Print 29 comment(s) - last by boeush.. on Jun 27 at 6:41 PM

The discussion aims to map out the future of advanced autos that will abide by the new fuel efficiency standards

Only weeks before the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is expected to complete the new fuel efficiency standards, the White House will hold a three-hour forum this Wednesday on the future of advanced vehicles.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality will host a forum on Wednesday called "Advanced Vehicles, Driving Growth." The discussion aims to map out the future of advanced autos that will abide by the new fuel efficiency standards.

"The Obama administration is bringing together diverse auto-sector stakeholders at a White House event to celebrate success stories in the remarkable resurgence of the auto industry and spotlight leaders who represent President Obama's vision of out-innovating and out-manufacturing the rest of the world," said Taryn Tuss, White House CEQ spokeswoman.

"In partnership with auto manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, states and environmental stakeholders, the Administration has developed historic fuel efficiency standards that will nearly double the fuel efficiency of cars and light duty trucks by 2025, save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump, and encourage innovation and investment in technologies that increase our economic competitiveness and reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

The forum aims to continue taking suggestions for rule changes, mainly from foreign automakers from countries like Germany who feel the rules have been biased toward U.S. automakers.

Last year, major automakers, the state of California, and the White House agreed on the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal for 2017-2025 that would boost fleet wide fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The effort aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the country's dependency on foreign oil.

The new fuel efficiency standards for 2017-2025 will cost the auto industry $157.3 billion and add an extra $2,000 to the sticker price of new autos, but it will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump.

The NHTSA will finalize the fuel efficiency standards by the end of July 2012.

Source: The Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Same old.
By kyee7k on 6/25/2012 10:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
What is an "auto-sector stakeholder"?
Why is the United Auto Workers invited into a forum where their input makes no contribution to improving CAFE standards?
This meeting sounds suspiciously more like a fundraising junket than a meeting of the auto manufacturers' minds. Last I heard the auto companies already showcased their latest advances at any of the international auto shows.

Also, every U.S. President since Carter has promised that we'll decrease our reliance on foreign oil, except that we've continued to heavily rely on foreign oil for fuel and many of our consumer products and that our needs increase every year.

RE: Same old.
By MadMan007 on 6/26/2012 1:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
What is an "auto-sector stakeholder"?

That would be a group who holds a stake in the well-being of the industrial sector of automobiles. :)

UAW is included because I believe they received an ownership stake in GM as part of a compromise during the bailouts. Even if that isn't the case, as employees they are obviously directly affected by industry in which they work.

RE: Same old.
By ksherman on 6/26/2012 9:52:42 AM , Rating: 1
UAW is included because I believe they received an ownership stake in GM as part of a compromise during the bailouts. Even if that isn't the case, as employees they are obviously directly affected by industry in which they work.

And maybe they'll get a little excited about a long-term vision and be willing to make some short-term concessions? Wishful thinking, no doubt...

RE: Same old.
By johnsmith9875 on 6/26/2012 5:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah let's just ban unions like in china, then our auto employees will be committing suicide by jumping off buildings like at the Apple iphone factorys.

RE: Same old.
By WalksTheWalk on 6/26/2012 10:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
The UAW can be counted on to do what's in their best interest, regardless of the impact on its members, the company or anyone else.

I work with bargaining units and they will try to hold onto their members. For example, I had a union squash the promotion of an employee to a new classification where they would receive increased pay and some new responsibilities but would make them non-union. Nope, can't have that. The employee ended up leaving the company all together.

Once a job is union, it will be that way until the company goes under or the union does.

RE: Same old.
By MadMan007 on 6/26/2012 11:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
Employers do what's in their best interest, why shouldn't unions? (generally speaking)

As for the specific case you mentioned...every union and employer is different. It sounds like maybe the company wasn't promoting the employee to a truly different position that already existed, but rather wanted to replace a union position with a non-union position?

RE: Same old.
By lagomorpha on 6/26/2012 11:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
Because in theory the purpose of unions is supposed to be to improve conditions for workers. If a union is bad for workers, and bad for the employer then it's nothing but a leech which unfortunately is too big to be terminated. It sounds like in that case the employee was being promoted to a management position and the union didn't want to lose a dues paying member. Remember, the union wants whats best for the union's own executives, NOT what's best for dues paying members.

The real solution to labor exploitation is to change the supply/demand ratio for labor to be more in favor of workers. Once companies have to compete in order to attract workers they will treat them better because those unsatisfied with their job will know they can find a better one.

RE: Same old.
By NellyFromMA on 6/26/2012 1:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
This is what they THINK they do. However, in reality, when they harm the automotive industry by making unreasonable demands, they inevitable not only hurt themselves but everyone around them including people who neither work for nor own any part of the big 3.

It's selfishness combined with stupidity.

RE: Same old.
By Ringold on 6/26/2012 2:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
I might be in the minority, but I'll probably be like some WW2 vets I know that refused to ever drive a Mitsubishi. If I can help it, so long as the UAW has its ill-gotten ownership stake in Government Motors (I encourage people to look in to the farcical bankruptcy process they went through, with Obama putting the UAW ahead of secured creditors) then I'll never buy a GM/Chevy/etc. Chrysler was a sham too, but still have Ford as a clean domestic player, and 'domestic' is a fuzzy notion now anyway.

RE: Same old.
By Dorkyman on 6/26/2012 4:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. Never will a GM vehicle see the inside of my garage.

It's an easy rule to obey--the other companies make better cars, anyway.

RE: Same old.
By lagomorpha on 6/27/2012 4:34:25 AM , Rating: 2
There are other reasons to never buy a GM vehicle. The way they bong as you if you don't do everything in the proper order when you get in (close door, then seatbelt, then key?) and the way they automatically lock the doors when put into drive and unlock them when put into park. The amount of stuff that GM vehicles attempt to automate that they should not makes me want to get out and crush them into a cube whenever I'm forced to drive them.

It doesn't help that a midrange GM car is still worse to drive than the cheapest Hyundai.

By chucky2 on 6/26/2012 12:07:03 AM , Rating: 2
...all the EPA needs to do, at the direction of the Admin, is commit to the manufacturers who market vehicles in the US that we will remain in lockstep with the EU on Clean Diesel regs for onroad diesels for the next 20 years.



By lagomorpha on 6/26/2012 12:32:38 AM , Rating: 2
Now if you can only convince the Americans that grew up in the 70s (the people old enough to be buying most new cars) that the GM 5.7 Diesel was a horrible pile of garbage and that not all diesels belch black smoke, spray oil everywhere, sound like a tractor, and break down every time you attempt to start one...

By chucky2 on 6/26/2012 11:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
That's easy. You stick them on the lot with their impressive mpg and let those same folks take them for a spin. When they bring up how it used to be, you can tell them that all of EU uses these new CD cars day in and day out, and don't have any of those problems.

Or we could just stick to gasoline DI equipped cars, and breath in tons more superfine particulate. Or stick a GPF in the exhaust like diesels have to have, thereby negating DI tech gains.

CD is the answer until battery tech advancements can solve the US's petro needs.

By lagomorpha on 6/26/2012 12:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
Easier said than done. My own mother actually still claims to be allergic to diesel exhaust, though when she was in Europe a few years back she didn't even seem to notice that most of the cars she rode in were diesels.

If you want to start seeing a change to diesel in America the place to start is cutting the diesels from 3/4 ton trucks down to fit in 1/2 ton trucks. Not only will you see a larger difference in fuel use per vehicle, those trucks also tend to stay on the road a longer number of years and truck people love torque ratings.

By chucky2 on 6/26/2012 6:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the older folks that remember them would take lots more advertising and sales pressure to consider one. The other 2/3's of the market doesn't even know about GM having a diesel back then. Put it on the lots, it will sell like hotcakes. As VW has found out...

By lagomorpha on 6/27/2012 4:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
In VW's case it helped that they were the only company offering a small diesel car in the US.

By geddarkstorm on 6/26/2012 8:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I find it kinda ironic that GM ruined diesel for America.

By knutjb on 6/27/2012 12:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds great until you consider the realities of the US fuel market. About 1/3 of a barrel is made into diesel/jet fuel depending on the type of crude. The highest demand is for that chunk of oil. Look at diesel vs gas prices. Diesel used to cost less than gas, now it costs more.

The only reason gas isn't cheaper is we are exporting gas out of the market. Though that will change if our economy gets better then all prices will go up; but thats for political reasons on the domestic supply side.

Once trains the number one consumer of diesel, followed by aircraft #2, and then 18 wheelers #3 get their chunk there isn't much left for cars.

So your delusion for all those diesels running over the road isn't going to happen. There will be some, but not many. The extra cost of a diesel drive line buys a lot of gas. Kind of like hybrids and electrics vs gas.

Personally I would like a natural gas option, diesel or gas type engine for cars and 18 wheelers.

By lagomorpha on 6/27/2012 4:50:04 AM , Rating: 2
Jet fuel is similar to kerosene which is between gasoline and diesel in hydrocarbon length, not identical to diesel. Other than that detail I agree with you. There IS a natural gas option at present provided you want to drive a Honda Civic GX, and even a home refueling option (machine takes the gas line from your home and compresses it for use in the car). Supposedly it actually has half the fuel cost of a gasoline Civic (which is already fairly cheap), the problem is range is fairly limited.

It makes sense that more manufacturers should start offering a natural gas option given how inexpensive it is in the US at present and how we don't have to buy it from those dirty Saudis.

By knutjb on 6/27/2012 8:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
My point was jet fuel and diesel take a large portion of the barrel because they are the largest demand fuel but you can make only so much from a given quantity of oil. About a third of a barrel goes to diesel and jet fuel. Because of that, combined with who use the greatest quantities in the US, makes a large volume diesel cars unlikely.

Ford has a NG option with their trucks too. The problem is an administration that believes anything other than their chosen energy; wind, solar, and maybe biomass will be stifled through politically driven regulations. So don't expect to see NG around the corner anytime soon. As to those who say increasing production of oil won't help look at what it did to NG. It went from ~$7 to ~$1 from the increase in production.

As for the home refill machines, are you zoned? Cars need ~ 3500 psi to fill. Practical commercial high pressure systems exist, the home version is pretty slow.

It would be quite inexpensive to pipe the highways for semis. T. Boone Pickens says it could be done for about $3.8B though tax credits for the infrastructure builders. That could be recouped through a small tax on the sale of NG. How much have we wasted on foolish loan guarantees through the DOE? Because a tank fills much faster than electricity it is much closer to gas in practical mobility. Plus an engine on NG will out last the rest of the vehicle.

It makes sense that more manufacturers should start offering a natural gas option given how inexpensive it is in the US at present and how we don't have to buy it from those dirty Saudis.
Knocking the Saudis, is that necessary? Denigrating them like that only denigrates you.

foreign oil, eh?
By MadMan007 on 6/26/2012 1:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
Stinkin' foreign oil...from Canada - our #1 source of foreign oil for about the last decade. Curse their flappy oil heads and beady oil eyes!

Mexico is #2 or 3 depending on the month, swapping places with Saudi Arabia. Not only is the oil foreign, it probably came here illegally tightly packed in a truck! Send it back where it came from I say, no amnesty.

RE: foreign oil, eh?
By lagomorpha on 6/26/2012 2:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
swapping places with Saudi Arabia

You mean the nation al-Qaeda received most of its funding from and which has spent billions of dollars exporting Wahhabism? Yeah, no reason we'd want to stop giving them all our money.

RE: foreign oil, eh?
By boeush on 6/26/2012 8:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not forget Iran and Iraq (yeah, we've no problems with either of those, either... LOL) Not to mention Russia, who's trying hard to come back as the world's premier Evil Empire. And let's recall Venezuela, our more recently made "best friend". Plus all the other petro-dictatorships and military juntas, from Qatar to Sudan to Nigeria and beyond.

Lovely cohort of people for us to be vitally dependent upon.

Not to mention, we've officially hit Peak Oil. From here onward, world demand will continually outstrip supply. Barring severe economic recessions bordering on or morphing into world-spanning depressions, the only direction price of oil is going to go, is up. Even massive recessions/depressions will only have a short-term impact; the long-term trend is indisputable and unsustainable.

And let's not forget that as a country, America is totally bankrupt. And aside from continuing to rack up federal debt, we're also continuing to bleed out hundreds of $Billions per MONTH, in terms of our trade deficits. The latter don't differentiate between Saudi Arabia vs. Canada: a deficit is a deficit, and those be chickens that ALWAYS come home to roost, in the end.

RE: foreign oil, eh?
By lagomorpha on 6/27/2012 4:55:58 AM , Rating: 2
Unlike Greece, American debt is in our own currency so we can always inflate our way out of it. Right? Right?

RE: foreign oil, eh?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2012 1:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention, we've officially hit Peak Oil. From here onward, world demand will continually outstrip supply.

Oh please! We've been at "peak oil" for 30 years now. If I had a dime every time I heard we're at peak oil, I would be rich.

RE: foreign oil, eh?
By boeush on 6/27/2012 6:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
With your attitude and lack of awareness, I doubt you'll ever be rich.

Maybe you haven't heard, but there are about 3+ Billion people in Asia (between China, India, and the rest) who are racing to catch up to U.S. in terms of living standards (and that includes fuel consumption.) That's not counting Latin America, and inevitably (sooner or later) Africa. If you are fantasizing about this burgeoning demand being met by the falsely inflated reserves of OPEC, prepare yourself for a major let-down. And if you think it's going to be fulfilled by shale oil, tar sands, gas-to-liquids, coal-to-oil, or ultra-deep oceanic wells, prepare to pay $200/barrel in a not-too-distant future.

That's what Peak Oil means. It doesn't mean oil is suddenly going to vanish from the world. It means the price of oil world-wide is going to continue trending like this:

-- because all the cheap and high-quality sources are either dry or running down, and all the remaining ones are increasingly expensive to get at and refine. Additionally, the world will struggle just to maintain the current levels of production (replacing the depleting sources with new sources), even while world-wide demand continues to explode.

By the way, the last time oil prices were anywhere close to as high, was during the Iran Oil Crisis back in the 1970's.

In your highly educated and obviously non-brainwashed opinion, what's the excuse today?

Fast and furious
By Lord 666 on 6/25/2012 11:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, we weren't talking cars about Mr.President...

Just give me my electric car!
By johnsmith9875 on 6/26/2012 5:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
If I hear another analyst saying "electric cars will be commonplace in 20 years" I will thump him about the head and shoulders with a pointy stick.

Want to improve gas mileage, buy a car with a 2 liter engine and shutup already. Americans have this obsessive love affair with 7 liter engines, even if its a station wagon. You don't need a 427 big block for your family truckster, Clark.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki