[tweakmonkey]

I'd hope we'd easily top that number considering fuel cell/alternative fuel/hybrids/pure-electric, but hey, you've got to start somewhere.

WASHINGTON — Congress by a wide margin approved the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years Tuesday, and President Bush plans to quickly sign the legislation, accepting the mandates on the auto industry.

The energy bill, boosting mileage by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon, passed the House 314-100 and now goes to the White House, following the Senate's approval last week.

Click here to see how your representative voted on the bill.

In a statement, the White House said Bush will sign the legislation at the Energy Department on Wednesday.

In a dramatic shift to spur increased demand for nonfossil fuels, the bill also requires a six-fold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a boon to farmers. And it requires new energy efficiency standards for an array of appliances, lighting and commercial and government buildings.

^^ story continues here: FOXNews.com - Congress Sends Major Energy Bill to Bush's Desk, Boosts Fuel-Efficiency Standards 40 Percent by 2020 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

PS I hate Fox news. And I hate the use of contextual ads.

[Chainblade]

ya that's actually kinda shitty by 2020 considering we could easily do that now. oh well, it's better than nothing.

[ThatHideousStrength]

The world will be fucked up by 2020.

[86mcss]

Id be awesome to have 300 hp and get 35mpg

[Chainblade]

Originally Posted by 86mcss

Id be awesome to have 300 hp and get 35mpg

except this is in 12 years! in 12 years 35mpg is nothing.

[smirnoff]

My boxer shorts should make me fly by 2020.

[trs80]

Originally Posted by tweakmonkey

I'd hope we'd easily top that number considering fuel cell/alternative fuel/hybrids/pure-electric, but hey, you've got to start somewhere.


^^ story continues here: FOXNews.com - Congress Sends Major Energy Bill to Bush's Desk, Boosts Fuel-Efficiency Standards 40 Percent by 2020 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

PS I hate Fox news. And I hate the use of contextual ads.

Hybrids... yes. that's the way it'll get done i'm betting. pure-electric... once they come up with a good enough battery, sure. but until then most people don't want the limited range afforded by an electric car. Also, on the same note, electric and fuel cell cars take the carbon emissions from cars and dump them into our power generation stations [which tend to be coal... which, if i'm not mistaken accounts for as much if not more emissions annually then automobiles/trucks].

By the way, you forgot clean diesel. it just has a poor stigma in the USA, i hear it works well in Europe and has significant gains in fuel efficiency.

The real question is, will the consumers want to pay the extra costs needed for this? [Think about it, most hybrid models of autos are a few thousand more then their conventional counterparts. sure some of it is the markup simply from the "green" tech's buzz, but. not all of it is.]

I personally want a hybrid bio-diesel, that'd probably be pretty high up there in fuel efficiency... but. i's a northerner and the cold doesn't like the bio-diesel terrible much, so i'm unsure what concoctions they need to rig up to make it more viable.

[super_Chris]

Originally Posted by trs80

Hybrids... yes. that's the way it'll get done i'm betting. pure-electric... once they come up with a good enough battery, sure. but until then most people don't want the limited range afforded by an electric car. Also, on the same note, electric and fuel cell cars take the carbon emissions from cars and dump them into our power generation stations [which tend to be coal... which, if i'm not mistaken accounts for as much if not more emissions annually then automobiles/trucks].

By the way, you forgot clean diesel. it just has a poor stigma in the USA, i hear it works well in Europe and has significant gains in fuel efficiency.

The real question is, will the consumers want to pay the extra costs needed for this? [Think about it, most hybrid models of autos are a few thousand more then their conventional counterparts. sure some of it is the markup simply from the "green" tech's buzz, but. not all of it is.]

I personally want a hybrid bio-diesel, that'd probably be pretty high up there in fuel efficiency... but. i's a northerner and the cold doesn't like the bio-diesel terrible much, so i'm unsure what concoctions they need to rig up to make it more viable.

Don't forget that the large power plants are much more efficient than the tiny one in your car.

I think Mercedes is coming out with the first diesel to be released in California in a long time. I believe it's called Blue Tech or some such.

[trs80]

Originally Posted by super_Chris

Don't forget that the large power plants are much more efficient than the tiny one in your car.

I recognize this fully, but if we're offshoring car polution to coal power plants... we're taking one of the moderate sources of pollution and pulling it into one of the larger sources. if we achieve all electric cars every politician's going to shout "i voted yes to cut out X% of carbon emissions, and by golly my policy happened to work. look. now we're free of carbon emissions from cars!".. neglecting that Y% [the increase in coal plants emissions, powering the new electric/fuel cell cars] increase in a different area of emissions... making a much less impressive Z% reduction [net] on the environment. Or... to spoof the Wizard of Oz: "We're running zero-carbon-emission cars, pay no attention to the carbon-emissions from the power plants that power the cars behind the curtain".

The solution to emissions is a comprehensive one, not any one source or technology. clean diesel or biodiesel by itself probably would ramp up our fuel standards by an average 10mpg, turn it into a hybrid, maybe another 10mpg on top of that... turn it into a hybrid with the smart-cylander-disabling-thingy-from-General-Motors-r&d and another 5mpg... this still only fixes the car portion of the "contribution". it doesn't fix the power plant portion [though the above combo would not add any demand to the power grid].

Hell, i've seen fun estimates such as something as little as switching to more efficient lighting could make Europe hit its 2010 Kyoto accord emissions targets in one fell swoop Philips' Lightbulb Moment <--source here.

[Juballharshaw]

Keep in mind one of the big reasons we don't have this already is the fact that cars have become heavier in recent years to accomodate higher safety requirements. (This is a good thing) So while the engines have become more efficient, they've also had to pull around 1000+ extra lbs per car.

I predict we're going to see a higher use of turbos in cars as manufacturers try to get the MPG requirements and satisfy car buyers demands for higher power machines.

[ninefivezero]

Originally Posted by trs80

I recognize this fully, but if we're offshoring car polution to coal power plants...

Depends where you live. Seattle has 90% of its power coming from hydroelectric. Also since MOST driving outings are under 20 miles, a car that you could plug in for short trips and run totally on batteries, but then have another type of engine for longer trips would be ideal.