Many of the top auto manufacturers selling vehicles in the
United States are at least attempting to reduce consumption of fossil
fuels. Big names like General Motors, Ford, Toyota, and Honda have
production models or prototypes that rely on hybrid, fuel cell or diesel
technology to improve fuel efficiency.
President Bush wants even more progress from automakers and
for even stricter fuel economy standards in the coming years.
"We have laid out a plan that will affect greenhouse
gases that come from automobiles by having a mandatory fuel standard that
insists on 35 -- using 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017, which
will reduce our gasoline uses by 20 percent and halt the growth in greenhouse
gases that emanate from automobiles," said President Bush to reporters.
"In other words, there is a remedy available for Congress. And I strongly
hope that they pass this remedy quickly."
The Bush administration has calculated that the costs for
the auto industry would come in at $114 billion USD between 2010 and 2017 to
comply -- GM's share is said to be $40 billion USD.
Outspoken GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz was quick
to respond to Bush's request. Lutz figures that in order for GM to reduce overall
gasoline consumption 20% by the year 2017, it would need to raise the price of its
vehicles by $5,000
to $6,000 USD. Lutz also remarked that the only way to meet Bush's goal
would be to make almost every vehicle a hybrid or use other more expensive
technologies like ethanol-based E85, all-electric or
hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles. "This technology does not come for
free," said Lutz.
That being said, GM is adding hybrid technology to existing
vehicles to improve fuel efficiency. The Saturn Aura Green Line
promises a 30% increase in fuel economy compared to a base Aura XE and is
priced at a relatively reasonable $22,695 USD including destination charge. GM
has also started early production on dual-mode hybrid
versions of its Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon full-size SUVs. Hybrid
technology is said to increase the fuel economy of these vehicles by as much as
quote: I think not.
quote: Doomsayers say a violent drop, but thats based on the false idea that engineers wont be able to engineer past some arbitrary date and production will collapse. Mhmm, right.
quote: Therefore, in this scenario, the driver of the efficient car produced more CO2 and air pollution than the driver of the SUV. TomZ's point is proven.
quote: Number 3 : Liberal democrats have successfully implemented taxes, fees, and licenses on Oil Refineries forcing hundreds to close down.
quote: Number 1 : Liberal democrats in congress have made it illegal to drill for oil inside of Alaska or off the coast of Washington State.
quote: as well as discouraging oil exploration off of Flordia in US owened waters.
quote: Who exactly is causing your dollars to fly out at the pump while being dependent on nations that we are at WAR with to supply our fuel?
quote: So, if you did vote democrat this past election... you might want to look in the mirror than punch yourself in the jaw, as you would be directly responsible for the price of gas.
quote: OPEC controls the world's oil supply, even though they pump less than a mjority. Why? Because not only are they a unified cartel, but they control nearly all the excess capacity. When demand rises, OPEC must fill it...no one else really can. This is a simple fact.
quote: There hasn't been a single new refinery built in the US since the late 1970s. Why? Because between EPA and local regulations, there are over 600 different permits required. Quite often they're simply rejected out of hand, by local politicos who don't want a refinery nearby. Plenty of companies have tried...but so far, none have suceeded.
quote: Changing displacement will change fuel consumtion rates for the engine at equivalent rpm so a bored or stoked engine WILL require more fuel per mile unless you change your rear diff or tranny.
quote: A critical measure of the viability of oil shale is the ratio of energy used to produce the oil, compared to the energy returned (Energy Returned on Energy Invested - EROEI). Oil shale typically has a very low EROEI. Generally, the oil shale has to be mined, transported, retorted, and then disposed of, so at least 40% of the energy value is consumed in production. Royal Dutch Shell reported a figure of EROEI about 3:1. That is, energy equivalent to one barrel of oil was used for every three gained, on its recent in-situ development (which uses electric heating of the shale up to 500 degrees fahrenheit (260 °C) while it is still in the ground, while also creating a frost shield around the mining site), Mahogany Research Project. This compares to a figure of typically 5:1 for conventional oil extraction. EROEI may be less important if alternate energy sources are used to fund the process. Coal was the primary power source used by the Shell pilot project.Water is also needed to add hydrogen to the oil-shale oil before it can be shipped to a conventional oil refinery. The largest deposit of oil shale in the United States is in western Colorado (the Green River Shale deposits), a dry region with no surplus water. The oil shale can be ground into a slurry and transported via pipeline to a more suitable pre-refining location.
quote: Just raise the price of gas by $1.00 per gallon, and give it to GM.
quote: I'm thinking GM is already like "New technology? Research? But we're already stinking rich..."
quote: Problem solved.
quote: The cost of these reductions will only be passed down to the end customer.
quote: Unfortunately We have no idea what effects those levels of CO2 levels would do to the human race over a LONG period of time
quote: The next large volcano, however (and I'm not talking little blasts like St. Helens), will demonstrate to us our arrogance in thinking we are the ones truly responsible for climate change.
quote: To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest
quote: Setting aside the bet that global temperatures will be lower in 20 years, Lindzen offered Annan an alternative bet. If the temperature change were less than 0.2C, he would win. If the temperature change were between 0.2C and 0.4C the bet would be off. And if the temperature change were 0.4 or greater, Annan would win. He would take 2 to 1 odds...Annan then countered with a bet pegged to some agreed upon average temperature in 20 years with payouts based on how many hundredths of a degree Celsius the loser was from the agreed upon temperature. Lindzen responded by skeptically asking how one would accurately measure hundredths of a degree Celsius on a global level. Their negotiations apparently ended there...
quote: And still, I'm not sure of your point. Have you SEEN a Chinese car?
quote: That's not what I said...poor nations have, compared to the US, quite dirty air and water. The correlation is betweeen energy usage and per-capita income...and its a very tight correlation indeed.
quote: by masher2 on April 5, 2007 at 4:10 PM> "America needs to suck it up and get off our Super Size Me mentality..."Rarely mentioned in the debate is that nations like Canada have a higher per-capita energy usage than the US...And nearly all the Kyoto signatories are not only failing to meet their targets under the treaty, but many of them are actually increasing greenhouse gas emissions at a rate faster than is the US.Energy is the lifeblood of a nation. America consumes a lot, because America produces so much.
quote: Actually, you're incorrect. Australian energy usage rose every single year for the past five, at least up to 2004 (I don't have 2005/06 data). The same goes for nearly every nation in Europe.
quote: Remember EVERYONE has to pitch in.
quote: This thread is so INFURIATING with so many people using ethical arguments to TELL OTHERS HOW THEY MUST LIVE THEIR LIVES.