Congress Set to Boost Fuel Economy Limit

[TinmanMS6]

Ethanol gets ~25% worse mileage than gas in the same engine. My Flex-Fuel truck gets 12mpg on ethanol. That pretty much ensures that my tank will never see it.

That said, engines optimized for ethanol, rather than just getting ethanol switched over, can get similar mileage to gas engines. Ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline, allowing higher compression and cooler running temperatures.

 

[jred321]

people who switch their evos to ethanol get more power (not sure about MPG, people who do probably don't care anyways). just dumping in ethanol on a gasoline tune sounds like a bad idea

 

[TinmanMS6]

people who switch their evos to ethanol get more power (not sure about MPG, people who do probably don't care anyways). just dumping in ethanol on a gasoline tune sounds like a bad idea

Flex fuel vehicles compensate for the change in octane by altering the timing and such, but it's still not optimal for that fuel. In a boosted car, with higher compression, ethanol is going to do well with the right tune. Ethanol's higher octane rating would allow for more boost with less boom.

 

[1sty]

I think there are 2 legitimate reasons for pushing either electric or ethanol technologies.
1. The technology has a lot of room to grow. The effeciencies are simply not there yet, but neither was gasoline in its infancy due to its related processes.
2. Ethanol allows the US to be a central point of fuel production with crops we grow and then destroy.

Also, unless I am out of date, the majority of electricity in the US is from coal burning with is another huge resource for the US so again, pushing electric fuel helps electric companies.

If neccessity is the mother of all innovation, then congress is simply trying to impose that neccesity so that we start getting somewhere. I think Bush was correct to demand the removal of new and higher taxes being imposed on energy companies that was originally part of this bill.

Of coarse, there is also a few reasons and ways we can all see the money train here.
1. Demanding certain technologies over others that are known to be ineffecient.
2. Setting the bar rather low at 35 mpg

 

[MP3Performance]

we have one in south eastern CT. i think that might be where my power comes from when i'm at home. i know there are very few of them in the country though

There are actually over 100 nuclear power plants in the US, and provide about 15% of the energy for the country (thanks wikipedia (rei)).

I have long been fascinated with fusion power plants (ever since I saw the first one in SimCity 2000, lol). To put it simply nuclear fission is a regular nuclear power plant that we think of now (it separates atoms to make energy). Nuclear fusion joins atoms to make energy (just like the sun). It makes a significant amount more energy with much less waist, and is much safer then regular nuke power plants. The only down side is that it costs $$$$$$$$$ to make it, almost 10x more then a regular nuke plant IIRC.

As far as the 35mpg minimum goes, it is a joke. Most of the cars in Europe and Asia already get 2x the mpg that would be required. Almost all Honda and Toyota cars that come here already get the min level (except SUV's and pickup's). Something tells me with the way the US auto makers care about fuel usage, they wont even be compliant by 2020. I don't even want to get into the ethanol debate, and how there is more energy and resources required to make and transport it then you get out of it (ie it is cheaper just to buy oil).

 

[VermZ06]

I think there are 2 legitimate reasons for pushing either electric or ethanol technologies.
1. The technology has a lot of room to grow. The effeciencies are simply not there yet, but neither was gasoline in its infancy due to its related processes.
2. Ethanol allows the US to be a central point of fuel production with crops we grow and then destroy.

Also, unless I am out of date, the majority of electricity in the US is from coal burning with is another huge resource for the US so again, pushing electric fuel helps electric companies.

If neccessity is the mother of all innovation, then congress is simply trying to impose that neccesity so that we start getting somewhere. I think Bush was correct to demand the removal of new and higher taxes being imposed on energy companies that was originally part of this bill.

Of coarse, there is also a few reasons and ways we can all see the money train here.
1. Demanding certain technologies over others that are known to be ineffecient.
2. Setting the bar rather low at 35 mpg

I have to agree with this. We produce enough food to feed everyone in the world and we end up destroying a vast amount of it. Once the U.S. along with other countries make the ethanol switch to fuel their cars and homes, we will have one profitable commodity to offer the rest of the world once they finally make the switch too. Ethanol may be more expensive, but at least it's renewable, unlike oil.

The one thing I am excited for, however, is the fact that these new regulations will hopefully give birth to viable alternatives to fueling the automobile. How cool would it be to be able to choose between a gas/hybrid, full electric, or fuel cell technology automobile? That's exactly what this type of market needs...not competition between automakers, but competition between fueling types.

 

[protojason]

Sorry if it's a repost, but

Read this link guys. REally interesting stuff if you ask me. I'm more interested in the principles than having a hummer.. .


http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

heres a teaser:

"Goodwin leads me over to a red 2005 H3 Hummer that's up on jacks, its mechanicals removed. He aims to use the turbine to turn the Hummer into a tricked-out electric hybrid. Like most hybrids, it'll have two engines, including an electric motor. But in this case, the second will be the turbine, Goodwin's secret ingredient. Whenever the truck's juice runs low, the turbine will roar into action for a few seconds, powering a generator with such gusto that it'll recharge a set of "supercapacitor" batteries in seconds. This means the H3's electric motor will be able to perform awesome feats of acceleration and power over and over again, like a Prius on steroids. What's more, the turbine will burn biodiesel, a renewable fuel with much lower emissions than normal diesel; a hydrogen-injection system will then cut those low emissions in half. And when it's time to fill the tank, he'll be able to just pull up to the back of a diner and dump in its excess french-fry grease--as he does with his many other Hummers. Oh, yeah, he adds, the horsepower will double--from 300 to 600.

"Conservatively," Goodwin muses, scratching his chin, "it'll get 60 miles to the gallon. With 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. You'll be able to smoke the tires. And it's going to be superefficient."

He laughs. "Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!"


--jason

 

[TinmanMS6]

New fuel law creates haze for automakers

A sweeping piece of energy legislation signed into law this week by President Bush will, among many other things, demand a dramatic transition in U.S. automakers' product lineups that promises to create more pain for an already beleaguered industry.
A centerpiece of the new law requires the auto industry to raise the corporate average fuel economy standard, or CAFE, to a fleet-wide 35 miles per gallon by 2020 from the current standard of 27.5 miles per gallon.

Currently, the national fleetwide CAFE for light trucks and cars combined is at an average of 26.4 miles per gallon, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Only two vehicles that currently are sold in the U.S. meet the 2020 target, according to J.D. Power and Associates: the Toyota (TM - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr) Prius and the Honda (HMC - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr) Civic hybrid. Those vehicles make up a tiny slice of the automobiles on the road in the U.S. now.

In other words, Detroit has a lot of work to do, but the new standard is hardly unattainable. After all, the European vehicle fleet today already achieves more than 40 miles per gallon, on average.

But U.S. automakers General Motors (GM - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr), Ford (F - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr) and Chrysler are in financial crises, embarking on painful restructuring efforts while they bleed market share in North America. On top of it all, the macroeconomic outlook is bleak, with U.S. auto sales expected to slow next year amid a nasty downturn in the housing market.

Automakers can pay fines to the U.S. Treasury for failing to meet CAFE standards. Since 1983, manufacturers have paid more than $675 million in CAFE civil penalties. Greg Martin, a Washington-based spokesman for GM, says the auto companies also face damage to their reputation if they're delinquent on the standards in an age where geopolitics and global warming fears have made fuel conservation a popular aspiration for the public.
Martin says GM has products in the works using new technologies like hydrogen, fuel cells, hybrids and electric vehicles that will put it on a path towards reaching the new standard. Ford and Chrysler did not respond to inquiries on the matter.

"I don't think GM, or any manufacturer, can tell you with any great precision or certainty how they're going to reach the new standard 13 years down the road," he says.

Automakers lobbied hard on Capitol Hill in the run-up to the legislation, but they wound up embracing the new law. David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, says companies with a strong global presence, like GM and Toyota, are well-positioned to transition their fleets to the new standards, but Ford, and particularly Chrysler, are less so.

"If something is going to be tough for you, but even tougher for your competitor, maybe that's a good reason for you to do it," says Cole. "For GM and Toyota, this is probably good competitive news for them, because they have stuff teed up that can make this happen. It's going to be much more painful for some of the others in the business."