The new fuel economy standards congress passed

NYSpeed Automotive
21

In a dramatic shift to spur increased demand for nonfossil fuels, the bill also requires a six-fold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a boon to farmers.

…

The bill requires a massive increase in the production of ethanol for motor fuels, outlining a rampup of ethanol use from the roughly 6 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022. After 2015, the emphasis would be on expanded use of cellulosic ethanol, made from such feedstock as switchgrass and wood chips, with two thirds of the ethanol — 21 billion gallons a year — from such non-corn sources.

However, commercially viable production of cellulosic ethanol has yet to be proven and some Republicans have argued that the new requirements could be impossible to meet and may raise corn prices and food supplies.

Politics should NOT dictate technology. This is wrong wrong wrong. Absolutely terrible.

IB4BushFamilyCornFarm

22

I have no complaints on them pushing to increase MPGs on cars.

I look at Subaru’s actually.

My '96 Legacy is a 2.2L and I get an average of around 28-30 MPG. They have increased power drastically recently in newer Legacy wagons, but have not done anything to increase gas mileage. For the average driver, my 135hp 2.2L Legacy is more than enough power. I pulled an unpowered Jeep out of a steep, snowy section of the driveway the other day with it.

Sure, power is great for some gearheads, but the average person does not need the power most cars have. Most drivers are incapable of controlling cars properly with the power many currently have.

23

When they say “increase ethanol useage 6 six fold”, what does that mean exactly?

Are they talkinga bout the mix of ethanol and regular gas %s?

Are they talking about 100% ethanol fueled cars?

24

I’m glad I’m not the only one who has a lot of questions and hasn’t been able to find answers.

Glad we’re passing this into law when the majority of the population (and the majority of the idiots voting) have no idea what it really means.

25

It’s probably left wide open for automotive interpretation so there can be loopholes, etc. It was probably proposed and passed just to quell the tree-huggers.

If it’s based on averages, Subaru is probably in the worst shape as they don’t have an extremely fuel efficient vehicle like Toyota, Honda or Hyundai does to offset the more inefficient ones. IIRC, most of their cards top out at 28 - 30 highway.

26

i like how i had to play gas guzzler on my GTO, but not my SS, despite the fact that it gets about 5 MPG worse, because of its size.

27

The biggest problem I see is that Ethanol is very expensive to refine and you have to consider the cost of growing/harvesting/refining vs. price per gallon, not to mention it has only something like 30% of the efficiency of gas right now.

28

How “efficient” is mining, shipping and refining oil?

29

I may be wrong, so if I am, correct me on this assumption. My problem with ethanol is that cars have to be specifically tuned and equipped to handle it. Now for new cars (Assuming they are built to handle x amount of ethanol) that’s no problem. What what happens to all the older cars still in use? I don’t have any plans or budget to revamp my entire fueling system/plumbing just to use ethanol. And it’s already been proven that ethanol mixed gas in cars that were not designed with ethanol in mind can and will suffer performance and efficiency drops. Yes folks, that means LESS fuel efficiency.

It just seems like no one really thought this thing out completely.

A lot more efficient than ethanol right now. That could change as refining processes get better. I would also think that the refinement would change if the fuel has to be 100% instead of a “blend” :confused:

30

Further proof that you were oh so wrong for getting the slutomatic GTO. My 6 speed doesn’t have the gas guzzler tax because the 1-4 skip shift gets it under the limit. And a $10 mod removes the annoying skip shift. :slight_smile:

31

by efficiency, I mean the amount of energy that can be used to power a car from ethonal vs gasoline, which is reflected in your mpg.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/ethanol-10-06/tests-of-ethanol-vs.-gasoline/1006_ethanol_test_1.htm

32

Is it really? I have no idea. I’d like to read up on it. It seems like oil mining, refining and shipping are not very efficient. i.e. in terms of energy in versus energy out (which is how I would define efficiency). Maybe we ought to not use maize.

I think people will simply drive more if their cars are more efficient. Kind of like how fat people eat more if they are drinking diet soda. Isn’t the number of cars on the road, and drivers, increasing substantially? What are we doing about that?

33

^ We aren’t building any roads, so hopefully people will get so sick of sitting in traffic they abandon their cars.

In reality though, they just allocate more time to their commute and waste much more gas sitting in traffic.

Want to really reduce our gas usage? Build a bunch of new highways so people aren’t crawling along at 5 mph every morning and evening coming and going from work. 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel a year because of traffic jams, and it’s only getting worse.

34

the worst part of all of this is the lies that drive it. im so sick of hearing about this global warming horse manure. its not proven AT ALL and everyone sucks it up. its the religion of the mindless idiot.

Brian

35

And/or better PT. What happened to the “high speed” trolley line we had around WNY?

36

Total bullshit. We need a revolution.

First of all, JayS, you left out that your asshole friends the Republicans forced the removal of all increased taxes on energy companies from the bill.

The Senate passed the bill last week after discarding billions of dollars in higher taxes on oil companies and a solar and wind power mandate that opponents said would raise electric rates in the Southeast. President Bush and Senate Republicans opposed those measures.

And the Democrats are wrong too.

Democrats said the fuel economy requirements — when the fleet of gas-miser vehicles are widely on the road — eventually will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs.

People may spend less on fuel, but they will spend more in other taxes or fees. Why? Less fuel bought equals less fuel tax revenue for the feds and states. And since they can’t control their spending, they’ll have to make up that revenue somewhere.

Personally, I don’t think the oil-Republican complex wants you to spend less on fuel. I think they want you to spend the same money on less fuel to better their ROI.

The mileage is not unrealistic in terms of cars, but it is for trucks. It may be the end of the grocery getter pickup. Sad thing is that Americans can afford trucks and americans want them. Sure you can make a 30 mpg 1/2 ton pickup. The problem is you will need a small diesel engine or small diesel/hybrid arrangement. You’ll also need to use much more aluminum, composites, and plastics to reduce weight. Thus you’ll get a pickup that is both expensive and slow, but “greener.”
:clap:
More efficient light bulbs and appliances? Sure great idea. But they’ll cost more. With less disposable income in the hands of the majority of americans I can’t see that as having a positive impact.

So in summary, we have a bill that failed to get billions of much needed revenue from energy companies with tons of cash but instead pushes mandates that will cost the consumer more money and cost jobs. But they politicians won’t mention that. They’ll just talk about how they support ‘green’ and preserving the planet and reducing dependence on foreign oil and all that happy horseshit.

Personally, I’d rather keep my job engineering transfer cases for gas-guzzling SUV’s than be ‘green’ and poor.

37

^ truth. Why should they care? Right now “global warming” is a huge issue, and how to make yourself look better in the public immage than help fight the evil…even if it doesnt exist. But shhh don’t tell Al Gore that.

38

all this does is increase the tax on everyone. The car companies will make some effort but will just add a gas guzzler tax on the cars like they do now and the state and or fed will increase taxs to make up for the lost income on the taxes they collect from gas.

39

it has nothing to do with global warming. it has to do with being dependent on a fuel source that will some day run out.

but thanks for solving the planets air pollution problem

the plants are already paid for, so everything over operating expences ends up as profit. building new facilities, paying new employees, and then unemployment for the old ones would make ethanol cost way more than gasoline at first. not to mention what the stock holders will do when they see the profits fall off.

dont they teach this shit it school/college any more? everyone seems to thing the oil companies can just wave their magic wand, and pow, they have new ethanol plants.

the republicans didnt want to raise taxes that would ultimately be passed on to us, as well as increase electricity costs… this was a bad move?

the rest of your post is a bit of an off topic rant that doesnt seem to make much sense. other than the part about a business wanting to get a higher ROI.
the disposable income for what is left of the middle class doesnt belong here; but honestly, its their own fault. triple time this, benefits that, more vacation time that the europeans get. you cant bully your employers around and expect them to take it.

you enjoy that job, it wont be long before that goes to india as well

40

That was the right thing to do. Guess who’s investing billions on finding the next big oil deposit with deep offshore drilling and figuring out how to get oil from oil shale? Yep, big oil. Take away their profits and they don’t have that money to invest anymore. All this happy horseshit about conservation, hybrids and fuel cells doesn’t change the fact that we’re going to need to keep finding oil for at least the next 30-50 years.