PDA

View Full Version : U.S. to Issue Tougher Fuel Standards for Automobiles




Reason
05-19-2009, 01:21 AM
May 19, 2009
U.S. to Issue Tougher Fuel Standards for Automobiles
By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — President Obama will announce tough new nationwide rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards on Tuesday, embracing standards that California has sought to enact for years over the objections of the auto industry and the Bush administration.

The rules, which will begin to take effect in 2012, will put in place a federal standard for fuel efficiency that is as tough as the California program, while imposing the first-ever limits on climate-altering gases from cars and trucks.

The effect will be a single new national standard that will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.

Environmental advocates and industry officials welcomed the new program, but for different reasons. Environmentalists called it a long-overdue tightening of emissions and fuel economy standards after decades of government delay and industry opposition. Auto industry officials said it would provide the single national efficiency standard they have long desired, a reasonable timetable to meet it and the certainty they need to proceed with product development plans.

Yet the industry position represents an abrupt about-face after years of battling tougher mileage standards in the courts and in Congress, reflecting the change in the political climate and the automakers’ shaky financial condition. The decision comes as General Motors and Chrysler are receiving billions of dollars in federal help, closing hundreds of dealerships and trying to design the products and business strategy they will need to survive.

“For seven long years, there has been a debate over whether states or the federal government should regulate autos,” said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, the industry’s largest trade association. “President Obama’s announcement ends that old debate by starting a federal rulemaking to set a national program.”

Mr. McCurdy, a former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, has been working with Mr. Obama and his advisers on the issue since early this year.

In announcing the new program at the White House, Mr. Obama will be accompanied by Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, along with auto industry executives and environmental leaders.

The administration’s decision resolves a question over California’s application for a waiver from federal clean air laws to impose its own, tougher vehicle emissions standards. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have said they plan to adopt the California program.

The new national fleet mileage rule for cars and light trucks of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 roughly corresponds to the California requirement, which will be shelved as a result. The current national standard is slightly more than 25 miles per gallon.

The California plan, first proposed in 2002, had been stalled by industry lawsuits and the Bush administration’s refusal to grant a waiver from less stringent federal rules, although California has been given dozens of such exemptions over the last 40 years.

The program will also end a number of lawsuits over the California standards, officials said.

“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, who has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards for two decades with the goal of curbing the gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

The administration had faced a June 30 deadline set by Congress to decide whether to grant California’s application to put its emissions rules into effect. President Obama became personally involved in the issue because he was also trying to find a way to rescue American auto companies from their financial crisis.

One ranking industry official said that the administration wanted to get the new mileage rules in place before General Motors made a decision on a bankruptcy filing, which could happen by the end of this month. The new rules also provide some certainty for Chrysler, which is already under bankruptcy protection, so that it can plan its future models.

To meet the new federal standards, auto companies will have to drastically change their product lineups in a relatively short time.

The companies have declined so far to comment on the costs involved in meeting a fleet standard of 35 miles a gallon. For starters, the automakers will probably have to sharply reduce the number of low-mileage models, like pickup trucks and large sedans.

The president’s decision will also accelerate the development of smaller cars and engines already under way.

But Mr. McCurdy said the industry could meet the new mileage targets using existing technology and improvements in future models. He said that 130 models already got 30 miles a gallon or better on the highway.

In January, Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. He also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to complement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020. The Bush administration wrote no regulations to enforce the 2007 law.

Mr. Obama will direct the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department to jointly write enforcement regulations.

Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said that under the White House plan, California would retain the ability to set its own emissions standards in the future when the current program expired.

He also said the new administration program was very close in language and intent to a provision in the climate change and energy bill now before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That bill calls for a “harmonization” of the California and federal regulatory programs to provide a nationwide standard.

Mr. Obama has been thinking about the future of the American automobile industry for years. He co-sponsored two bills in 2006, during his second year as a United States senator, one to raise fuel economy standards and the other to encourage the use of alternative fuels.

During the presidential campaign, he gave a speech in Detroit chastising the American automobile industry for doing too little to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and improve their vehicles’ efficiency.

“The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out,” Mr. Obama said.

That inaction has been a factor in the current dire state in which General Motors and Chrysler find themselves. The Japanese automakers are far ahead in developing smaller, more efficient vehicles, although they, too, will have to adjust their product lines.

Fran Pavley, the California state senator who sponsored the legislation that established the California standard, praised the decision as she traveled to Washington Monday to join the White House meeting on Tuesday.

She said through a spokeswoman that California would work on its own rules while the federal regulations were drafted. “This cleans up our air, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and continues to allow California to lead the way,” she said.

Micheline Maynard and Bill Vlasic contributed reporting.

idiom
05-19-2009, 03:34 AM
During the presidential campaign, he gave a speech in Detroit chastising the American automobile industry for doing too little to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and improve their vehicles’ efficiency.

“The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out,” Mr. Obama said.

It is worse than you know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) President Obama.

Objectivist
05-19-2009, 03:59 AM
Easy fix..... stop using Ethanol in Gasoline and the problem is solved.
Here's the math for those that don't know....
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

TastyWheat
05-19-2009, 11:08 AM
I had a thought when I heard about this today. If we become energy independent doesn't that make Middle Eastern countries and factions more likely to attack us since the resulting economic turmoil would have relatively no effect on them?

Reason
05-19-2009, 12:49 PM
YouTube - Plan To Regulate Emissions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHOBN0uIlvU)

Objectivist
05-19-2009, 03:08 PM
I had a thought when I heard about this today. If we become energy independent doesn't that make Middle Eastern countries and factions more likely to attack us since the resulting economic turmoil would have relatively no effect on them?

Could you expand on this? If we switched to Natural Gas for vehicle fuel and built 200-400 nuclear power plants we'd be done with the Middle East forever.

apropos
05-19-2009, 03:19 PM
Could you expand on this? If we switched to Natural Gas for vehicle fuel and built 200-400 nuclear power plants we'd be done with the Middle East forever.

I don't think we'll be "done" with anyone, whether we are nuclear or petroleum, considering how many bases we have around the world. Or with our various commitments to the UN, the IMF, NATO, etc.

Icymudpuppy
05-19-2009, 03:35 PM
I'm almost done with them. I converted all my vehicles to renewable, cheaper fuels 4 years ago. Unfortunately, my chainsaw and weedwhacker still run on gasoline. Electrical versions simply aren't being made powerful or portable enough for my rural needs, and despite looking, I can't find diesel powered chainsaws and weedwhackers that I could run on Vegetable oil. I do have a veggie powered lawnmower, generator, chippershredder, rototiller, truck, and car. I also have two CNG and/or Propane Trucks and one car. I get some CNG from my Hog manure tank, and what ever additional fuel I need can be had from the public utility, or by buying propane.

virgil47
05-19-2009, 03:37 PM
It would take a lot fewer nuclear plants to achieve o% usage of middle eastern oil. We currently get 97% of our foreign oil from Canada So that only leaves 3% from all other sources. Of course if we developed our own existing oil deposits we wouldn't have to buy oil from any foreign source. We have several hundred years of oil at the anticipated usage rate.

I would anticipate that oil usage as a fuel source would not last more than another 100 years as new ways of fueling vehicles will perfected and come into wide spread use before then. By developing and using our own oil supplies while new cost efficient fuels are developed we could prevent the economic chaos that will come about if we are forced into using new untried fuels.

A case in point is the fact that ethanol consumes approximately 142 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol produced. This is an unacceptable waste of a mandatory resource. Electricity is not truly viable as the batteries required are very inefficient and must be changed at an exorbitant cost at the 7 to 10 year mark. Also electric vehicles have the disadvantage of being short distance vehicles. Another consideration is there is no way for the civilian population to store the electric fuel for times of emergency.

Objectivist
05-19-2009, 03:39 PM
I don't think we'll be "done" with anyone, whether we are nuclear or petroleum, considering how many bases we have around the world. Or with our various commitments to the UN, the IMF, NATO, etc.

We can address that too if you like. Un-needed commitments.

phill4paul
05-19-2009, 03:43 PM
I'm almost done with them. I converted all my vehicles to renewable, cheaper fuels 4 years ago. Unfortunately, my chainsaw and weedwhacker still run on gasoline. Electrical versions simply aren't being made powerful or portable enough for my rural needs, and despite looking, I can't find diesel powered chainsaws and weedwhackers that I could run on Vegetable oil. I do have a veggie powered lawnmower, generator, chippershredder, rototiller, truck, and car. I also have two CNG and/or Propane Trucks and one car. I get some CNG from my Hog manure tank, and what ever additional fuel I need can be had from the public utility, or by buying propane.

And ^this,sir, is why you get the RPFBSA (RonPaulForumsBadaSsaWard) for the next 1 hour.

Objectivist
05-19-2009, 03:44 PM
It would take a lot fewer nuclear plants to achieve o% usage of middle eastern oil. We currently get 97% of our foreign oil from Canada So that only leaves 3% from all other sources. Of course if we developed our own existing oil deposits we wouldn't have to buy oil from any foreign source. We have several hundred years of oil at the anticipated usage rate.

I would anticipate that oil usage as a fuel source would not last more than another 100 years as new ways of fueling vehicles will perfected and come into wide spread use before then. By developing and using our own oil supplies while new cost efficient fuels are developed we could prevent the economic chaos that will come about if we are forced into using new untried fuels.

A case in point is the fact that ethanol consumes approximately 142 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol produced. This is an unacceptable waste of a mandatory resource. Electricity is not truly viable as the batteries required are very inefficient and must be changed at an exorbitant cost at the 7 to 10 year mark. Also electric vehicles have the disadvantage of being short distance vehicles. Another consideration is there is no way for the civilian population to store the electric fuel for times of emergency.

Provide a source for your 97% of our oil comes from Canada.

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

Icymudpuppy
05-19-2009, 03:47 PM
And ^this,sir, is why you get the RPFBSA (RonPaulForumsBadaSsaWard) for the next 1 hour.

Thanks, but I'm not off the grid yet. Give me 5 more years to get my house and barn energy independent.

Objectivist
05-19-2009, 03:56 PM
I'm growing weary of people with paper hats making claims that they are unable to back up with facts, this is how rumors start. Misinformation hurts everyone, so here are some current numbers.
http://perotcharts.com/2008/07/united-states-oil-imports-by-country-march-2008/

When I make a mistake and make a claim that ends up being false I correct my position and move on, it's the only way to maintain any level of credibility.

phill4paul
05-19-2009, 04:07 PM
Thanks, but I'm not off the grid yet. Give me 5 more years to get my house and barn energy independent.

Well, damnit man it is time to start an Icymudpuppy conversion thread!

I, as others here, always look for new knowledge. I for one would love to see some picts and instructions of your veggie powered lawnmower, generator, chippershredder, rototiller, truck, and car conversions!

Help a brother or sister out! Who knows, I may just invent a more "awesomer" sounding anacronym.:)

Objectivist
05-19-2009, 04:15 PM
I'm almost done with them. I converted all my vehicles to renewable, cheaper fuels 4 years ago. Unfortunately, my chainsaw and weedwhacker still run on gasoline. Electrical versions simply aren't being made powerful or portable enough for my rural needs, and despite looking, I can't find diesel powered chainsaws and weedwhackers that I could run on Vegetable oil. I do have a veggie powered lawnmower, generator, chippershredder, rototiller, truck, and car. I also have two CNG and/or Propane Trucks and one car. I get some CNG from my Hog manure tank, and what ever additional fuel I need can be had from the public utility, or by buying propane.

How do you compress the gas from your "hog manure tank"?

Icymudpuppy
05-19-2009, 04:20 PM
Well to be honest, I'm not much of a mechanic or engineer myself. Everything I've done is by either reading about someone else's work online, or buying a product from them.

A good place to start is at this Forum...

biodiesel.infopop.cc

My BCS walk behind tractor powered by a Yanmar 14 HP single cylinder diesel motor is the power supply for the mower, tiller, chipper, and generator. It required no special conversion, and runs fine on vegetable oil thinned with any solvent or mixed with biodiesel or kerosene.
www.BCSamerica.com

My veggie truck (2000 F-250 7.3L Powerstroke) is coverted using a vegistroke conversion system. www.dinofuelalternatives.com

My veggie car (1982 VW Jetta 1.4L D)is converted using an Elsbett converson system.
www.elsbett.com

for the CNG Conversions. (1955 IHC R-110, 2001 GMC Sonoma, and 2000 Chevy Metro) Converting a gasoline engine to run CNG or propane is easier than you'd think. Just hook up a pressurized storage tank, and run pressurized gas lines into the carberator or fuel injector where the fuel goes in. Some adjustment of the fuel to air ratio may be required depending on the vehicle. A google search will reveal the instructions of many people more competent to teach the details of this than I am.

virgil47
05-19-2009, 04:21 PM
Provide a source for your 97% of our oil comes from Canada.

I just heard this statistic within the last few days but can not find where I heard it. I thought at the time that it was too good to be true and it appears from my research that it is indeed too good to be true. Thanks for pointing out my error.

Although my statement contained an error on my part it does not in any way change the validity of my argument for using our own oil while we develop economical alternate fuels.

[url]http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

Icymudpuppy
05-19-2009, 04:23 PM
How do you compress the gas from your "hog manure tank"?

I bought a heavy duty compressor for hydrocarbon gas from a company called Roger's Machine in my local area. My resulting Hog Manure Methane is not as pure as what comes through the utility line, so I get less Horsepower from it, but I'm not a racer anyway.

TastyWheat
05-29-2009, 06:59 PM
Could you expand on this? If we switched to Natural Gas for vehicle fuel and built 200-400 nuclear power plants we'd be done with the Middle East forever.
Well, why would you attack a trade partner? If they become reliant on us doesn't that mean they'd be "shooting themselves in the foot" if they attacked or allowed others to attack us? Sure, there are other things we can buy from Middle Eastern countries aside from oil, but isn't being self-sufficient just as bad as being isolationist?

Objectivist
05-29-2009, 07:06 PM
Well, why would you attack a trade partner? If they become reliant on us doesn't that mean they'd be "shooting themselves in the foot" if they attacked or allowed others to attack us? Sure, there are other things we can buy from Middle Eastern countries aside from oil, but isn't being self-sufficient just as bad as being isolationist?

No reason to be in a position of reliance on an unstable part of the world. Not isolation, but protection from the inevitable. They will always have oil to sell as India and China have increased demand a hundred fold. It would also save billions leaving our economy and improve the jobs situation here in the USA.

Being self-sufficient is being in a position of power, nothing wrong with that. Or you can keep taking credit from China????

TastyWheat
06-05-2009, 12:52 PM
Being self-sufficient is being in a position of power, nothing wrong with that. Or you can keep taking credit from China????
Then what's with all of this free-trade nonsense people keep espousing? In order to force self-sufficiency we'll have to abstain from foreign oil and thereby pay more for energy than we would if we kept doing business with them. If we're forcing ourselves off of foreign oil, why not force ourselves off of all foreign goods and services? We could enforce quotas, but why not just bring back protectionist tariffs?

Number19
06-05-2009, 03:48 PM
I thought I'd just throw this out for comment, if anyone is more knowledgeable on this than I am.

I remember, from the late 60's or early 70's, when MAZDA developed the ROTARY ENGINE from the WANKLE design, reading comments that the Wankle engine was the engine of the future. One of its advantages was that it could be adapted to run on any combustible fuel. It was not dependent upon gasoline or diesel.

There would, of course, be engineering and design problems to be worked out, but I've been wondering why this engine design hasn't been further pursued. I believe, in the United States, GM held the design/marketing rights.

idiom
06-05-2009, 05:01 PM
Mazda is still pushing the development pretty hard. The reliability stuff is all sorted, people use rotaries a lot in aircraft these days because of their power-to-weight.

Objectivist
06-05-2009, 05:31 PM
Then what's with all of this free-trade nonsense people keep espousing? In order to force self-sufficiency we'll have to abstain from foreign oil and thereby pay more for energy than we would if we kept doing business with them. If we're forcing ourselves off of foreign oil, why not force ourselves off of all foreign goods and services? We could enforce quotas, but why not just bring back protectionist tariffs?

Nothing wrong with free-trade, where have you seen it? We have trade deficits with a good number of countries and oil is a big pool that everyone draws from, so why don't we put more of ours in the pool? We have oil and other resources that would offer us a much more secure source of energy. Natural Gas should be used more seeing that we have so much of it and the infrastructure to deliver NG is in place.

Quotas are and protectionism is a bad idea, but there is no reason to use less from other location or better yet use wisely, like Natural Gas. Why is every other plot of dirt or ocean less pristine than the plots here in the USA? Why is it we are forced to purchase more from abroad than here at home? Why don't we produce and create jobs here as well?

Objectivist
06-05-2009, 05:33 PM
I thought I'd just throw this out for comment, if anyone is more knowledgeable on this than I am.

I remember, from the late 60's or early 70's, when MAZDA developed the ROTARY ENGINE from the WANKLE design, reading comments that the Wankle engine was the engine of the future. One of its advantages was that it could be adapted to run on any combustible fuel. It was not dependent upon gasoline or diesel.

There would, of course, be engineering and design problems to be worked out, but I've been wondering why this engine design hasn't been further pursued. I believe, in the United States, GM held the design/marketing rights.

They developed an entire race series around the 13B rotary engine, Mazda Pro Series.
Yep they still race them. MY buddy was a Crew Chief in the series back in the late 80s early 90s but moved to Indy cars.
http://www.starmazda.com/results/2005-season.htm
http://www.starmazda.peachhost.com/ct_PR050-127.htm

Number19
06-05-2009, 07:30 PM
Yes, I'm very familiar with Mazda's rotary. I got the first RX-7 that came into the Port of Houston, actually one of only three that came in the first shipment. There were 3 Mazda dealers in Houston at that time and each got one. I was first on Jay Marks' list. As for racing, the RX-7 was unbeatable in its class for 10 years, until they bumped it up a class in the late 80's. Even then the top drivers were capable of driving the car to 3rd and 4th place finishes; and in endurance races were still capable of finishing first because of the reliability of the engine.

What I'm interested in is the development of the technology to run on alternate fuels. If I remember correctly, there was talk of using the engine with pure grain alcohol - essentially, moonshine.

If the technology is actually capable of this, I just don't understand the lack of development, at least by garage mechanics (I'm not one). The rotary is mechanically the most efficient combustion engine ever developed and there's a lot of potential here.

TastyWheat
06-07-2009, 08:00 AM
Nothing wrong with free-trade, where have you seen it? We have trade deficits with a good number of countries and oil is a big pool that everyone draws from, so why don't we put more of ours in the pool? We have oil and other resources that would offer us a much more secure source of energy. Natural Gas should be used more seeing that we have so much of it and the infrastructure to deliver NG is in place.

Quotas are and protectionism is a bad idea, but there is no reason to use less from other location or better yet use wisely, like Natural Gas. Why is every other plot of dirt or ocean less pristine than the plots here in the USA? Why is it we are forced to purchase more from abroad than here at home? Why don't we produce and create jobs here as well?
I have no problem with using more of our own resources, I just wouldn't want to see any kind of mandate to increase domestic energy production. If the market wants to use foreign oil then so be it.

Objectivist
06-07-2009, 03:05 PM
I have no problem with using more of our own resources, I just wouldn't want to see any kind of mandate to increase domestic energy production. If the market wants to use foreign oil then so be it.

In 1981 Reagan called for the increase in production of domestic sources and the price was $36 per barrel at the time, within 6 months the price dropped to $18 and stayed below $22 the rest of his two terms. Fuel or energy more appropriately is a primary factor in how our economy runs. If the price is high then the economy usually goes down and people lose their jobs and have problems paying for the energy it takes to heat their homes. People die because of high energy prices every year.

Then like I've mentioned, we should develop our energy resources but more importantly we should move towards Natural Gas fuel or Flex fuel vehicles. We have more NG than the Middle East has oil, so why are we paying them again? Money here means jobs here.

TastyWheat
06-14-2009, 12:00 PM
In 1981 Reagan called for the increase in production of domestic sources and the price was $36 per barrel at the time, within 6 months the price dropped to $18 and stayed below $22 the rest of his two terms. Fuel or energy more appropriately is a primary factor in how our economy runs. If the price is high then the economy usually goes down and people lose their jobs and have problems paying for the energy it takes to heat their homes. People die because of high energy prices every year.

Then like I've mentioned, we should develop our energy resources but more importantly we should move towards Natural Gas fuel or Flex fuel vehicles. We have more NG than the Middle East has oil, so why are we paying them again? Money here means jobs here.
If by "called for" you mean subsidized then there was no net gain. The increase in spending offsets any extra money that is saved by lowering the price of oil. I don't see it to be an abuse of power or interference with the free market to use the bully pulpit though.