backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 233 comment(s) - last by goku.. on Dec 22 at 7:02 AM

Chevrolet Volt  (Source: General Motors)

Honda FCX Clarity fuel cell vehicle  (Source: Honda Motors)

2009 Dodge Challenger SRT-8 Concept
New energy bill calls for 35 MPG CAFE, increased ethanol production and more efficient appliances

The calls for more efficient vehicles in the United States amidst rising gasoline prices have not fallen on deaf ears. A bill destined to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) average to 35 MPG by 2020 passed the House of Representatives 235-181 earlier this month.

The measured cleared again yesterday with a 314-100 vote. President Bush will sign the energy bill today.

The energy bill calls for a 40 percent increase in fuel economy from the current 25 MPG to a loftier 35 MPG. The bill also provides provisions to increase E85 ethanol production from six billion gallons a year to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 -- this is despite opposition to the increased production of the alternative fuel.

Automobiles aren't the only consumer products targeted by the energy bill. Household appliances such as refrigerators and microwaves will also need to become more efficient while commercial and government buildings will be required to use more efficient lighting including fluorescent-based technology.

Energy companies dodged a bullet with regards to a provision included in the bill that passed the house earlier this month, but stalled in the Senate. It called for over $13.5 billion USD in tax breaks to be rolled back for the United States' five largest oil companies.

President Bush said that he would veto the bill if the $13.5 billion USD rollback was included -- the money would have gone to ignite the development of alternative energy sources like wind and solar energy.

"You are present at a moment of change, of real change," said House speaker Nancy Pelosi. "It could have been stronger," added Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. "It’s really unfortunate that we didn’t have the renewable electricity standard or the incentives for wind and solar. But we’ll fight for those another day."

House Representative Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas, offered a counterpoint; "This legislation is a historic turning point in energy policy."

Not surprisingly, representatives from America's Big Three were quick to voice their support for the new energy bill.

"Ford has worked with lawmakers to enact nationwide requirements that provide a significant increase in fuel economy while protecting consumers' choices of cars, SUVs and light trucks," Ford Motor Company said in a statement. "We are working to do our part to help reduce greenhouse gases and U.S. dependence on foreign oil."

"We commend the Congress for passing an energy bill today and we fully support it being signed into law. Chrysler is committed to meeting the fuel economy standards of the bill and doing our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our country's reliance on foreign oil," said Robert Nardelli, Chairman and CEO, Chrysler LLC. "We continue to devote significant resources to develop quality, fuel efficient products that our customers expect."

"GM commends the Congress and President for passage of an energy bill. The new fuel economy standards within the bill set a tough, national target that GM will strive to meet," said General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner. "We will focus our engineering and technical resources to attain these standards and we remain hard at work applying the innovation and developing the advanced technologies that will power tomorrow's cars and trucks."

Earlier this month, GM Vice Chairman "Maximum" Bob Lutz said that the 35 MPG CAFE average would require "massive restructuring of the product plan" and that GM would "start raising prices as we introduce the new technology."

All of the major players in the American auto market are looking to hybrids, fuel cell and all-electric vehicles to increase fuel economy across the board. Toyota has even gone so far as to say that all of its vehicles will be gasoline-electric hybrid by 2020.

Other manufacturers like Honda, Nissan and Volkswagen are looking to bring more diesel engines to passenger vehicles to increase fuel economy. Americans have been hesitant to accept diesel engines in cars and light-duty trucks in recent years, but newer technology may change many opinions.

One thing is for sure, however, we may start to see less vehicles like the upcoming tire-shredding 2009 Chevrolet Camaro and 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT-8 and more vehicles like the Toyota Prius and Honda Accord Diesel.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By GeorgeOrwell on 12/19/2007 6:58:44 AM , Rating: 5
Instead of:

1. Continuing to fund the oil industry.
2. Giving billions in pork to corn farmers.
3. Setting weak/meaningless MPG targets.
4. Largely ignoring pollution/emissions.

Why not:

1. Phase out hydrocarbon fuels by 2020.
2. Use the money from this one bill to build a bunch of nuclear reactors.
3. Mandate all new vehicles to be zero emissions by 2020.
4. Subsidize electric and hydrogen vehicles.
5. Use the reactors to provide electricity for vehicles and to create hydrogen.
6. Outlaw all Mexican/foreign trucks that do not meet regulations from entering the US starting in 2008.

Note, 'vehicles' = cars and trucks. No more loopholes for trucks. There are electric trucks now and if the industry is not told to make ALL trucks electric/hydrogen, it won't happen.

The 'do instead' can be anything other than 'a slight polishing of the status quo' which is all this energy bill is. Sure, some pork is sent to corn farmers. And there is a small smear of lip service for 'alternative energy' research. Uh huh. But big changes are needed for a big change in results. And this energy bill contains no big changes.

At its heart, this energy bill is about doing the same old things, continuing to burn hydrocarbons without any serious improvements in fuel economy or emissions control.

In short, it is the very definition of insanity.




By DigitalFreak on 12/19/2007 2:18:35 PM , Rating: 4
Nope. Folks here just don't give a shit about your opinion. That's why you're voted down.


By diablofish on 12/19/2007 11:03:13 AM , Rating: 5
I don't know what a "green person" is: but if that means I want improved energy efficiency to lower my energy costs, potentially reduce the environmental impact, and possibly allay some of the national security issues this country faces with regard to oil coming from politically volatile regions, then I guess I'm "green".

With regard to gas vs hyrbid vs electric cars: today, you are correct. But the automobile at the turn of the 19th century couldn't tow much of anything either. Hybrid/electric/hydrogen cars are in their infancy, much like internal combustion was 100 years ago. As the technology improved, more could be done with internal combustion. And more can likely be done with these alternatives as the technology improves and matures. Remember, the first locomotives ran on STEAM until a new technology (internal combustion) replaced them.

The point is that these things are likely possible to change (whether it's electric or hydrogen or natural gas or something, as yet, undiscovered). Your concerns about being able to tow something are valid today but not likely to be valid as the technology improves. And no one is saying that you CAN'T have your big truck - it's just saying that that big truck has to get better. Why's this such a bad thing? Don't people want better things?

With regard to electric/hybrid cars just transferring the pollution to other places, this issue has been studied and it has been determined that electric and hybrid cars, over their lifespan when compared to internal combustion cars, produce much less pollution. This is because many of those materials are being mined already and the added resources for additional mining is relatively small. And shipments come from overseas with internal combustion cars along with hybrid cars and electric cars, so the boat was going to make the trip regardless. And the factories that make all these cars were going to make cars anyway. So there really isn't all that much more of an environmental impact from getting a hybrid car or electric car to market than there is for an internal combustion car.


By MozeeToby on 12/19/2007 2:00:49 PM , Rating: 3
A battery revolution you say? Ask and you shall recieve... http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/... With this tech, in thoery a tesla roadster would get about 2500 miles per charge. Even if it's only 5x improvement, that's still 1200 miles, which is a heck of a lot more energy than I can store in my gas tank.


By FITCamaro on 12/19/2007 3:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
Nice error page.


By goku on 12/22/2007 6:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
remove the period at the end of the URL and the link works.


By jrb531 on 12/19/2007 12:20:24 PM , Rating: 3
Is there any reason for the Hummer and vehicles like it? Not talking military.

There is a middle ground between tiny electric cars and full blown 400HP monsters.

This law is needed because we have wack jobs that could not care less about anyone but themselves.

-JB


By Spuke on 12/19/2007 1:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hummers are retarded but it's a luxury item like HDTV's. Most people look at them as such and drive them as such. Not too many Hummer commuters out there.

I personally don't like ANY SUV's but I can see their practicality for some people. I find the small SUV's to be the most retarded as they're no bigger than a sedan and have worse braking and handling and gas mileage than a sedan. I find large SUV's to be far more practical and logical but you'll NEVER catch me behind the wheel of any of them.

I own a truck and use for towing and hauling. It's also my wife's commuter as buying a third car is too expensive.


By FITCamaro on 12/19/2007 3:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well SUVs like the Saturn Vue aren't bad. It's going to have more useable cargo space than a sedan and the mileage is close to a V6 sedan as well. I'd own one if I was married with kids and wanted a family car.

Plus it can tow light loads like jet skis and small trailers. Most sedans aren't designed to tow at all except the larger boat like variety which are becoming few and far between. And those are typically V8s.


By goku on 12/22/2007 7:02:39 AM , Rating: 2
A small SUV isn't stupid when all you want is the capability of going off road without having the fuel consumption and bulk of a full sized SUV. Also having a full sized SUV isn't exactly the best for going offroad especially if that weight gets you stuck.


By crazydrummer4562 on 12/19/2007 7:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on the hauling part, they're [heavy duty truck owners] really getting alienated here and are probably going to be paying premiums for vehicles that can tow anything well in the future.


By Spuke on 12/19/2007 8:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
Most heavy duty truck owners are already paying a premium. Your typical diesel option alone costs upwards of $5000. With some other decent options, a 3/4 ton costs about $40k out the door while a similarly equipped 1/2 ton costs $15k less. Although resale value is pretty decent on them but it would be nice to get a used two year old diesel for under $30k.