NationStates Jolt Archive

linky (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/business/energy-environment/20emit.html)

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced 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.

And this is why it is sometimes good to have a centralised power that can make these decisions. Because sometimes your individual activities affect us all, and we need the collective to stop this harm from continuing.

This move by Obama should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is good, but it will also reduce energy consumption, the rate of pulmonary diseases such as lung cancer, and reduce pollution, which is even better.

I must admit that with this and Obama's recent push for universal healthcare, Obama seems like (dare I say it?) someone who might actually make a real change.

Obama and Ahnuld. Sounds like a summer blockbuster teamup donnit?

:D

Obama and Ahnuld. Sounds like a summer blockbuster teamup donnit?

:D

Unfortunately, there's no villains, as even automotive industry leaders are gong with it.

Not like they have much choice these days.

My question, of course, will be: any consequences for people stuck with the cars they currently own?

My question, of course, will be: any consequences for people stuck with the cars they currently own?

No, it's only for new cars.

But how can American cars be steel behemoths that cause the Earth to tremble when they idle at a red light and still get a decent mpg and low emissions?

Situation in USA:

2009: Current fuel consumption of an average car: 9.4 L / 100 km
2016: Future fuel consumption of an average car: 6.7 L / 100 km

In Europe:

2012: Future fuel consumption of an average car: 5 L / 100 km

Do I have to say more?

Thankfully, this will only affect new vehicles in 2012. My pickup won't be able to get 35.5 MPG without serious mechanical, structural, and aerodynamic changes (it'd be cheaper to buy a new car, but I doubt I'll be in the position to buy one when these rules come into effect).

But how can American cars be steel behemoths that cause the Earth to tremble when they idle at a red light and still get a decent mpg and low emissions?

They will have to produce smaller cars and they also can create hybrids.

But how can American cars be steel behemoths that cause the Earth to tremble when they idle at a red light and still get a decent mpg and low emissions?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2766639964_68bc4452e9.jpg?v=0

:p

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2766639964_68bc4452e9.jpg?v=0

:p

It's like a hobbit monster truck.

Will be laughing till Sunday about Londim's Prius! :tongue:

I have always wanted to at least have a hybrid minimum law. (all gas engines by permit only) But the way technology has been advancing so fast I think we will quickly move beyond hybrids to zero emmision cars.

Will be laughing till Sunday about Londim's Prius! :tongue:

I have always wanted to at least have a hybrid minimum law. (all gas engines by permit only) But the way technology has been advancing so fast I think we will quickly move beyond hybrids to zero emmision cars.

I tell you the world would be a better place if everyone owned Prius Monster Trucks! I mean no one fucks with someone in a monster truck, so no one will fuck with anyone therefore getting rid of road rage while being environmentally friendly.

I tell you the world would be a better place if everyone owned Prius Monster Trucks! I mean no one fucks with someone in a monster truck, so no one will fuck with anyone therefore getting rid of road rage while being environmentally friendly.

I could fuck with people inside monster trucks.

I could fuck with people inside monster trucks.

Well you could fuck with a person or people (if your into that) in a monster truck but you don't fuck with someone who drives a monster truck because they'll probably run you over. No one wants to be run over by a monster truck.

Well you could fuck with a person or people (if your into that) in a monster truck but you don't fuck with someone who drives a monster truck because they'll probably run you over. No one wants to be run over by a monster truck.

Questions...

First question:

How many times were you hit by a monster truck after you fucked with the person inside?

Second question:

Do you think it doesn't harm to be hit by a guy in a Smart (http://www.highprofile.nl/images/dynamic/bedrijven/7883/480-Smart-Party-01.jpg) after you fucked with him?


I would think that you don't need a monster car to hurt people after they fucked with you. And it's good for the environment too!

Will these regulations only apply to Amrican made cars?

Will these regulations only apply to Amrican made cars?

I assume so, as Obama does not yet rule the world.

I assume so, as Obama does not yet rule the world.

Well, I imagine the requirements could be enforced on any vehicle imported into or made in the US.

Well, I imagine the requirements could be enforced on any vehicle imported into or made in the US.

They do. That's why you couldn't buy any appreciable number of diesel models or Smart cars in the US until very recently; it wasn't even the lack of demand, it was the fact that US diesel emission standards were too low to permit the sale of a lot of European diesel models and the Smart car didn't meet safety standards.

Will these regulations only apply to Amrican made cars?
As with most such regulations, it will likely apply to any cars sold in the US. Foreign makers would have to meet the standards for the US market.

EDIT: But since they are mostly ahead of US makers on fuel efficiency and hybrids anyway, and Toyota and Hyundai have been tripping over themselves to get their low to zero emission models to market ahead of Ford, I'm guessing that won't be much of a problem for them.

I assume so, as Obama does not yet rule the world.

The US government has always thought they do.

Despite that countries can and do place restrictions and regulations on products being imported into the country.

As with most such regulations, it will likely apply to any cars sold in the US. Foreign makers would have to meet the standards for the US market.

EDIT: But since they are mostly ahead of US makers on fuel efficiency and hybrids anyway, and Toyota and Hyundai have been tripping over themselves to get their low to zero emission models to market ahead of Ford, I'm guessing that won't be much of a problem for them.

The world is already almost meeting those standards :)

I already said before:

Situation in USA:

2009: Current fuel consumption of an average car: 9.4 L / 100 km
2016: Future fuel consumption of an average car: 6.7 L / 100 km

In Europe:

2012: Future fuel consumption of an average car: 5 L / 100 km


So in Europe all new cars will be 35% cleaner as the American 2016 ones and this already in 2012.

This means that USA will not sell a lot of cars to Europe.

This means that USA will not sell a lot of cars to Europe.

They don't anyway. Fuel is too expensive here to make buying an "American" car (as in a car primarily designed for sale in America) a sensible option.

Despite that countries can and do place restrictions and regulations on products being imported into the country.

Indeed, I mistook your question.

As with most such regulations, it will likely apply to any cars sold in the US. Foreign makers would have to meet the standards for the US market.

EDIT: But since they are mostly ahead of US makers on fuel efficiency and hybrids anyway, and Toyota and Hyundai have been tripping over themselves to get their low to zero emission models to market ahead of Ford, I'm guessing that won't be much of a problem for them.

Well that I suppose what I was wondering, if it is on cars sold or on cars made.

They don't anyway. Fuel is too expensive here to make buying an "American" car (as in a car primarily designed for sale in America) a sensible option.

Yes, I know. And then they wonder why their car industry is broke.

Even Chinese cars are consuming less fuel.

The world is already almost meeting those standards :)

I already said before:

Situation in USA:

2009: Current fuel consumption of an average car: 9.4 L / 100 km
2016: Future fuel consumption of an average car: 6.7 L / 100 km

In Europe:

2012: Future fuel consumption of an average car: 5 L / 100 km


So in Europe all new cars will be 35% cleaner as the American 2016 ones and this already in 2012.

This means that USA will not sell a lot of cars to Europe.

We heard you the first time princess.

Also...Europe=the world?

Also...Europe=the world?

Nope. Worlds largest economy though.

We heard you the first time princess.

Also...Europe=the world?

No. But by instance Japan, South Korea & China will have no problems meeting those regulations. Don't forget they do like to sell cars in Europe, so...

And I don't think they will allow that heavy consuming USA cars will enter their markets.

The market for new cars is located in USA, Europe and some parts of Asia & South America. The rest is too poor to afford one.

Nope. Worlds largest economy though.

Eh, depends. If you count the EU as a single country... Yes.

The market for new cars is located in USA, Europe and some parts of Asia & South America. The rest is too poor to afford one.

That's most of the world's population...

Eh, depends. If you count the EU as a single country... Yes.

Economical spoken, it is one country.

That's most of the world's population...

Indeed. And that means that US cars will not be sold in those countries.... (except USA)

Economical spoken, it is one country.

Ehh, no. EU economic policy still has some radically different policies between countries.

Indeed. And that means that US cars will not be sold in those countries.... (except USA)
Only time will tell.

Indeed. And that means that US cars will not be sold in those countries.... (except USA)

Well, I'd disagree with that in regards to China. That country is a major market for US automakers; their gas subsidies and mild emissions standards guarantee sizable demand for bigger cars compared to other nations. Buick in particular is doing spectacular there whereas it's pretty much dead in the US and Europe. GM's Chinese operations are probably one of the only things keeping them still somewhat alive...

Ehh, no. EU economic policy still has some radically different policies between countries.

And do you think there are no separated issues among states in USA?

There's one currency, an Italian company can do business in Belgium without any special regulations like paying import/export taxes. The VAT is almost on the same line, etc etc etc. Another example are the regulation regarding the fuel consumption of cars: they are ruled from inside Europe.

Sure it's still not perfect, but every year a heavy load on new laws are launched.

I don't understand, that you do not see Europe as one economical block.

I don't understand, that you do not see Europe as one economical block.
I don't understand why you do see it as one economical block. It's like saying that since NAFTA came along, the USA, Canada, and Mexico are economically one. It just isn't so, Joe.

Well, I'd disagree with that in regards to China. That country is a major market for US automakers; their gas subsidies and mild emissions standards guarantee sizable demand for bigger cars compared to other nations. Buick in particular is doing spectacular there whereas it's pretty much dead in the US and Europe. GM's Chinese operations are probably one of the only things keeping them still somewhat alive...

China, pffft, I hear since the early sixties that it is thé next worldpower, it was a matter of decades. Today I hear the same mantra again. An absolute majority of the Chinese people barely can afford a bike....

In 2012 the European laws will be launched. China will be ready to export their cars to here. I don't think that they will allow more polluting cars in their own country. Why should they invest in green cars and allow that non-green ones enter their border?

I don't think that they will allow more polluting cars in their own country.

They will. China cares very little about pollution.

I don't understand why you do see it as one economical block. It's like saying that since NAFTA came along, the USA, Canada, and Mexico are economically one. It just isn't so, Joe.

NAFTA isn't comparable to Europe. Does NAFTA have one currency? Are the tax laws adjusted to each other? Are there checkpoints between the borders of USA and Mexico & Canada?

I can drive with my car from Helsinki to Gibraltar, passing several countries without noticing (almost) a border.

HK has a habit of Eurocentric comments as well as dismissing the achievements of non-European (bonus if theyre also not white!) nations.


Dont feed him.

HK has a habit of Eurocentric comments as well as dismissing the achievements of non-European (bonus if theyre also not white!) nations.


Dont feed him.

Hello everyone... I'm CM, and I... I feed trolls.

*Collective voice of NSG* Hi CM!

HK has a habit of Eurocentric comments as well as dismissing the achievements of non-European (bonus if theyre also not white!) nations.


Dont feed him.

This is ridiculous.

This is ridiculous.

Truth is stranger then fiction.

Truth is stranger then fiction.

Because fiction has to make sense!

Because fiction has to make sense!
If fiction was crazy, it wouldn't be fiction.

Truth is stranger then fiction.

The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states, located primarily in Europe.
It was established by the Treaty of Maastricht on 1 November 1993,[5] upon the foundations of the pre-existing European Economic Community. With a population of almost 500 million, the EU generates an estimated 30% share (US$18.4 trillion in 2008) of the nominal gross world product.[6]
The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states, ensuring the freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital.[7] It maintains common policies on trade,[8] agriculture, fisheries,[9] and regional development.[10] A common currency, the euro, has been adopted by sixteen member states (i.e. in the Eurozone). It has developed a limited role in foreign policy, having representation at the WTO, G8 summits, and at the UN. Twenty-one EU countries are members of NATO. The EU has developed a role in justice and home affairs, including the abolition of passport controls between many member states which form part of the Schengen Area, which also incorporates some associated European non-EU countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states, located primarily in Europe.
It was established by the Treaty of Maastricht on 1 November 1993,[5] upon the foundations of the pre-existing European Economic Community. With a population of almost 500 million, the EU generates an estimated 30% share (US$18.4 trillion in 2008) of the nominal gross world product.[6]
The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states, ensuring the freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital.[7] It maintains common policies on trade,[8] agriculture, fisheries,[9] and regional development.[10] A common currency, the euro, has been adopted by sixteen member states (i.e. in the Eurozone). It has developed a limited role in foreign policy, having representation at the WTO, G8 summits, and at the UN. Twenty-one EU countries are members of NATO. The EU has developed a role in justice and home affairs, including the abolition of passport controls between many member states which form part of the Schengen Area, which also incorporates some associated European non-EU countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
Union. Not a single country.:wink:

Union. Not a single country.:wink:

Sure. But economical spoken it is not.

Read again:

The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states, ensuring the freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital

From which planet are you, again?

Union. Not a single country.:wink:

Don't worry CM - I can play too.

The agreement creating the trade bloc came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada.

In terms of combined purchasing power parity GDP of its members, as of 2007[update] the trade block is the largest in the world and second largest by nominal GDP comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA

See? We're a trade block. It should totally be viewed as a single entity.

From which planet are you, again?
I'd ask the same of you. :wink: NAFTA is a trade bloc. Economically speaking, we should be one country.

Ehh, no. EU economic policy still has some radically different policies between countries.

Not to mention that not every country in Europe is in the EU.

Sure. But economical spoken it is not.

Read again:

The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states, ensuring the freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital

From which planet are you, again?

Actually the EU is yet to come a full economic union yet.

I hope it never does but only timw will tell.

I I don't think that they will allow more polluting cars in their own country. Why should they invest in green cars and allow that non-green ones enter their border?

Because there is something major you fail to understand about China, there are two, yes two, Chinese markets. The Chinese market the produces goods for export and the Chinese market that produces goods for internal consumption.

China has been ramping up regulations on fuel emissions and saftey standards for cars for export for years, trying to edge its way into the international market.

China does not apply the same standards and requirements to cars - and other goods - which are to be sold in China to Chinese consumers. In an effort to cut costs and meet the demand of over a billion people who couldn't afford the quality that they are exporting.

Begrijp je?

I'd ask the same of you. :wink: NAFTA is a trade bloc. Economically speaking, we should be one country.

No, because you do not have a common currency.

You still have borders, people from mexico can't just enter USA and have a life in that country. There's no central government ruling laws among the NAFTA members, etc etc etc.

NAFTA is not like EC, not even close.

Are you aware that we have also trading facilities with Usa, Canada, Japan, Israel, Russia and so many other countries? That doesn't make them one economical block.

No, because you do not have a common currency.

You still have borders, people from mexico can't just enter USA and have a life in that country. There's no central government ruling laws among the NAFTA members, etc etc etc.

NAFTA is not like EC, not even close.

Are you aware that we have also trading facilities with Usa, Canada, Japan, Israel, Russia and so many other countries? That doesn't make them one economical block.
The EU isn't as single, united and free a workplace and you seem to wish. Know anything about what's going on in Europe's largest economy?


Charlemagne
Those selfish Germans
Apr 30th 2009
From The Economist print edition
As Germany becomes “normal”, it looks a bit more national and a bit less European

http://media.economist.com/images/20090502/D1809EU0.jpg

ON MAY 1st ten countries celebrate their fifth birthday as members of the European Union. It ought to be quite a party: the enlargement of 2004 to take in countries like Poland and Hungary marked a rare moment of strategic wisdom. Alas, the anniversary has already been overshadowed by an act of petty selfishness on the part of Germany.

The German government announced this week that it was keeping labour restrictions on workers from the eight east European countries that joined in 2004 (the other two new members, Cyprus and Malta, were tiddlers that escaped the restrictions). The controls were meant to fall away in 2009, but Germany invoked a clause allowing two more years in case of “serious labour-market disturbances”, or the threat of them. The idea that free movement by Poles or Slovaks would threaten “serious” disruption is nonsense. Germany still has shortages of skilled labour in some areas, and it hardly looks like El Dorado to hordes of unskilled migrants: the latest forecast is that the economy will shrink by 6% this year. The decision to keep labour controls is purely political. Germany faces elections to the European Parliament in June and a national poll in the autumn.

Only one other country, Austria, still keeps its labour market closed to the 2004 entrants. But nobody ever accused Austria of being visionary. Germany is meant to be different. More than any other country, it made EU expansion possible. As the union’s biggest paymaster, Germany agreed to foot the lion’s share of the bill. And it was the Germans who persuaded the reluctant French to expand the club. So is Germany now a “normal” (ie, selfish) country, more attuned to national than to European interests? That is a fashionable charge among federalists. As an example, they criticise the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, for her timid response to the economic crisis, for vetoing a common European fund to bail out banks and for resisting a joint EU stimulus.

Ms Merkel is from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), but her grand-coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), also disappoints pro-Europeans. The SPD finance minister, Peer Steinbrück, spent months calling the economic crisis an “American problem”. Although he has conceded that euro-area countries might be bailed out before they go bust, he will not be drawn on how. Prominent federalists like Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister, have called on Germany to support joint euro-area bonds, though these might damage the country’s own high credit rating. Other examples offered by insiders include a European food bank for the poor, mooted at one summit. The SPD foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who will stand against Ms Merkel this autumn, shot the idea down, saying that each country should “take care of its own poor”.

One senior European politician comments that federalists have short memories. The true turning-point for Germany was 1998, he says, when Gerhard Schröder defeated the CDU’s Helmut Kohl for the chancellorship. During his campaign, Mr Schröder accused Mr Kohl of putting European interests ahead of German ones. He had a point: Mr Kohl pushed through the single currency even though most German voters opposed it, and nasty EU rows about money usually ended with Mr Kohl pulling out Germany’s chequebook. Mr Schröder was less community-minded, happy to shout, “Germany is not paying for this one,” at summits. It was under Mr Schröder that Germany began its quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, after years of seeking a single place for the EU.

Today the picture is mixed. Ms Merkel is less impatient at EU summits than Mr Schröder. But, unlike Mr Kohl, she brings no retinue of smaller countries as allies to every meeting. And despite the recent display of Franco-German unity at the G20 gathering in London, she neither trusts nor likes France’s Nicolas Sarkozy.

In search of German logic
Germany’s closed labour market may look like a detail amid global economic turmoil. But it matters. It represents a surrender to populist introspection and a betrayal of the logic of Europe’s open borders. That is a shame, as Germany has stood up for free trade and the EU’s internal market in other fields, slapping down protectionist proposals from France and taking it on the chin when domestic stimulus schemes like its car-scrapping bonus sucked in cars made in eastern Europe.

The labour restrictions are in truth a symptom of a deeper malaise. Tensions within the grand coalition define “everything” in EU affairs, complains a minister from a neighbouring country. Another sighs that “what we see now in Germany is less and less one government, and more and more two parties”.

This is perverting otherwise sound initiatives. At a foreign ministers’ meeting on April 27th, Germany sounded the alarm about instability in Ukraine, on the EU’s eastern border. German diplomats say privately that Russia is playing alarming games by issuing passports to Ukrainian citizens. Germany wants the EU to consider such steps as opening an EU office in Crimea, a part of Ukraine some Russian nationalists covet, or asking Russia to recognise Ukrainian territorial integrity. Coming from German diplomats, this amounts to welcome realism. But, notes an EU minister, concrete action to anchor Ukraine to the West and to Europe is limited by tensions in Berlin. The (CDU) interior minister will not hear of looser visa rules for Ukrainians as a carrot for good behaviour. The (SPD) finance minister opposes spending German money to prop up Ukraine’s economy.

Germany is not about to turn away from Europe. One senior figure concedes that the labour restrictions respond to “fears that are not so logical”. That is not good enough. Europe needs a bit of German logic to function. So does Germany.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13576107

I am not amused. These regulations hurt the consumer, If i am willing to buy Extra fuel to go where I want Why should my choice be interfered with?

I am not amused. These regulations hurt the consumer, If i am willing to buy Extra fuel to go where I want Why should my choice be interfered with?

Because the rest of us have to breath the carcinogenic fumes your car spews out.

Why should the healthy performance of my child's lungs be interfered with?

Instead of setting up these costly laws, the money should be put into new technology that moves away from the internal combustion engine. Who needs CAFE laws when your car runs on hydrogen?

CAFE standards are just a waste of time and money that make an administration look like it's doing something.

Instead of setting up these costly laws, the money should be put into new technology that moves away from the internal combustion engine. Who needs CAFE laws when your car runs on hydrogen?

CAFE standards are just a waste of time and money that make an administration look like it's doing something.

Why do you think these laws are costly?

Do you think that hydrogen fuel cells will be viable soon enough to make the same reduction in pollution that enacting these new standards would?

CAFE laws also protect people living near roadways from breathing more carcinogenic fumes than is needed. They also force companies to be innovative, which is something USian car companies definitely could use.

What disturbs me about this, other than the fact that all authority disturbs me, is that the only emissions being controlled are those from the vehicles themselves.

So the supposed answer is hybrid PLUG-INS, which drain our already overtaxed grid and lead to higher energy prices and more pollution from coil and oil burning power plants.

And speaking of taxing, that will hit our electric bills too, to make up for lost gas taxes.

The sad irony is that the eco benefits will be in the crowded dirty cities, while the pollution will be exported out to the country where I live, downwind (by several hundred miles, but that is where the acid rain descends) from the carbon burning power plants.

The cars are called "clean and green" because they export their pollution from the city out to the country, where there are fewer voters.

What disturbs me about this, other than the fact that all authority disturbs me, is that the only emissions being controlled are those from the vehicles themselves.

Yes, the law is specifically designed to deal with automobile emissions.

So the supposed answer is hybrid PLUG-INS, which drain our already overtaxed grid and lead to higher energy prices and more pollution from coil and oil burning power plants.

Actually, the law does not discuss hybrids at all. It only deals with internal combustion engines.

And speaking of taxing, that will hit our electric bills too, to make up for lost gas taxes.

Even if they do as you think they will and increase electricity taxes to make up for lost gasoline tax revenue, it will still cost the taxpayer the same, i.e. their will be no net increase to the taxpayer's tax burden. And the air will be less polluted, which will reduce medical costs, which wil reduce government spending on medicare and medicaid. Which will result in less taxes.

The sad irony is that the eco benefits will be in the crowded dirty cities, while the pollution will be exported out to the country where I live, downwind (by several hundred miles, but that is where the acid rain descends) from the carbon burning power plants.

The cars are called "clean and green" because they export their pollution from the city out to the country, where there are fewer voters.

Again, this complaint is specific to hybrids that use electricity from a fossil fule burning plant. The law proposed by the Obama administration does not discuss that directly. The closest you can get by that angle is by supposing that the majority of people will purchase hybrids to get the requisite mileage and emissions This might be the case. Or it might not be.

Yes, the law is specifically designed to deal with automobile emissions.



Actually, the law does not discuss hybrids at all. It only deals with internal combustion engines.



Even if they do as you think they will and increase electricity taxes to make up for lost gasoline tax revenue, it will still cost the taxpayer the same, i.e. their will be no net increase to the taxpayer's tax burden. And the air will be less polluted, which will reduce medical costs, which wil reduce government spending on medicare and medicaid. Which will result in less taxes.



Again, this complaint is specific to hybrids that use electricity from a fossil fule burning plant. The law proposed by the Obama administration does not discuss that directly. The closest you can get by that angle is by supposing that the majority of people will purchase hybrids to get the requisite mileage and emissions This might be the case. Or it might not be.

But the air will NOT be less polluted!

The pollution will merely be exported from the city to the formerly clean healthful countryside!

I do discern a trend here, because if you read the magazines like Motor Trend and Car and Driver, most of the new development talk is about plug-ins and not such infinitely preferable alternatives such as hydrogen or compressed air.

But the air will NOT be less polluted!

The pollution will merely be exported from the city to the formerly clean healthful countryside!

For the third time, this is only a concern if the majority of people go and buy hybrids that are then recharged from an electrical plant that burns fossil fuels. Do you have any reason to believe that this will be the case?

I do discern a trend here, because if you read the magazines like Motor Trend and Car and Driver, most of the new development talk is about plug-ins and not such infinitely preferable alternatives such as hydrogen or compressed air.

Why is hydrogen or compressed air any better if the energy required to compress the air or produce the hydrogen also comes from a plant that burns fossil fuels?

Nope. Worlds largest economy though.

The European Union, or the Eurozone? Because you can hardly call the European Union member states a unified economy, especially given the transaction costs that exist when crossing borders and changing currencies.

Why do you think these laws are costly?

Because auto manufacturers are forced by law to designate most of their research and development money to designing technology to meet these standards by 2016. 2016 is not very far away when it comes to auto manufacturing. They have to start tomorrow on new technologies for the 110 year old combustion engine, and they have to put a lot of man power and money into it.
"On Tuesday, Mr. Obama gathered the chief executives of 10 auto companies from around the world in the Rose Garden to announce his proposal for a single national fuel-efficiency standard of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, a nearly 40 percent increase from today’s level."

It's a waste. Why bother to try to make something, that is inefficient to begin with, more efficient?

Do you think that hydrogen fuel cells will be viable soon enough to make the same reduction in pollution that enacting these new standards would?

We're human, we can do it. If there was enough money and manpower/motivation to do it, we would. If Obama were to enact a law that would force automakers to run on hydrogen by 2020, you know damn well they would do it. But the focus is on trying to make what we have better, when in reality what we have is shit. That's not technological advancement.

CAFE laws also protect people living near roadways from breathing more carcinogenic fumes than is needed. They also force companies to be innovative, which is something USian car companies definitely could use.

Well firstly, it doesn't help them right now. It won't help them in 7 years either because this Earth is really friggin polluted.

Yeah they could use innovation; making a better technology that moves away from internal combustion would be a great start. It all comes back to trying to better something that will always be inefficient. No matter how hard you try to better an internal combustion engine, it will always waste huge amounts of power through heat and friction loss. That's the way it is.

Sure, every major automaker has hybrids now; but they're moving towards more electric based vehicles which Pope Joan has stated just moves pollution somewhere else. That's not technological advancement, that's a waste. You're still using the same amount of energy to move that hunk of metal down a road, and all that energy is coming from fossil fuels, whether it be the engine in the car or the power plant a hundred miles away.

Because auto manufacturers are forced by law to designate most of their research and development money to designing technology to meet these standards by 2016. 2016 is not very far away when it comes to auto manufacturing. They have to start tomorrow on new technologies for the 110 year old combustion engine, and they have to put a lot of man power and money into it.
...

They have to do that anyway. perhaps you haven't noticed, but the automotive industry in the USA is currently undergoing some major changes. One of the reasons behind these big changes is that the companies didn't do this when the market demanded it.

It's a waste. Why bother to try to make something, that is inefficient to begin with, more efficient?

Because it's inefficient? I understand that it would be better if we could simply replace the entire transportation network in one fell swoop to something incredibly efficient, but this is reality we're talking about.

We're human, we can do it. If there was enough money and manpower/motivation to do it, we would. If Obama were to enact a law that would force automakers to run on hydrogen by 2020, you know damn well they would do it. But the focus is on trying to make what we have better, when in reality what we have is shit. That's not technological advancement.

It's nice that you have faith. Others have faith that something called 'The Rapture" will make the whole thing a moot point. Why is your faith different from theirs?

Well firstly, it doesn't help them right now. It won't help them in 7 years either because this Earth is really friggin polluted.

Who are 'they'? The car manufacturers or those dealing with lung cancer?

Yeah they could use innovation; making a better technology that moves away from internal combustion would be a great start. It all comes back to trying to better something that will always be inefficient. No matter how hard you try to better an internal combustion engine, it will always waste huge amounts of power through heat and friction loss. That's the way it is.

This is not a good enough reason to not make an effort to make cars more efficient. Entropy ensures that every energy system will be somewhat "inefficient". Therefore, instead of dismissing particular technologies due to inefficiency is unreasonable. it would make more sense to mandate more efficient uses of technology, which is what this law is about.

Sure, every major automaker has hybrids now; but they're moving towards more electric based vehicles which Pope Joan has stated just moves pollution somewhere else. That's not technological advancement, that's a waste. You're still using the same amount of energy to move that hunk of metal down a road, and all that energy is coming from fossil fuels, whether it be the engine in the car or the power plant a hundred miles away.

Hybrid cars do not necessarily just move the polution elsewhere.

You have an odd definition of 'technological advancement".

If hybrid engines (or simply more efficient IC engines) are more efficient than
the others, it does mean that you are using less energy to move that hunk of meatl down the road. That's what 'efficient' means.

As I have pointed out three times already, this is only a concern if the majority of people go and buy hybrids that are then recharged from an electrical plant that burns fossil fuels.

They have to do that anyway. perhaps you haven't noticed, but the automotive industry in the USA is currently undergoing some major changes. One of the reasons behind these big changes is that the companies didn't do this when the market demanded it.

OK. So if you're going to force them to do something, then why not force them to work on technology that moves away from internal combustion? *EDIT* Or anything that involves fossil fuels for that matter?



Because it's inefficient? I understand that it would be better if we could simply replace the entire transportation network in one fell swoop to something incredibly efficient, but this is reality we're talking about.

Well why not? You people want a green earth? Well work for it. You yourself said several times that you would like to see cars gone and public transportation take over. This is along the same lines. Why don't we just invest all this money in a whole revamp of automobile infrastructure?



It's nice that you have faith. Others have faith that something called 'The Rapture" will make the whole thing a moot point. Why is your faith different from theirs?

That's low. You know it.



Who are 'they'? The car manufacturers or those dealing with lung cancer?

Those supposed innocents that cars kill.

This is not a good enough reason to not make an effort to make cars more efficient. Entropy ensures that every energy system will be somewhat "inefficient". Therefore, instead of dismissing particular technologies due to inefficiency is unreasonable. it would make more sense to mandate more efficient uses of technology, which is what this law is about.

That's where the waste part of it all comes in. Why waste the time and money on this 110 year old technology when we have the ability to create something so much better?

Do you understand what I'm getting at yet?



Hybrid cars do not necessarily just move the polution elsewhere.

You have an odd definition of 'technological advancement".

If hybrid engines (or simply more efficient IC engines) are more efficient than
the others, it does mean that you are using less energy to move that hunk of meatl down the road. That's what 'efficient' means.

As I have pointed out three times already, this is only a concern if the majority of people go and buy hybrids that are then recharged from an electrical plant that burns fossil fuels.

And this sums up my whole argument.

That is exactly what is going to happen. That's the way that automotive technology is moving. If the car companies are forced to meet these standards within 7 years, you know damn well they're going to stick with hybrids because the technology is there, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to use it and make it better instead of developing new technology such as hydrogen (which will cost a helluva lot more). The way hybrids are designed (battery packs and all that) is leading to plug in cars. All of the energy that these vehicles need is created from fossil fuels. This is not technological advancement.

That's my whole point, these CAFE standards just force the automakers to try to make crap technology better in the mean time instead of having them develop actual better technology.

Because the rest of us have to breath the carcinogenic fumes your car spews out.

Why should the healthy performance of my child's lungs be interfered with?

Get a gas mask and stop interfering with my freedom.

And you still will anyways. By the time I modify the engine for more power the gas mileage drops by a large amount.
This just makes me do more modifications.

linky (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/business/energy-environment/20emit.html)



And this is why it is sometimes good to have a centralised power that can make these decisions. Because sometimes your individual activities affect us all, and we need the collective to stop this harm from continuing.

This move by Obama should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is good, but it will also reduce energy consumption, the rate of pulmonary diseases such as lung cancer, and reduce pollution, which is even better.

I must admit that with this and Obama's recent push for universal healthcare, Obama seems like (dare I say it?) someone who might actually make a real change.

Yep, bankrupt car companies making cars that no one wants to buy and a bankrupt government pushing medical care that no one can turn down. Sounds like great times ahead.

OK. So if you're going to force them to do something, then why not force them to work on technology that moves away from internal combustion? *EDIT* Or anything that involves fossil fuels for that matter?

Well why not? You people want a green earth? Well work for it. You yourself said several times that you would like to see cars gone and public transportation take over. This is along the same lines. Why don't we just invest all this money in a whole revamp of automobile infrastructure?

For the same reason the US government is temporarily propping car companies that everyone knows shoul dbe aloowed to fail: because doing that right now would cause chnges in our economy that are too radical and risky, and could lead to even worse problems. It is frustrating for those of us who understand the urgency and the extremes we need to go, but like I said, we live in reality. And the reality is that too much of the economic system that brings us our food and medicine is tied up into the internal combustion engine. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we tried to change everything too quickly.

That's low. You know it.

Fine. We all know that hydrigen is real and the Rapture isn't. But I still doubt that hydrogen vehicles will be able to viably replace the internal combustion engine by 2016.

Those supposed innocents that cars kill.

Passing the law does not help them right now, no. But that's like saying that since medical research does not immediately benefit anyone, that's a waste of time too. It is a necessary step that indirectly leads to better air quality. And it will help a little bit this year, and a bit more next year, and a bit more after that. And we will eventually have something that will help a lot of people.

It's called progress, and it isn't always fast, and it's rarely easy.

That's where the waste part of it all comes in. Why waste the time and money on this 110 year old technology when we have the ability to create something so much better?

Do you understand what I'm getting at yet?

See above re the economic difficulties associated with radical restucturing.

And this sums up my whole argument.

That is exactly what is going to happen. That's the way that automotive technology is moving. If the car companies are forced to meet these standards within 7 years, you know damn well they're going to stick with hybrids because the technology is there, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to use it and make it better instead of developing new technology such as hydrogen (which will cost a helluva lot more). The way hybrids are designed (battery packs and all that) is leading to plug in cars. All of the energy that these vehicles need is created from fossil fuels. This is not technological advancement.

That's my whole point, these CAFE standards just force the automakers to try to make crap technology better in the mean time instead of having them develop actual better technology.

Obama is also investing in green sources of electrical energy that would expand the US's current hydroelectric and nuclear electrical production facilities, as well as looking at new sources such as tidal energy and solar energy. So, it is simply wrong to say that all of the energy needed by these vehicles is, or will be, created from fossil fuels.

And because it simply demands performance standards rather than desrcibing how auto manufacturers are supposed to meet these standards, it does not force the manufacturers to develop any one specific technology.

Get a gas mask and stop interfering with my freedom.

And you still will anyways. By the time I modify the engine for more power the gas mileage drops by a large amount.
This just makes me do more modifications.

I have no idea how this post is supposed to be a response to mine.

Yep, bankrupt car companies making cars that no one wants to buy and a bankrupt government pushing medical care that no one can turn down. Sounds like great times ahead.

Yes, it will be horrible when all those healthy people are driving better cars.

Get a gas mask and stop interfering with my freedom.

How about you get a economic system that accounts properly for externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities)?

And this is why it is sometimes good to have a centralised power that can make these decisions. Because sometimes your individual activities affect us all, and we need the collective to stop this harm from continuing.
And when that centralized power overreacts to shit, as it is doing now with this, it's a bad thing. An individual should be able to burn leaves and cut trees on his property without having to submit a fucking permit request to the fucking city. By naming CO2 as a pollutant the panicky ecofascists have made every oxygen breather a polluter. For politicians it's just another scheme to rake in more money.

This move by Obama should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is good, but it will also reduce energy consumption, the rate of pulmonary diseases such as lung cancer, and reduce pollution, which is even better.
Except that CO2 doesn't cause cancer. Make no mistake, there is shit in car exhaust that can cause cancer but unless you're suck tailpipe the odds of those things giving you cancer aren't that good for most.

I must admit that with this and Obama's recent push for universal healthcare, Obama seems like (dare I say it?) someone who might actually make a real change.
I don't think I ever believed that I would live to a see a day where so many people in America would not only be willing to give up so much of their personal freedom but would also be so hell-bent on taking it away from so many others.

Unfortunately, there's no villains, as even automotive industry leaders are gong with it.

Not like they have much choice these days.
And that's both depressing and frightening. When the government doesn't give you a fucking choice, when they've got a hand in your pocket and pistol to your neck it's scary and it's fucking wrong.

And when that centralized power overreacts to shit, as it is doing now with this, it's a bad thing. An individual should be able to burn leaves and cut trees on his property without having to submit a fucking permit request to the fucking city. By naming CO2 as a pollutant the panicky ecofascists have made every oxygen breather a polluter. For politicians it's just another scheme to rake in more money.

Well, that was a nice rant.

Except that CO2 doesn't cause cancer. Make no mistake, there is shit in car exhaust that can cause cancer but unless you're suck tailpipe the odds of those things giving you cancer aren't that good for most.

I suggest you do some research (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=medical+studies+automobile+emissions+pulmonary+diseases).

I don't think I ever believed that I would live to a see a day where so many people in America would not only be willing to give up so much of their personal freedom but would also be so hell-bent on taking it away from so many others.

I, on the other hand, and am not surprised at all to live to see the day when blatant appeals to emotion replaced intelligent debate.

And that's both depressing and frightening. When the government doesn't give you a fucking choice, when they've got a hand in your pocket and pistol to your neck it's scary and it's fucking wrong.

Fortunately, that's not the case.

Flippin' sweet. The changes put forth by the Obama admin really aren't that large, but because of the sheer volume of American cars and the major polluting already caused by them, it will make a massive difference.

Also, do you really think everybody will switch over to hybrids? Really? When it's significantly cheaper and still well within the standards set to just, oh I dunno, get a smaller petrol car, like an Astra or Barina (which I'm pretty sure are GM cars), people will do that and take the familiarity of standard petrol cars rather than switch over to new fangled hydrogen or even worse, plug-in cars.

I would personally like to see further action taken and bigger steps made, but I understand that America is massive. Baby steps are needed.

For the same reason the US government is temporarily propping car companies that everyone knows shoul dbe aloowed to fail: because doing that right now would cause chnges in our economy that are too radical and risky, and could lead to even worse problems. It is frustrating for those of us who understand the urgency and the extremes we need to go, but like I said, we live in reality. And the reality is that too much of the economic system that brings us our food and medicine is tied up into the internal combustion engine. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we tried to change everything too quickly.

I agree completely, but you have to start somewhere, and I think now is as good a time as any to start looking into and investing in another power source for vehicles. The money used to improve efficiency in an internal combustion engine should be put towards R&R for another power source.

Fine. We all know that hydrigen is real and the Rapture isn't. But I still doubt that hydrogen vehicles will be able to viably replace the internal combustion engine by 2016.

If the incentives were there, I think it could. Instead of saying "You better meet these MPG numbers" they should be saying "You better figure out a new way to power cars that doesn't use fossil fuels".



Passing the law does not help them right now, no. But that's like saying that since medical research does not immediately benefit anyone, that's a waste of time too. It is a necessary step that indirectly leads to better air quality. And it will help a little bit this year, and a bit more next year, and a bit more after that. And we will eventually have something that will help a lot of people.

It's called progress, and it isn't always fast, and it's rarely easy.

Exactly why we should be investing in other power sources now instead of the old internal combustion engine.



See above re the economic difficulties associated with radical restucturing.

Noted.



Obama is also investing in green sources of electrical energy that would expand the US's current hydroelectric and nuclear electrical production facilities, as well as looking at new sources such as tidal energy and solar energy. So, it is simply wrong to say that all of the energy needed by these vehicles is, or will be, created from fossil fuels.

And I honestly think that will take longer than hydrogen powered vehicles without the right incentives. Hydrogen power is here, it just needs to be made viable. New power stations need research, planning and construction.

And because it simply demands performance standards rather than desrcibing how auto manufacturers are supposed to meet these standards, it does not force the manufacturers to develop any one specific technology.

But it will force them too. The technology is already there for hybrid vehicles and it will be easier/cheaper to use that technology in every vehicle in order to meet the standards instead of coming up with new tech. Like I said, 7 years is not a lot of time when it comes to the automotive industry. It takes about 4-8 years to develop new vehicles. That's just develop, not even begin manufacturing.

Flippin' sweet. The changes put forth by the Obama admin really aren't that large, but because of the sheer volume of American cars and the major polluting already caused by them, it will make a massive difference.
Or rather, the sheer volume of newly sold American cars which are at or above the suggested caps. Which may or may not have implications for what you're trying to say, I don't know.

Also, do you really think everybody will switch over to hybrids? Really?
Let's hope not. Hybrids are only better than small, properly efficient combustion engines in a select number of circumstances, and worse in others. They are also more complicated and expensive to make and probably end up weighing more overall regardless of what you do.

Like you say, the current crop of Japanese and European small-car engines, using things like low-pressure, variable geometry turbos, variable valve timing and direct fuel injection and so on is probably the more realistic and economic (and less pretentious) option.

Flippin' sweet. The changes put forth by the Obama admin really aren't that large, but because of the sheer volume of American cars and the major polluting already caused by them, it will make a massive difference.

Also, do you really think everybody will switch over to hybrids? Really? When it's significantly cheaper and still well within the standards set to just, oh I dunno, get a smaller petrol car, like an Astra or Barina (which I'm pretty sure are GM cars), people will do that and take the familiarity of standard petrol cars rather than switch over to new fangled hydrogen or even worse, plug-in cars.

I would personally like to see further action taken and bigger steps made, but I understand that America is massive. Baby steps are needed.

As far as I know, the Holden Barina isn't currently sold in the US (although it was at one point, badged as the Geo/Chevy Metro). The Astra I didn't know anything about, until I googled it. It's being sold under the Saturn banner.

Or rather, the sheer volume of newly sold American cars which are at or above the suggested caps. Which may or may not have implications for what you're trying to say, I don't know.

Well, over the short term it doesn't quite have the same implications, that's true. But over, say, a thirty year timescale it pretty much does, yeah.


Let's hope not. Hybrids are only better than small, properly efficient combustion engines in a select number of circumstances, and worse in others. They are also more complicated and expensive to make and probably end up weighing more overall regardless of what you do.

Hybrid technologies are the way forward, but they aren't ready yet. They aren't efficient enough, reliable enough, or just good enough to compete with the internal combustion engine models. So while in the future I hope they will achieve the potential they should have, at the moment we'll just have to stick with the cool little Japanese and Korean cars.

Like you say, the current crop of Japanese and European small-car engines, using things like low-pressure, variable geometry turbos, variable valve timing and direct fuel injection and so on is probably the more realistic and economic (and less pretentious) option.

Eventually hybrid cars won't be seen as pretentious. They're like mobile phones in the 80's. Years down the track they'll be indispensible. Maybe.

As far as I know, the Holden Barina isn't currently sold in the US (although it was at one point, badged as the Geo/Chevy Metro). The Astra I didn't know anything about, until I googled it. It's being sold under the Saturn banner.

Well there you go. They are available, American made. Which is probably pretty important given the dire situation US auto makers are in...

Well there you go. They are available, American made. Which is probably pretty important given the dire situation US auto makers are in...

Well, after doing some more research, the Holden Barina is equivalent to the Daewoo Kalos, which is equivalent to the Pontiac G3 and Chevy Aveo, so yes it is available in the US. Also, it seems the Saturn Astra isn't selling well in the US, and won't have a 2009 model (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/28/saturn-astra-disappears-for-2009/).

Well, after doing some more research, the Holden Barina is equivalent to the Daewoo Kalos, which is equivalent to the Pontiac G3 and Chevy Aveo, so yes it is available in the US. Also, it seems the Saturn Astra isn't selling well in the US, and won't have a 2009 model (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/28/saturn-astra-disappears-for-2009/).

Shame that. I always liked the Astra.

Normally I dont agree with Gift O God.

But he makes one good point.

We cannot get rid of the internal combustion engine for at least 20 years; it took 110 years for them to get as reliable and versicle as they are, and until the next power source is just as versatile, powerful, and reliable for 20 years on one engine. We're stuck with them.

Hybrid technologies are the way forward, but they aren't ready yet. They aren't efficient enough, reliable enough, or just good enough to compete with the internal combustion engine models. So while in the future I hope they will achieve the potential they should have, at the moment we'll just have to stick with the cool little Japanese and Korean cars.
Well, a hybrid car has all the same parts as a normal car, plus some extra. Those extra parts are complex, and although their production can be streamlined and they can probably be made simpler and lighter, they still won't be simpler to make than a 'combustion engine + nothing'.

The question is when the benefit provided by this something (so the lack of emissions in these certain conditions in extremely slow traffic, given that combustion engines are now introducing automatic shut-off at standstill) starts to outweigh the added cost of making it and including it in the car. That's the day hybrids will start to make sense, and I'd argue it will take some time yet. The point is that you can't compare a Prius to a BMW X5, you have to compare it to a similar-sized VW with BlueMotion or something.

Normally I dont agree with Gift O God.

But he makes one good point.

We cannot get rid of the internal combustion engine for at least 20 years; it took 110 years for them to get as reliable and versicle as they are, and until the next power source is just as versatile, powerful, and reliable for 20 years on one engine. We're stuck with them.

And that's why now is the time to invest in other power sources besides the internal combustion engine. We aren't stuck with them. We need to decide whether we're going to invest in outdated technology or we're going to invest in something besides the internal combustion engine.

If we're going to move ahead and better ourselves along with the Earth, why wouldn't we do it with different and more earth friendly technologies (hydrogen)? Why would we invest into an outdated technology to try to make it better (the combustion engine)?

I agree completely, but you have to start somewhere, and I think now is as good a time as any to start looking into and investing in another power source for vehicles.....That's just develop, not even begin manufacturing.

And that's why now is the time to invest in other power sources besides the internal combustion engine.....Why would we invest into an outdated technology to try to make it better (the combustion engine)?

Because it's what we have to work with. I hate cars. I would love to have almost every single car factory in the world closed tomorrow, if I was only looking at stopping pollution. But people need jobs and food is still delivered in trucks and those are gas stations out there, not hydrogen stations.

We simply do not have the physical infrastructure or economic independence to simply stop using fossil fuels right now.

In about twenty or thirty or whatever years, we can seriously look at stopping our use of fossil fuels in the developed world. At that point, those companies that invested in alternate technologies will be ahead of the pack, and there is nothing stopping a car company from doing the work right now.

One question: hydrogen is not a fuel source so much as an way of containing energy, as you have to electrolyse water in order to get hydrogen and the amount of electrical energy put in is higher than the amount of chemical energy embodied in the hydrogen.

In other words, to get the hydrogen, you have to use electricity. How are you going to make the electricity?

Because it's what we have to work with. I hate cars. I would love to have almost every single car factory in the world closed tomorrow, if I was only looking at stopping pollution. But people need jobs and food is still delivered in trucks and those are gas stations out there, not hydrogen stations.

We simply do not have the physical infrastructure or economic independence to simply stop using fossil fuels right now.

In about twenty or thirty or whatever years, we can seriously look at stopping our use of fossil fuels in the developed world. At that point, those companies that invested in alternate technologies will be ahead of the pack, and there is nothing stopping a car company from doing the work right now.

One question: hydrogen is not a fuel source so much as an way of containing energy, as you have to electrolyse water in order to get hydrogen and the amount of electrical energy put in is higher than the amount of chemical energy embodied in the hydrogen.

In other words, to get the hydrogen, you have to use electricity. How are you going to make the electricity?

That's my whole point. Quit wasting money on old technology, put the money towards figuring out how to develop and use alternate energy sources. That's why CAFE standards are a waste.

That's my whole point. Quit wasting money on old technology, put the money towards figuring out how to develop and use alternate energy sources. That's why CAFE standards are a waste.

Lol...good job at ignoring all the practical implications! Tell me, do you feed upon honey and chocolate in the magical fairy land you seem to live in?

That's my whole point. Quit wasting money on old technology, put the money towards figuring out how to develop and use alternate energy sources. That's why CAFE standards are a waste.

Well, seeing as the legislation raises the standard to 35.5mpg of fuel, and it doesn't seem to specify what fuel is stated (I'm probably really wrong on this, so correct me), a switch to hydrogen would be easy. If you can't get 35 miles on a gallon of hydrogen, well, we need to take you out of the automotive industry.

In addition, emissions requirements are really easy to meet if they chose to go with hydrogen-based vehicles instead, as hydrogen vehicles produce only water (is my understanding).

Therefore, if the companies want to invest in new technology, the new technology will meet this standards easily.

(And everything that was already said about hydrogen being a storage of energy, not a source, and so on and so on was very well put - I'm just throwing out that CAFE standards are not a waste, even if you think in terms of new technology)

Lol...good job at ignoring all the practical implications! Tell me, do you feed upon honey and chocolate in the magical fairy land you seem to live in?
Probably, but what do they give you in "head in the sand" world?

There are two really good technologies that are way better than hydrogen. The first is a simple diesel-electric hybrid. Proven technology -- used for years on railroads. The second is conversion to CNG. Again, proven and used for years.

Both of these technologies would completely eclipse CAFE standards.

The catch is that the end product has to be affordable and people need to want it. Otherwise, we'll have people maintaining their old cars because the new ones suck. Having a car that got infinite mileage would be pointless if no one could afford it, or if no one wanted it.

Because the rest of us have to breath the carcinogenic fumes your car spews out.

Why should the healthy performance of my child's lungs be interfered with?
Fuel consumption doesn't directly equate to lower emissions.

Consider a diesel car consuming 4 litres/100 km vs a fuel car consuming 6l/100km....The diesel car is a much worse air pollutant IF you exclude relatively harmless (to humans [in short term], not for environment) CO2 emissions.

One fact is that a car weighing less tends to consume less fuel....What if the weight reduction comes from changing filters&cats to lighter, poorer quality materials?


So, while it's true that lower fuel consumption do tend to be cleaner it doesn't mean that low consumption should be the only short-term goal worth aiming for.



Of course, if you want truly cleaner cars then cars like this (http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk/default.asp?docId=12600) might be the answer: Ethanol/gasoline (0-100% ethanol/gasoline mix) hybrids...


btw. The link above leads to a SAAB car...A GM subsidiary that's practically been abandoned by the parent company and is on the brink of bankruptcy....How surprising for an American car company to abandon the environmental knowhow... :D

That's my whole point. Quit wasting money on old technology, put the money towards figuring out how to develop and use alternate energy sources. That's why CAFE standards are a waste.


Damn that making sense! I should also say, as Gift o God knows, I LOVE Cars, and don't believe in global warming of any kind.'

BUT.

I can see the point of getting off fossil fuels, for reasons other than so called global warming reasons, we'd be very secure as far as our energy needs go, less smog in cities and all that.

And I can still take my good ole gas drag car to the race track, running it just on a race track wont kill anything.

But the point is, we can't just stop using it. It'll take 30-40 years before we have somethings as good as the internal combustion engine to replace. Simple as that.

....There are two really good technologies that are way better than hydrogen. The first is a simple diesel-electric hybrid. Proven technology -- used for years on railroads. The second is conversion to CNG. Again, proven and used for years.

Both of these technologies would completely eclipse CAFE standards.

It has already been mentioned several times that the CAFE standards will not impede the production of other technologies that eclipse it.

The catch is that the end product has to be affordable and people need to want it. Otherwise, we'll have people maintaining their old cars because the new ones suck. Having a car that got infinite mileage would be pointless if no one could afford it, or if no one wanted it.

Are you arguing that Obama's proposed standrads would create unsellable cars?

Fuel consumption doesn't directly equate to lower emissions.

...How surprising for an American car company to abandon the environmental knowhow... :D

Yes, and that is why the new standards are for fuel mileage and emissions.

I LOVE Cars, and don't believe in global warming of any kind.

I sure wish that was the solution. But disbelief is not stopping the damage. (so says The IPCC, NOAA, NASA, the EPA the WMO, The British Antarctic Survey, the National Ice & Snow Data Center and the US Supreme Court)

Probably, but what do they give you in "head in the sand" world?

There are two really good technologies that are way better than hydrogen. The first is a simple diesel-electric hybrid. Proven technology -- used for years on railroads. The second is conversion to CNG. Again, proven and used for years.

Both of these technologies would completely eclipse CAFE standards.

The catch is that the end product has to be affordable and people need to want it. Otherwise, we'll have people maintaining their old cars because the new ones suck. Having a car that got infinite mileage would be pointless if no one could afford it, or if no one wanted it.

Neither of which even remotely tries to get away from the use of fossil fuels...
In case you weren't aware of this Myrmi, Natural Gas and Diesel are both fossil fuels, Diesel is even processed from the same crude oil as gasoline.

Yes, and that is why the new standards are for fuel mileage and emissions.

I do hope they introduced strict limits for particulate (fine particles, especially hazardous), nitrogen oxide (NOx, another quite harmful pollutant), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon (impure burning process), sulphur and heavy metal emissions....


CO2 emissions OTOH are fought best with the consumption limits.

But the point is, we can't just stop using it. It'll take 30-40 years before we have somethings as good as the internal combustion engine to replace. Simple as that.

Aye I love cars too, been working on them since I was a little shit and I love everything about them.

Anyway, how do you figure (and this is directed to everyone) that it would take so long for a replacement if instead of mandating MPG standards, the government mandated new technologies? I keep hearing this "Oh it will take so long! What about infrastructure!?" argument, but seriously, where is the proof that it will take sooooo long? You people are saying I'm living in la-la land, but the reality is that something needs to happen soon that will drastically cut pollution and that's where the money needs to be going. The bottom line is that cars with internal combustion engines still release pollution.

The problem with setting a 40% increase 7 years from now is that car companies will use the hybrid technology they have now because they don't have the time money or manpower to develop new tech. That's the bottom line. They're a business and they'll do what is cheapest for them. If you were running the business you would do the same thing too; take money from R&D for new technologies and dump it into what you have in order to meet these standards that are just around the corner. The companies only have so much money.

Aye I love cars too, been working on them since I was a little shit and I love everything about them.

Anyway, how do you figure (and this is directed to everyone) that it would take so long for a replacement if instead of mandating MPG standards, the government mandated new technologies? I keep hearing this "Oh it will take so long! What about infrastructure!?" argument, but seriously, where is the proof that it will take sooooo long? You people are saying I'm living in la-la land, but the reality is that something needs to happen soon that will drastically cut pollution and that's where the money needs to be going. The bottom line is that cars with internal combustion engines still release pollution.

The problem with setting a 40% increase 7 years from now is that car companies will use the hybrid technology they have now because they don't have the time money or manpower to develop new tech. That's the bottom line. They're a business and they'll do what is cheapest for them. If you were running the business you would do the same thing too; take money from R&D for new technologies and dump it into what you have in order to meet these standards that are just around the corner. The companies only have so much money.
point of order the American companies are in debt.

Neither of which even remotely tries to get away from the use of fossil fuels...
In case you weren't aware of this Myrmi, Natural Gas and Diesel are both fossil fuels, Diesel is even processed from the same crude oil as gasoline.

In case you haven't noticed, we don't have pocket sized fuel cells. We can't build hydrogen cars. But we can build very efficient cars, right now, that use fossil fuels. Why shouldn't that be the bridge to new technology? Of course, it should. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.

It has already been mentioned several times that the CAFE standards will not impede the production of other technologies that eclipse it.



Are you arguing that Obama's proposed standrads would create unsellable cars?

Arguing? No. It's common knowledge.

Arguing? No. It's common knowledge.Haha. That that statement is lamentably ignorant is common knowledge.

In case you haven't noticed, we don't have pocket sized fuel cells.
We don't have pocket sized ICE's either, what's your point?

We can't build hydrogen cars.
Why not? (http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/)
But we can build very efficient cars, right now, that use fossil fuels.
True
Why shouldn't that be the bridge to new technology? Of course, it should. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.
Except that's not what it seemed like you were suggesting. It appeared that you were suggesting diesel/electric hybrids or CNG vehicles instead of anything else.

point of order the American companies are in debt.

CAFE standards apply to every new car sold in America, not just American cars.

CAFE standards apply to every new car sold in America, not just American cars.

It still doesn't change that they have no money to put into R&D.

It still doesn't change that they have no money to put into R&D.

Which is why they should forget about CAFE standards and put the money from that in alternate sources of energy.

I'm tired of saying that.

Which is why they should forget about CAFE standards and put the money from that in alternate sources of energy.

I'm tired of saying that.

The thing is we have people doing that outside of the auto industry.
The gasoline engine were researched outside of the automobile industry first.
the auto industry isn't the best people to research new energy, they are not in the energy business they are in the auto industry which entails using the best technology available. Alternative energy's individual avenues are to much at risk of becoming dead ends to hinge 100,000 + jobs on.

Alternative energy belongs in a more pure research environment, or at least in research by energy companies.

Car companies still have to research the cars themselves.

Arguing? No. It's common knowledge.

I have trouble believeing you. This may have something to do with the complete lack of evidence you have presented.

It still doesn't change that they have no money to put into R&D.

The car companies can simply use the money that they were using in litigation efforts against the California standards.

Which is why they should forget about CAFE standards and put the money from that in alternate sources of energy.

I'm tired of saying that.

You never answered my question. Where do they get the hydrogen?

You never answered my question. Where do they get the hydrogen?

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070515WoodallHydrogen.html :wink:

The market for new cars is located in USA, Europe and some parts of Asia & South America. The rest is too poor to afford one.Australia? New Zealand?

Australia? New Zealand?

backwards people still riding on horse back.