6G Celicas Forums

Okay, so on a more intellegent note in hopes of redeeming myself from participating in the debachery that was the SUV debate from hell thread, I saw this on CNN.com today. Any opinions?


Congress sends bill raising fuel efficiency standards to Bush


It's really better to read the whole article, but here's a brief synopsis (quoted from the article):

• President Bush will sign bill on Wednesday, White House says
• Congress passes bill raising auto fuel efficiency standards
• Increase to fleet average of 35 miles per gallon is first in 32 years
• Legislation lacks higher taxes on oil companies sought by Democrats

Democrats said the fuel economy requirements eventually -- when the fleet of gas-miser vehicles are widely on the road -- will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs. They maintain the overall bill, including more ethanol use and various efficiency requirements and incentives, will reduce U.S. oil demand by 4 million barrels a day by 2030, more than twice the daily imports from the volatile Persian Gulf.

The automakers have repeatedly fought an increase in the federal fuel standard, known as CAFE, maintaining it would limit the range of vehicles consumers will have available in showrooms and threaten auto industry jobs. Bush also has argued against an arbitrary, numerical increase in the fuel efficiency requirement, preferring instead legislation to streamline the federal requirements and market incentives to get rid of gas guzzling vehicles.

Doesn't seem too hard to achieve. A 40% performance improvement over 30 years doesn't sound too unreasonable. Then take in mind that the industry actually has until 2020 to meet the standard.

As it is an average, as long as more fuel-efficient small cars are offered and sell, the manufacturers will be be most of the way to meeting the standard. Also consider that the manufacturers already have such cars offered to the European market.

It is unclear if vehicles powered by hydrogen, electricity etc. will be included in the average. If so, that again will make it easier for manufacturers to meet the new standard.

Obviously people are putting the climate change badge on this announcement but even without climate change it seems to make sense to drive greater efficiency (just as we do with electrical efficiency of white goods, or light bulbs).

Sounds good, sounds really good. But just cause Dickhead Bush Is gonna sign It, doesnt mean It's gonna happen, or go anywhere. Look at the 'No child left behind' act, or the one, I cant remember the name, he signed for elderly people to have more control of their health care, and perscription's. It's all gone to hell. Im surprised no one has tried to take him out.

I'm not. Cuz then we'd have Dick Cheney running things. Think about that one.

Ha. he's got a point there. Besides, you have to figure only one more year and Bush will be out. So, it's probably very unlikely this bill will go into effect. But depending on which people we have as president in the next 10-20 years, I wouldn't doubt that something similar to this WILL go into effect and the standard will be raised.

If Bush signs the bill, which he's expected to do, then it has to go into effect. Unless, of course, congress passes a bill to nix the bill, which isn't gonna happen with the current congress regardless of who becomes president next!

I for one think it's totally excellent that this will happen. The automakers, of course, are fighting it tooth and nail, saying that raising the CAFE standards will compromise performance and safety. Maybe cars will be slower? IDK

Bush = sells oil... he will hesitate to sign it

Well, he hasn't sold a failed company to the Saudis in a while, so with his attention span, he might have forgotton who made most of his fortune....

One day america will wake up and realize Ethanol is corrosive, must still be mixxed with oil, and is NOT the answer to curbing oil consumption in the US. Nuclear energy, our long forgotten friend (thanks terror-phobes), is cleaner, more cost-efficient . . . and a hell of a lot safer than most of you think.

Ethanol uses CORN. Hey, lets logically think this through one moment. What else uses corn? OH, how could I have forgotten.. cattle feed. And why are cattle important? RIGHT, they provide sustinence for the ENTIRE world. So, IF we don't want to plow over Chicago, Seattle and say Houston to expand production of corn ..what do we do? Its called opportunity cost. How valuable is that resource in its next appropriate use? Ethanol companies can afford to pay more for corn because they see a higher profit margin than those who sell corn-feed mixes to cattle ranchers. So that raises the price of corn to cattle ranchers, who then in turn must raise the price of beef to achieve set profit margins.
Now in the US, the increase in the price of beef would not be AS drastic as say ... developing nations. Ethanol production will create a large imbalance between the developed nations, and the rapidly-developing nations who rely on US meat and grain imports to achieve growth, both economically as well as having a generally healthier population.

Back to Ethanol being corrosive.. what seals your head and block? A rubber gasket...7a is metal, same principle though. What seals every piece of metal to every other piece of metal in an engine? RUBBER. What eats rubber? corrosive stuff. You know what else corrosive stuff eats? metal. So that means all those Ethanol pipelines being installed around the country delivering the ethanol form the farms and factories its produced on to transportation depots, and all the tanker trucks used to deliver ethanol to gas stations will have to be replaced every few years (Best estimate points at 3-5 years). So while it looks cost-efficient now, it won't be the case when we have to continuously replace infrastructure, resulting in higher prices at the pumps...why? because they aren't going to cover the upkeep from their 25-35% profit margins of course.

#While this was a long post, i ensure you that I've done A LOT of research on the topic and its simply a band-aid in Baghdad. Sure, you could make the argument that it ensures that the US will consume oil, allowing us to protect our domestic oil producers from economic failure, but business is business, and if your product isn't making money -- you need to adapt your business plan and find something that will, or you will fail. 2 options, thats it.