet average could indeed be 56.2 in 2025. This kind of “corporate average” MPG standard just means that if you want to enter the truck market, you might have to design a Prius.
The “climate change tax” we need now is a tax cut; the new car fleet would get higher mileage now if diesel fuel was taxed the same as gasoline.
As for the cost of the vehicles, you can’t blame the feds for dreaming that if we could stop sending billions of dollars a month out of the country to buy oil to make fuel for vehicles our economy would be in much better shape. And you can’t blame the feds for understanding that the real goal is not to spend money on American oil instead of Saudi oil, but to help the economy by spending less money on oil.
Changing over the congress in 2012, 2014 and 2016
======================...
It the same group which j-dub is talking about.
Try to look not at their D/R
Look at the issue
Spend 10 minutes and learn about Liquid Florine Thorium Reactors.
www.youtube.com/watch?...
But won't the control rod mechanism affect headroom in a sub-compact ?
LFTRs don't HAVE any control rods so headroom isn't that much of a problem. The cooling towers might result in a bit more wind resistance at high speeds however.
This is EXACTLY what Obama needs to be doing. Thank god he's got the cahones and vision to try to do something for the people of this country - apparently no one else does.
I miss the thumbs down system.....
Apparently you are Mis-informed.
Only two years ago all parties (Feds Automakers,California, etc.) got together and agreed on the Phase in of very strict but uniform MPG and emmission standards.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Those have not even been phased in and now we want to raise the bar again.
Nevermind my last Post.
Lets just make it 250MPG.
That should hold for another two years or so.
That should suffice for some more Market "Certainty" for a capital intensive manufacturing industry that may be one of the most important segments of the economy.
So important in fact, that Obama believed it justified bailing out.
Or maybe it was just the Union votes that only really mattered.
We know it was not the interests of the Mom & Pop bondholders, that's for certain.
You just want to scare the shit out of everyone by invoking President Obama's middle name. Why don't you just go BOOOO!!!
Pretty infantile stuff Joe.
And what do you have to offer?
Nothing, as usual.
Check with your buddy Tigerscam.
BTW, are the two of you related?
Keep this in mind, this from a Tack post, kudos to him:
Joe:
Further, and coincidentally, to my previous comments, the following arrived in my inbox this afternoon from somebody's broadcast e-mail:
Fifty-Four Years of Math 1957 - 2011 In America:
Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. Why do I tell you this?
Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:
1. Teaching Math In 1950s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?
2. Teaching Math In 1960s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20 ...
5. Teaching Math In 1990s
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok.)
6. Teaching Math In 2000s
If you have special needs or just feel you need assistance because of race, color, religion, sex, age, childhood memories, criminal background, then don't answer and the correct answer will be provided for you. There are no wrong answers.
7. Teaching Math In 2011
Un hachero vende una carrtada de maderapara 100 pesos. El costo de la producciones es 80 pesos. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
Again, kudos to Tack.
Reasonable because he doesn't have to drive one as he is above the rules.
Weather that be 2012 or 2016.
I would prefer the former.
From what I can tell, now, none of the three branches is performing the lawful assignment of duty accorded each by our Constitution. Therein lies the greatest problem and the greatest danger to the future of the Republic.
I welcome your realization that if we lose the Republic, there will be no alpha to seek. Only the ruling class and their cronies will have any advantage to profit. To have someone as intelligent as you come to this conclusion can only be a huge positive for those in your virtual, personal and familial circles.
I consider the abdication by the Supreme Court of its Constitutional duty to enforce the preservation of powers to the People and the States, and to enforce the Separation of Powers between, and reign in usurpation of powers by, the Legislative and Executive branches to be the most grievous threat to the future of the nation. Failure of duty by the Supreme Court is far more dangerous and nefarious than any actual mischief of the other two branches of Government, as the other two are, at least, elected, while the Supreme Court's malfeasance is beyond redress.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Great point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your ignorance and abusive style hardly deserves repost, but I'll humor you and just say that if you had a genuine understanding of the Constitution you would realize that except for power specifically enumerated therein to the Federal Government, all other powers are reserved to the People and the States. This has been so bastardized by usurpation of power by all branches of the Federal Government, so as to make the original intent of the Constitution barely recognizable, now. And, more than any single body, the Supreme Court in its dereliction of duty to enforce the Constitution has permitted this vast expansion of power wholly unspecified by the Constitution.
(You may now return to your rather juvenile name calling, which is the usual refuge of those unable to debate intelligently.)
I greatly miss the "Thumbs Down" button which is one of the reasons I feel less compelled to post here. You have demonstrated tremendous patience and erudition here but I suspect to a liberal you sound like an alien being.
Without negative feedback it is impossible to learn anything in life - just look at all the losers with high self-esteem.
dispropotionately loud minority.
Perhaps Idaho should adopt a rule that cars must have an MPG no greater that 5, and Oregon a rule that cars must have an MPG no less than 40. That would work well (for Oregonians, at least)
Do not be Afraid.
dj10 is just one of those people that think the constitution is a 'Living Document" subject to political mood swings almost equal to the monthly, hormonal mood swings I have to deal with as far as my spouse.
Thankfully we have processes to deal with that.
Don't bet on it.......................
Please,
Do as I say, not as I do.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
www.geocraft.com/WVFos...
He killed the car himself with ineptitude and ignorance.
And, 47% is not a significant amount?
What comes out of todays gasoline powered cars is cleaner that what comes out of a Coal Fired plant, that's why.
i.e. a majority, albeit, a slim one, wouldn't recharge with coal. So quit with the FUD.
Not saying all is dirty.
Just have to use the average.
While you may not get yours from coal, others may be at 100%
That is unless you are advocating regional application of EV's.
i.e I am arguing against the repeated obfuscation in where EV recharging energy comes from. I don't know what your point of contention is or why you keep trying to find an angle to nullify my comment.
Using your numbers, I merely pointed out that regional application could in fact, truly be clean.
Without regional applications one would have to use the average that is my point.
You also seem to ignore that it is a national grid, or maybe continental including Canadian sources. The powerplants closest your residence may well be nuclear or hydro or wind, and coal plants farther away, but when this or that plant reduces output, or goes off-line for maintenence or repairs, the grid supplies power from elsewhere - possibly from a coal plant that is hundreds of miles away!
Meanwhile, go ahead and ask the Japanese how clean and wonderful their nuclear plants are. Not a swipe at nuclear power per se - just the old outdated plants that are or should be on their very last legs. My view is we need to rapidly start building new ones to supplement, replace, and retire the old ones before they start to have "accidents".
Also not against coal plants, dirty or not - they are what they are. Obviously newer and cleaner is better. The point is, proclaiming plug-in hybrids that are absurdly quoted at 250 mpg or something, based on a hypothetical 26 mile trip where the first 25 miles were electric and the last mile used some gasoline, is just a political shell game for politicians and the ignorant. The power to drive the car the first 25 miles came from external power sources - roughly half of it being from burning coal, petroleum, ethanol, natural gas, or something. That the rest maybe came from wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric dams, river currents, sea waves, or pig $#^! is maybe nice to know. But to ignore the contribution of coal plants because you think they don't apply to you somehow is either a little naive or a little dishonest.
Did you, or did you not say "with plug-in electrics and hybrids, which burn pounds of coal offsite" implying that energy charging EVs is derived entirely from coal?
Yes you did. Certainly that might not have been your intent, but without any additional clarity one must take the statement at its face value
And what did I say? Here let me cut and paste to help you: "more than half of the energy potentially juicing EVs - is not coal." With which I added the context that was missing from your comment.
All the rest is bright lights and loud noises, meant to distract and obfuscate.
Once again, as you claim, roughly half of the electric power in the national grid comes from coal. We will stipulate that: depending on the source and method of calculation, the best estimate is that 45-49% of the produced and consumed electricity in the US comes from coal, and the figure is about 40% worldwide (nukes are more prevalent in Europe and Japan, for example). Regardless, you must agree that roughly half the electrical power for charging plug-in electrics and hybrids, on average comes from "pounds of coal". You cannot conclude otherwise! Even if you live in a state that has no coal power plants, that fact does not guarantee that none of your power comes from burning coal, because it is an interconnected national grid. In any case, we are speaking in general and on averages, not in special isolated cases.
Now - let us skip "grade school", and go to college for a bit.
A 100-mile range compact size EV consumes roughly 20 kW-hr to go the distance. If you assume half of that power on average comes from coal, then roughly 10 kW-hr comes from coal for each 100 miles driven. The useful energy that comes from burning coal is about 6.67 kW-hr per kg. The thermal efficiency of coal fired power plants is about 33%, so you actually get about 2.2 kW-hr of electricity per kg of coal. Therefore you will need to burn about 4.5 kg of coal, or about 10 pounds, to provide half of the total electricity to drive 100 miles in a compact sized electric vehicle (20 pounds if "all" the electricity came from coal). You would need about 2.5 gallons of gasoline (weighing 15 pounds!) to cover the same distance in a similar compact car that gets 40 mpg.
Therefore - yes, plug-in electrics and hybrids, on average, burn pounds of coal rather than gallons (or pounds) of gasoline. And the amount is almost the same!
Feel free to check the math. The data will set you free. Now, why it is that you continue to feel so obsessively compelled to treat others like "children" and talking down to people ("welcome to grade school") is a bit mysterious - it is insulting, demeaning, condescending and very trollish. May want to reconsider your role and approach in these discussions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...