Not that you are incorrect, but increased mileage will still only be a good thing, provided costs do go up. And I do expect they will.

If gas doubles it will be more urgent than ever for better mileage

Yes, I think I Hate has it backwards.. higher gas prices would mean MORE savings. Maybe you really love everyone

These cars will not be environmentally friendly because of how fast they will be disposed of due to the excessive heat produced by running the air/fuel ratio lean.

And assuming that people will be able to afford new cars at that point....

why are they constantly coming out with legislation like this? it's a good idea, but completely pointless. it's called competition! gas mileage will increase at whatever rate it does no matter what "laws" or "regulations" they come out with because the car industry is very competitive... you think by not passing this law, gas mileage will not increase? quit putting unneeded stress on an already stressed industry. most of the time when they come out with these laws they have to revise them in a couple of years because technology is forever changing and upgrading anyways haha. and a lot of the time they never even reach the goals laid out in these plans... but i guess it's whatever makes the government feel like they have more control haha.

How about putting an effort into coming up with something other than a motor that uses gas to power our cars with? Oh, I`m sorry, that would be money the oil companies wouldn`t get. Or are we going to stay in the 20th century mind set forever?

pandas - this isn't legislation.

It's rules - coming out of the Washington bureaucracy. Just like far too much Obama does, he's end running Congress - and us - by having his toadies do it.

Can any of you defending this come up with possible unintended consequences of this action?

Don't you wonder why Obama continues to hold his boot on the neck of the American energy industry, even as gas prices climb close to $4/gallon again?

He wants this country to be Europe, most specifically Greece.

Do you?

Only in America - okay, what besides a motor could power a car? A llama?

Prag, not that I do not agree with that quibble about end arounding Congress but do you honestly think that our Congress can pass anything? They cannot even agree on what party they belong to, let alone what they will vote on (speaking of the House) and anything coming from the Crats is going to be shot down by the Pubs on principle. Though the Pubs oil masters might also have a say in how they vote on such a bill. And vise versa.

Our government has been broken by the Tea Party, which was actually their goal. Our Government is supposed to run on compromise and the TP want's to change that substance to molasses so that the gears get gummed up and the beast starves from inability to operate.

I do not think it is the motor that is the problem but what the motor runs off of. We already know that diesels can run on just about every oil like substance we have, even fryer oil. We also know we can use natural gas, electricity, and at some point hydrogen. We need to pick a non-fossil fuel or non-imported substance for power our vehicles and stick with that one technology and funnel a majority of R&D to that one technology. This way in the next ten years there will be a viable alternative.

If we had put all of our money into solar instead of also testing out wind farms, we could have solar cells that could power potentially an entire city block or more. We already have ones that function well on a per-house basis from the current level of research funding.

We have to get out of the mind set that old technology is fine for now because it works and start getting to work on new technologies.

So, Geowil, I guess you would prefer to see the constiution just torn up and ignored?

The government was well and truly broken long before the tea party even emerged on the scene, or we would not be in the situation we're in. This economic crisis did not happen in the past six months, it was 80 years in the making - due primarily to liberal policy coming from both sides of the aisle, calibrated to achieve maximum voter loyalty by giving away someone else's money.

As to the alternative energy screed, if the subsidies were taken away from ALL energy forms and the true costs and potential of them all were dealt with on a level playing field, we might actually see some progress.

We drive a diesel, I'm all for fuel economy. I'm not for the government end running the way things are supposed to work in this country in the pursuit of the almighty holy grail of whatever's politically popular - in this case, "green" energy.

Geowil,

I'm guessing from your comments that you are not an engineer. Just like ideas I hear from Washington - they sound great in theory, but don't work due to little things like physics...

Better add more fries back to Happy Meals at McDonalds so we can collect more used fryer oil.

Only in America, I guess you are one of those libs that believes"If Iwant it to work or exist, it ceratinly has to be possible".

Fuel economy in this range would require materials worthy of space craft to lighten the cars Americans drive sufficiently to get 54mpg. I have zero desire to pay three times or more as much so that I can improve my mileage. Economies run on cheap reliable energy and this administration seems oposed to even the IDEA of that.

THere is no clause in the Constitution that even allows the government to set such a mileage requirement.

I also appreciate your hate toward oil companies. I dare you to go for a month without using any product that oil did NOT participate in the production, transportation, or manufacture of. I know you won't accept this as you would most certainly die being unable to feed or clothe yourself and not violate the dare. You wouldn't even be able to turn on the faucet to get a drink of water.

The reason they have to force US companies to do is because they will bankrupt themselves again if not forced to keep up with the Japanese/Korean cars.

you think by not passing this law, gas mileage will not increase?

Actually, yes, that is exactly what has been going on for the past 30 years or so.

I guess you would prefer to see the constiution just torn up and ignored?

I guess I missed the part of the Constitution that addresses gas mileage.

actually tim, the reason why gas mileage did not increase very much over the past "30 years" is because in the 70s they started slapping cars with "pollution control" crap, over the next 20 years or so they continually put more pollution control on cars and and the automakers were trying to cope with having to build engines that produced less carbon dioxide and that worked with the pollution control stuff instead of having a main focus of improving efficiency and mileage... that and the fact that gas prices were a joke back then led to barely any improvement in mileage... however, these days they finally have everything figured out for the most part and that's why engines have been getting much more powerful and much more efficient at the same time... see this is what happens when the EPA gets involved in an industry too early; there's a stagger point or a collapsing point. instead of coming into an industry when it is most efficient and can cope with pollution control... personally i would love to rip a lot of the pollution control crap off my car these days and get like 5 more mpg, but that's not allowed because of the "man-made climate change" myth that the govt bought into oh so well. after all, cars are extremely efficient these days and don't produce much CO2 in their exhaust anyways.

Unless my voted representative, and not a faceless department or committee, votes for it so I can object, I want the government out of my life!!!!

Snowdragon, if the intelligence you think you have was money, you wouldn't have enough to buy a hankie to blow your nose with. Sorry Jack, I'm not a lib or a member of any party. It's about moving forward with technology, instead of staying stagnant like they have with cars, and the use of fossil fuels to power them like they have for over a hundred years. And by the way, this isn't about stopping the use of oil all together, it's about burning it to power motors. So you can stop with trying to be the great intellectual.

Wow, yet another brilliant business decision from the "clueless" administration. The timing of this one is sure to help the economy, by showing the business world how much Obama and company want to see them succeed.

I'm a proponent of cleaner tech, but 54mpg is ridiculous for anything shy of a super-efficient diesel or super-hybrid (not even the Prius/Volt comes close to 54mpg) in this timeframe!

This is basically going to screw over commercial fleets and put an even greater burden on consumer purchases of cars since people will likely have to borrow WAAAAAY more to buy a car with this added level of precision needed for such efficiencies.

Since everything is bound by entropy, let me guess where the downside is for super-efficient cars.

MAINTENANCE! All of these precision parts and incredible heat-management is going to take its toll on the engine since it'll likely be pushing the limits of the kinds of materials that will be used in the designs!

I have a feeling that this 54mpg push is more to give an unfair advantage to all-electric and maybe even hydrogen and CNG by pushing the prices up on ICE-based vehicles to the point of not being worth it in their vehicle class (e.g. sub-compacts priced like BMW's but look/handle like Civics).

Also, the extra expensive materials and engineering to produce these cars, along with the lower demand that these more expensive cars will attract will also incentivise companies to outsource even more to save on parts+labor in order to stay profitable.

While I think that ultimately switching away from civilian ICE-based vehicles is important, this is not the way to do it.

I see this piece of under-handed legislation just as dubious as the supply-side fiscal policies that have also worked wonders to screw over the middle class

How much did this agreement cost the working taxpayers?

Knowing Obama, I bet he blew another 50 billion to get the car makers and UAW to agree to this.

Obama is nuts.

Every time Obama opens his mouth it costs the taxpayers 50 million plus.

How much did this reelection scam ploy cost?

The gasoline combustion engine has been the power source for auto's for 120 years; it is time to replace this dinosaur; gasoline is the second must heavily taxed substance in America, whiskey being first, what are they going to replace the lost revenue with?

Gotta love Republicans being against cars that get better gas mileage. I guess the 7 billion in profits just announced by big oil isn't enough.

Gotta love India, they are putting out a car that runs on compressed air. Goes abou 220 miles on an air refill that costs about $2.50.

Now that's ingenuity we need here in the US.

Obama,

Leave my car alone. You already screwed up everything else you touched and tried to screw up my car with your cash for clunkers. Cash for clunkers resulted in a major increase in the cost of used cars. Now you want the price of new cars to go up also which will further raise the demand on used cars increasing their price as well. End game is everyone will have to walk cause we can't afford a $40,000 + economy car.

Wow Eric...so you want us to live like India. Nevermind the obvious safety issue of sitting on top of 4 K-bottles charged to 6500 psi which in case you don't know could send you into an eliptical orbit if comprimised (i.e. hit by another vehicle). The ignorance of you loon-bats never ceases to amaze me.

Simple math for those who think this matters. Based on my comment above and the comments that followed.

2011 Fuel Economy standard is 30.2 mpg. This is based on a vehicle with a 15 gallon fill up.

15 gallons @ the current $3.60 per gallon = $54.00 a fill up

15 gallons @ 30.2 mpg gives a range of 453 miles per fill: $54.00 to go 453 miles is 11.9 cents per mile.

NOW

15 gallons @ we'll say $6.00 per gallon in the next decade which based on current conditions is not a stretch.

15 gallons @ $6.00 per gallon = $90.00 a fill up

15 gallons @ 2025 standard 54.5 mpg = 817.5 miles a fill up: $90.00 to go 817.5 miles is 11 cents per mile.

It cost almost 1 CENT more FOR EVERY MILE YOU DRIVE! YOU SAVE NOTHING!

If gas did double to $7.20 per gallon then it would be 13 cents per mile!

If policies where changed to make it easier to drill and refine our own oil and gas where to drop in half to $1.80 in the next decade then it would cost you 5 cents per mile @54.5 mpg. THAT'S REAL SAVINGS!

But then again the cars with cost much more due to the technology that would allow it to be possible.

I understand that in the spirit of saving the planet and using less fuel, Mr. Obama is going to be given a kite to replace Air Force 1 747 to flit around in.

IHE,

Let's say that gas increases to the $6/gallon mark you listed by with the current mpg with a realistic increase for newer technology over that same time period:

Let's say that the projected standard fuel economy in 2025 is 42 mpg for a mid-sized sedan that can hold a total of 15 gallons (to keep with your main variable).

15 @ $6.00 = $90 as you stated earlier.

@15 gallons with a 42 mpg standard that comes out to 630 miles to a take of gas.

Now 630 miles to a $90 fill up comes to a cost per mile of 7 cents a mile. However you forgot an important variable in your calculations.

The car with the worst fuel efficiency has to fill up more times then the higher one.

This means that for every 630 miles the 42 mpg has to fill up again while the higher mpg has to fill up a total of 187.5 miles later.

Now, to find out the true savings of this is by working out the cost per mile of those remaining 187.5 miles then add that to the cost of the 54 mpg and then add the 7 cents to the cost of the 42 mpg car.

So first we have to find what percentage that 187.5 is of the full take of gas so we can accurately find the cost per mile:

817.5 ÷ 187.5 = 0.23 rounded up tot he nearest tenth. Now multiply that by 100 and we get 2.3%

So 187.5 miles is 2.3% of 817.5 so now we need to find how much 2.3% is of the cost per mile.

0.11·0.23 = 0.03 rounding to the nearest tenth.

This means that the higher MPG is actually 3 cents more efficient then the lower mpg and that after each fill up of the lower mpg car you waste 3 cents more then the higher mpg.

So, lets say we want to compare over the number of fill ups:

Since we know that the lower mpg car has to fill up after 630 and that the high mpg car takes 817.5 miles per gas fill up up we can calculate out how many refills have to be made over 5000 miles and then find the efficiency:

630x = 5000

x = 7.94 rounded tot he nearest tenth

817.5x = 5000

x = 6.12 rounded to nearest tenth.

So the higher mpg car requires almost two less fill ups.

So now, we know that the lower mpg car has a cost per mile of 7 cents and the higher has a cost of 11 cents.

so we now multiple out the numbers:

7.94 - 6.12 = 1.82 this is the left over fill up for the lower mpg car

7.94 · 0.07 = 0.5453 this is the total cost per miles over 5000 miles for the lower mpg car

6.12 · 0.11 = 0.6732 this is the total cost per miles over 5000 miles for the higher mpg car

Now we work out how much to add to the lower mpg car for the left over fill up:

round it down to 1.8, so we need to find out how many gallons 15 + 80% of 15 is.

15(100÷80) =

15 · 0.08 = 1.5 gallons.

so 16.5 gallons times the number of miles per gallon:

16.5 · 42 = 693 miles per the left over fill up

This 693 works out to a cost per mile of 13 cents when rounded to the nearest tenth.

So we now add this to the cost per mile for one tank of gas for the lower MPG car which comes out to 20 cents.

Now add this to the total cost per miles over 5000 miles for the lower mpg car:

0.20 + 0.5423 = 0.7452

So over 5000 miles:

42 mpg car costs 75 cents per mile

54 mpg car costs 67 cents per mile

So the 42 mpg car is:

75 ÷ 67 = x

x = 0.84 * 100

x = 84

now we need to subtract this percentage from 100.

100 - 84 = 16

So the 42 mpg car is 16% less efficient over 5000 miles then the 54 mpg car is. This means you are paying 16% more per mile over 5000 miles if you drive the 42 mpg car then if you drive the 54 mpg car.

problem is,that oil and gas has to exist first...Big problem IT IS NOT THERE!

Well the common propane tank has around 2,000-4,000 psi and the average acetylene tank goes to 6,000-8,000 psi.

Well the common propane tank has around 2,000-4,000 psi

Drop a zero and you start to get close.

There was a problem with my math at the end xD.

I typoed 0.7423 for 0.7452 and was calculating the wrong numbers for percentage.

75 ÷ 67 is actually 0.89 or 89%, which means that the lower mpg car was only 11% less efficient.

Still it does not effect the out come much, it just drops the percentage down one point to 10%.

Thanks to Shrub and Co there are no more “less than two bucks a gallon” deals to be found anywhere.

You think it will go to six buck a gallon, on what planet?

Try ten bucks and more a gallon and suddenly what we should have done during the last gas crisis in the 70s now sounds good.

That plus less carbon out the tail pipe sounds even better.

But as usual we will sit on our thumbs and let cars still run on gas because we are mentally challenged and we may finally change this status only after its too late.

Europe for the last ten years has already been paying what we soon will be paying, so instead of B&Moaning like a bunch of babies lets get started on the next generation of cars now, when we can afford it, not when we must.

Aside from global weather change, the destruction of our lands in a scramble for the last drops of the dinosaur fuels, damages to our water system looking for it, and a complete collapse of our economy as we make the oil barons the richest people on earth [oops too late for that one] , we need to change now not later.

Why should we continue policies that keep us dependent on foreign oil? Are there any foreign oil providers that are our friends ... really? Are you aware that Saudi Arabia is no longer the largest producer of foreign oil in the world? The country that supplied the 9/11 terrorists just got passed by our good buddy Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Do you like having your life in their hands?

What would happen to terrorism if we developed an alternate source of energy that is less costly than foreign oil? Where would most terrorists get their money? From a purely military perspective, a 'Manhattan Project' to develop this asset for our country would be a better investment than keeping our troops all over the middle east ... and south america ... for ever. I would rather win this war on terror with our heads rather than the blood of our sons and daughters. Oil is the elephant in the room that no one likes to talk about in the war on terror.

Government: a perpetual circle jerk...

Constituents: worse than sheep.

even if they do double the gas milage of cars The oil companies will just double the price of gas so that they can keep making record profits.

@ NBForrest

doesn't work that way. If your demand keeps dropping, and dropping precisely based on the fluctuation and height of prices, than to double the price against a halving of demand will actually cause demand to reinforce its own trend further down until it starts to become more inelastic (i.e. the consumers that just cannot/won't switch). Doing such a move would be the death-nell for big oil.

No, what big oil will do is floor the price for a decade like what happened in the 1990's and remove the cost-incentive to buying into alternatives. A bunch of short-sighted folks with big egos and little foresight will buy giant SUV's and pickups that never haul anything considered "cargo", and once again, be on the wrong side of the transaction when gas starts skyrocketing again.

I like how the automakers are already making excuses to charge more. The prices they charge for the crap they sell now is outrageous. Pick up trucks used to be cheaper than cars until they became something other than a farmers vehicle. Once they became popular up the price went and that wasn't because of new or added technology. Anything to rip off the consumer.

Jeff, Fiat bought out US control of Chrysler and our stake in GN is 27%.

All I know is our current standards are too low, and are part of the reason why we have such high gas prices today. This idea of fuel efficiency was ignored for the last 40 years and is still only now starting to catch on today! One issue, is this country loves overly large everything and also that the profitability ratios on SUVs and trucks are so much higher then the standard mid-size or economy vehicles (hence why you see such a substantial higher difference in rebate offers). The technology exists, but Americans have to start making that first step from letting go of their SUVs, and on the other side, the car manufactures have to start making those gas saving vehicles a little more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, or no one is going to buy them! It's a constant tug-of-war game going on, but eventually actions such as these will force both parties to adapt.

gday, I have no idea of how old your vehicle(s) are, or if you even own any. The autos produced today are far better than anything made previously, except for two things; the body is far more fragile than older cars due to thin sheet metal and plastic body panels and the paint is not as durable, much more prone to chips.

It is true that pickups USED to be less expensive than cars. Two things happened, starting in the mid sixties; people discovered it is COOL and more 'manly' to drive a pickup. The second is the demand for luxury car type amenities and convenience features. The demand for the vehicles and the cost of all those bells and whistles made the price go up. Manufacturers discovered quickly they could demand (and get) a much higher price for these luxo-trucks, so the price level went to as much as the market would bear.

But, I dare to assume that you regard a market based price as 'ripping off' the consumer. Would you prefer Obama set a price that manufacturers would be limited to?

"Some automakers and analysts have warned that technology required by the new standards will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical new car. But the White House says that will be offset by savings at the pump, which it said would average $8,000 over the life of a vehicle by 2025."

And what is the "life" of a vehicle? What was the cost of the gasoline? Or was the White House just pulling numbers out of its butt again?

Guess what? The automakers pull vague statements out of thier butt everytime that the government raises the gas mileage requirements. They don't even give us the courtesy of specifics - or a kiss when they try F us.

So if you're going to blindly blame Obama - at least blindly blame the car makers too. The one sided lies are getting tiresome.

Car makers come up with ways to make cars where it doesn't cost 'thousands more' everytime that the mileage standards are raised. They've been pulling that line since mileage standards have existed, and they haven't come true even once.

Sarge I'm sorry to tell you, but cars really do cost thousands more than they used to. You could buy a nice car in 1970 for $2400. Now it costs you $25,000 to $30,000. That seems to be "many thousands" more.

At any rate, too little too late. If America had listened to Carter in the 70s instead of demonizing him, the auto industry would have been making cars to this standard back in the 90s. Now it's probably just too late to avoid the real carmaggedon that'll be here when most Americans realize that they can't afford to drive anymore.

Well, there's this little thing called inflation that you failed to consider.

In 1972, I bought a new Ford that cost $4200. According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, that car would cost $24,434 today. Cars don't cost that much more now then they did then.

In 1972, I bought a new Ford that cost $4200. According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, that car would cost $24,434 today. Cars don't cost that much more now then they did then.

Interesting numbers - seriously. Thanks...

Also adding thousands to the price of a car are video screens for all the kids, super high-tech dashboards, remote starters, seats with memory, seats with heaters and cup holders all around so the passengers can fill up on sugary treats. Not to mention little old ladies who just have to drive those giant pickups which will never haul anything resembling cargo. God forbid someone should steer us (no pun intended) in a direction that may help preserve some of the world's resources for those precious grandchildren we always refer to when discussing the national debt.

@ Cap'nJim-3363895

+1 for you!

If the voters and our politicians really cared about our grandchildren's "inheritance", the moment that the WWII generation and the Baby Boomers voted in the massive deficit spending and the endless borrowing from SSI and Medicare Trusts, they would have also voted that every person within the Babyboomers would have to retire by 65 and put themselves out on an iceflow by 70 if their children won't/can't take care of them or they don't have enough savings of their own to support their retirement.

Frankly, this whole nonsense about restricting SSI and Medicare payout amounts to the under 55 crowds should be reversed! It was their idiotic generations that decided to spend themselves into a hole...well Congress, I hope you kept your receipts and the store has a great return policy for all the crap you bought from them over the past 50 years!

Why the heck should the younger generations be saddled with the debts from the excesses of the WWII and Babyboomers? Total BS if you ask me! Let their decades of not saving, spending like mad and subsidizing corporate excesses on the backs of the taxpayer through a low Fed Rate and subsidies effect them...They voted for it, their politicians represent that moronic short-sighted approach, let them sleep in the bed they made.

Independent - we experienced a 30% drop in fuel mileage in the mid 70's because of adding anti- pollution equipment - and that was WITH downsizing the vehicles. We did not recover from that loss until the mid 80's. Worse yet, all the original equipment was to try to make the fuel burn more completely - which actually caused a loss of power, or lower emissions levels by increasing the volume of air enough to make the emmissions percent low enough to pass.

I.E. all that equipment to lie about making the air cleaner.

Forget gas, buy one of these and your own air compressor.

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

We do need the best attainable gas mileage to attain the goal of importing less oil from the Middle East so we don't have to have more and more police actions and wars over there. However, don't forget the laws of Supply and Demand and effects on price of gas:

If the Supply goes down = gas price goes up

If the Demand goes up = gas price goes up

If the Supply goes up and Demand goes Down = gas price goes up

Gotta maintain profits of the oil companies and shareholders in any scenario

NASA needs to get out of the Space Business and figure how to runs our cars on something other than oil. No the GOP would block it.

Wow Eric...so you want us to live like India. Nevermind the obvious safety issue of sitting on top of 4 K-bottles charged to 6500 psi which in case you don't know could send you into an eliptical orbit if comprimised (i.e. hit by another vehicle). The ignorance of you loon-bats never ceases to amaze me.

Jeff, they gave numbers based on your questions. Including a conservative estimate of gas price increases by 2025 as well as an estimate of 15k mileage per year (pffffffft on both accounts).

Soooo... if anything, saving 8k is the most conservative estimate possible. It'll probably save more.

OBXRon

If the Supply goes down = gas price goes up

If the Demand goes up = gas price goes up

If the Supply goes up and Demand goes Down = gas price goes up

Gotta maintain profits of the oil companies and shareholders in any scenario

Good God man that was painful to read!

Please look at a Supply & Demand curve before you type ^_^

1. If Supply goes down, Gas prices go up...YES, this is correct so long as demand doesn't change
2. If Demand goes up, Gas prices go up...YES, this too is correct, so long as no new supply opens to meet the increasing demand (depends on OPEC's strength and Venezuela's mood at that moment...after all, higher demand means more business for those willing to supply, there's a lot of artificial-inflexibility in Supply because of the Cartel, not logistics, so if the cartel is weak, Supply is more elastic)
3. If Supply goes up and Demand goes down, Gas prices go up...WRONG! Increasing Supply and decreasing Demand are both individually downward forces on price, together they drop price even further.

You can draw this out yourself on a graph.

Price is the y-axis, Quantity is the x-axis

The line that slopes downward as Q increases is Demand (slopes like this "\")

The line that slopes upward as Q increases is Supply (slopes like this "/")

The intersection where supply and demand intersect is the market-equilibrium...that is the "efficient market rate" at which the market is willing to supply x-amount of goods for y-price.

It's beautifully simple, but has room for TONS of complexity and nuances.

Read up, it's possible to show with these simple lines (and the marginal ones) how market manipulation like monopolization and non-linear demand/supply curves effect efficiency, shortages/surpluses etc.

I work visually, I bet if you drew the lines yourself, it would make more sense

Remember, though, trucks fall into a different category. This isn't about restricting the choice of what you buy, but making the mileage more efficient, which by the way, car companies completely have the technology already to do. Your point, though, is answered by that trucks will always have lower restrictions because of the function they serve.

Derek,

I agree that the technology has been around for 30 years to meet the fuel standards. My family bought a VW rabbit in 1980 that got more than 40 mpg. The problem is that when I go to the car dealer as I have for the last 5 cars, I always get the model with the biggest engine available which means lower mileage (and extra money). I don't want this choice taken away.

Derek,

It is exactly ALL about limiting what people can buy.

If people have a choice between a smart car and a full sized luxury car that gets only half the mileage, but costs the same, 80% of us will take the luxury car.

It is mind boggling that after over a century, we still burn the remains of dinosaurs for our transportation needs. How did the world's energy technology lag so far behind our other technologies?

Clotho, oil does NOT come from dead dinosaurs. I guess facts seldom dent your thought processes.

OUR energy technologies are running fine, there just isn't enough rare earth elements out there to build sufficient wind turbines or solar panels to run the country. Also why would you want to voluntarily use forms of energy that cost two to three times what other more reliable sources provide?

A handy guide to our rare-earth needs and challenges

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-05/29-long-ignored-elements-could-make-or-break-clean-energy-revolution

Snowdragon, sorry, you still chose between the smart car and the luxury car. FYI, the mileage can be reached, as mentioned, by luxury cars. 'Smart' car mileage will be even higher.

No our energy technologies are by far NOT running fine,because the technology we use( the gasoline powered internal combustion engine)is fundamentally by far the most inefficient way of transferring heat energy into mechanical energy.Look at it this way,when you buy a gallon of gas at the gas station,only 12% of that gasoline you bought @ 3.60/gallon goes into spinning your tires.12%!! Thats disgustingly inefficient.The rest is wasted as heat and friction.Diesel fuel,using the principle of high compression is a little better,around 25-30%,but gasoline is horrible.It is because of the inherent design of the IC engine,terribly bad.You have four valves two cranks,a lousy way of transferring that mech energy to the wheels also.(a hydrostatic automatic tranny)It is why when it comes to driving anything enormous(a ship,train or huge trucks)most of the time what they have for driving power is huge electric motors.The motors are driven usually by a multitude of engine-generators with large diesel type engines or turbines.We need to look into Stirling engines,better turbines,better ways of driving the wheels

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011-03/shockwave-generating-wave-discs-could-replace-cars-internal-combustion-engines

Speaking of new turbine technology that could replace the ICE

Pretty cool.

Will be interesting to see if they can get them big enough for electric car use.

@ Stumpjumper

Agreed! Plus, the nice thing about turbine engines in general is that they're not as picky about the type of combustible put into the engine. Look at the turbine engine used in the M1A2 Abrams, that thing can run off of a wide variety of fuels...the turbine design really doesn't care so long as the stuff burns at the right initial temperature and doesn't leave too much soot.

I would like to see a turbine-electric car, bet it would even give a Tesla Roadster a run for its money both in top speed and range!

Next thing we need is to be able to make cheap and reliable ultra-capacitors! Then regenerative breaking and initial starts won't put as much strain on the batteries and there won't be such a milage drop on long-distance trips for all-electrics.

Not mention the additional strain on the grid that already has issues with demand in the summer months: and where do all the "green" folks think that electricity comes from....

thank you for reminding me --- i had forgotten to mention that.

Electric cars simply move the point at which the fuel is consumed to the power station. And the latest I hear is that nuclear is out of style.

Another way for Big Green to drive jobs out of the country.

Then, when you consider that EPA rules are likely going to shut down a half dozen or more coal fired electric plants....

They want us living back in caves, it appears. I would normally say a statement like that is hyperbole but ... when you have a group of people advocating for MORE reliance on electricity while simultaneously pushing to decrease the amount of available electricity ... I'm not sure what else to think.

Barry is trying to do to the internal combustion engine what Congress did to the incandescent light bulb. Which to essentially ban it by imposing impossible energy efficiency standards. I'll probably buy my last vehicle in 2015 while they engine still can provide a little get up and go when you are merging onto a freeway.

Another thing that will arise are extra fees for electric cars/trucks. Washington state was looking at a $100 fee for electric car owners to recoup the loss of the fuel tax.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014158861_electriccar08m.html

How long will it be before the Feds implement a tax on electric cars due to their loss of funds not only from electric cars but from the higher fuel mileage standards?

I'm all for better mileage, but if a person can't afford the car, what good does it do?

Cynic-3535446

GM will have a car late next year that gets 50 MPG, so the have plenty of time to get the rest. And Home Depot already carries new incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards for lighting.

As for loss of funds, you have that wrong, gas an oil we do not import is money that can then be spent here, that helps the economy, also vehicles will be smaller and lighter, which means roads last longer.

Edward, If you have a family of five you will have to go places in TWO cars all the time because they won't be big enough to hold more than four. That kind of kicks the fuel economy in the head doesn't it!

Stumpjumper
How long will it be before the Feds implement a tax on electric cars due to their loss of funds not only from electric cars but from the higher fuel mileage standards

Well, technically the "gas-tax" was always designed as a means of tying the cost for maintaining roads with the activity of those that are driving on them (by way of charging a tax on the gallons of fuel they consume).

Relatively speaking, our roads are in trouble in general since there are significantly more cars on them, the cars are heavier on average and traveling faster than before, and on top of that, fuel consumption has improved remarkably across the board, meaning that the consumption tax is relatively lower by comparison to the number of miles driven per gallons consumed...not to mention the corrupt governments that re-allocate those funds into the general fund for pet-projects.

A similar usage-tax will need to be levied on electric vehicles since they will put similar strains on the roadways as any other vehicle does. I foresee the government levying a tax with annual renewals based on a read of the odometer. Not a big deal as far as I'm concerned, and it's something that needs to be done.

I'd rather the government has funds to repair/improve our roadways than to transfer those costs to me in the form of higher maintainance and a need to buy a bigger vehicle just so I can handle all the extra potholes and grunge that a smaller car would get messed up on.

Ron

There are some problems with electric cars, specifically range, but if you could explain the others you have listed there I'd be happy to poke fun at you. I have been involved in several EV conversions at the local community college, and even Lexus's can be converted. If you can't fit into a LS400, well I'm not sure how you get out of your bed without the fire department. I'll grant you that EV's are an infrastructural nightmare, but Germany has worked this out with hot swap stations. Really, battery technology is the only thing holding back EV deployment. swapping batteries every 50-100miles is not practical in America. We are simply too spread out and too big. My big problem with EV's, and I love EV's, is that the Sierra Club sheep think they're somehow cleaner. Really, you're just trading one kind of pollution for another. Batteries are a dirty business, as is atomic power. If they really think they can power the nation on wind and water, that's hilarious. Maybe you just put a little HOPE in the tank, and it'll run on that.

i agree ----- how would swapping batteries work ??? ---- if your battery is new and you're swapping for one that's 5 years old already, or one that's seen more use, there's no way i go for that deal. ----- i haven't tried the LS400, but was unable to sit up in the ones i tried, albeit those were small cars and not the mini-vans. ---- being tall is a problem for me, even with gasoline cars, which is why i drive a minivan, ... that, and i need to haul things around. ------------------------------------------------- as far as cold weather goes, how long before you get heat, and how much heat do you get before you deplete the battery ??

The heat is instant on. It works just like a space heater. The Isuzu we built this spring takes about a 10% hit in range. Talking to one of my German friends, the way I understand it is no one owns the batteries. You just pay a swap out fee. It's only supposed to take like 5-10 minutes to do the swap, which is pretty comparable to gassing up. I would assume there is some kind of oversight when it comes to the quality of the batteries so station owners aren't selling "bad gas". I am not sure this system would work here, with current technology, both because of range, and because of consumer attitudes. In Germany having to stop every 100 miles for "fuel" isn't as big of a deal, but here we have to drive much greater distances. Also, Americans like to OWN stuff, even when it's not in their best interest.

An LS400 is a Cadillac sized car. We converted one just for people that make the argument they can't fit in an electric car. I'm a 6'4" 300lb mechanic, and believe me it's smooth and classy with plenty of room. I love taking the students with the I need a "big car" so EV's suck attitude for rides in it LOL. Really like I said it's about getting battery technology to where it needs to be, and electric cars will offer you a very good experience. We have a 1500 that's been converted for the EV program also. GM actually donated the stuff for the build to the school back about 5 - 7 years ago. I do understand a lot of your concerns, but really I believe that once batteries get where they need to be you'd be pleased with an EV. Now, while I love the EV's I am extremely concerned at how fast the Obama administration is trying to ram them through. The battery technology is not ready yet. Now, I am not sure what the best way to foster that development is, but the current trajectory is just going to make people angry. Really there isn't any reason that you couldn't make an EV that's a minivan. Toyota used to put motors under the front seats of its vans, so why not batteries?

Man, I just had an idea. I typed it out and then it occurred to me that I shouldn't share it LOL. Anyway, I'd encourage you not to blast EV's for the wrong "traditional" reasons as really there isn't too much they won't be able to do that I.C. vehicles do now. I get so angry when I hear a Limbaugh type talking about how no one wants to buy some tiny junk electric vehicle, which really shows how far up his backside his head is on this one. I would encourage you however to attack on the point that battery technology is way behind where it needs to be, because somewhere someone really let us down on that. Maybe we let ourselves down? You can't force catch-up like Obama is trying to do. It's just going to turn people off to the future.

Battery swapping is the key to a viable EV transition uness we figure out a way to cheaply and cleanly produce super-capacitors that can rapidly charge an EV-based vehicle to go long distances.

From a business standpoint, I see the swapping looking like being a member to a battery exchange much like having an ATM card or a gym membership. One drives to any station that supports the infrastructure to quickly reload batteries, if your membership is supported by that exchanger, then you get a discounted rate, if you're not, you must pay whatever retail would be less the value of the batteries you swap.

The stations themselves would charge the batteries off of the grid so that each customer buys a battery that's fresh and fully charged. The station would participate in a battery recycling/refurbishing program and ship off old batteries for new ones from a central supplier, much like how stations currently get refilled with gasoline/diesel.

For something like that to work, I foresee a couple of important things need to happen:

• The government needs to set laws to standardize the means that batteries engage with the vehicle (size, weight and maybe location). This will prevent service stations from having to buy into all sorts of ridiculous proprietary sub-groups as if you could only buy gas from Toyota-brand stations because otherwise the nozel won't fit in your Toyota's tank.
• The government needs to mandate when a battery is no longer viable and must be sent for refurbish/recycling (e.g. no longer capable of maintaining 70% of its charge for 90% of its required timeframe). This will prevent service stations from stockpiling batteries and dropping off of the program for refurbishing/recycling program and just reusing batteries that could either damage the vehicle or be a hazardous waste issue for the car owner.
• The government needs to create market incentives for each member in the supply-chain.

1. DOMESTIC Battery-Producers and Recyclers/Refurbishers should get tax incentives and subsidies for how efficiently they can successfully turn around batteries and how much energy they take from the grid to do it, adjusted by the total output of the battery they produce. Then, going foreward, the producers should get additional incentives based on the longevity of the battery (i.e. a unique identifying code on each battery is used to track each time it's serviced and how many times it has been charged).
2. Stations should get incentives for how much energy they can acquire to charge the batteries without tapping into the grid. This calculation would be based on the number of EV's they service in a year, divided by the number of installation bays at the station times the KWh of green energy produced on site at the station, used by the station. (There would obviously need to be a cap, but the idea is that a net-neutral energy station and a net-positive energy station would get incredible incentives if they also service a large number of EV's AND they have a fair number of installation bays.

Thoughts?

Doubling the gas tax would only raise it an average of 48 cents in most states (federal and state combined average). If it was only federal, it is only 18 cents per gallon.

Or they will enact a mileage tax, something that has already had some discussions about.

More likely, the oil companies will raise their prices to compensate for their lost revenue due to lower sales volume. The answer to lower government revenue is to reduce or eliminate the tax breaks the oil industry currently receives to reduce or avoid paying taxes on their profits. We can start by eliminated the oil depletion allowance.

It's not about saving money at the pump. It's about using less oil.

Even with higher taxes its better collect the money here than to send it to the middle east

@ someotherguy-1373018

You're misreading the demand curve.

If supply stays the same and demand decreases, the price will drop, not rise

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

Now, depending on OPEC and the Big Oil's oligopolistic strength in controlling supply, they may try to cut back on supply to buoy the price, but if the demand curve maintains the same elasticity (e.g. slope) then there will be even fewer barrels of oil purchased at the buoyed price than if OPEC/Big Oil didn't restrict supply at all.

In the short run, buoying the price will reap a higher marginal profit but a lower total revenue compared to the unbuoyed price where the characteristics of the returns will be reversed.

In the long run, the buoyed price will further incentivise the market to switch to alternatives, which will cause the demand curve to recede even further to the left and maybe even become more inelastic as fewer remaining buyers making up the aggregate demand are able to switch away, but have a very limited purchasing volume no matter how pricing changes.

I understand how the supply/demand curve is supposed to work, based on economic theory. However economic theory presupposes true competition, which may or may not exist in the real world. A case in point; the cost of gas is much higher this year than last, yet according to all the info I've seen demand is flat to down and supplies are adequate. So much for economic theory.

@ someotherguy-1373018

I understand your complaint about competition, but competition, be it highly competitive, or uncompetitive, does not influence the demand curve (in the short-run), but merely the supply curve. And the less competitive the supply-market, the more closely that the suppliers produce where their marginal revenue equals their average variable cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_profit#Monopoly_Profit_-_Basic_Definition

There's also plenty of economic theory to support the current market's behavior.

First, regarding gasoline at the pump not following oil's downward trend as quickly is called "sticky pricing". It's a behavior seen amongst oligopolies trying not to start a price-war on an otherwise fungible good. The price of the good is significantly above its variable cost, and there's a lot of room to drop that price to capture marketshare, however, each competitor is able to drop price almost equally efficiently, meaning that all each competitor will successfully do is destroy profits in the industry, not capture the other's market.

Next, there are two separate pricing factors that are influencing the price of crude oil. Speculation and Supply. Speculation has caused most of the wild short-term swings in the price of oil over the past couple of years, and it is also because of that speculation that companies like JPMorgan are now one of the largest owners of crude as they are waiting for prices to sufficiently rise to offload their glut to refiners.

I don't think you should be so ready to throw out economic theory. This stuff is testible and has been shown time and again to have pretty good predictive value.

Except that all of economic theory is an imaginary line. It's based on nothing at all, basically. The purported value of something means nothing compared to actual value of survival. Not to go "fight club" or whatever, but seriously... environmental theory should be MUCH more integrated into economic theory simply due to one simple term... "sustainable". It should be expected... not just expected, encouraged. Otherwise... all economic theory does is, at one point or the other, run companies into the ground.

@ clinpsych

Far from it. Companies run themselves into the ground because they make decisions that are only valuable to them in the short-run and not the long run.

The decision of big corporations to focus on shareholder wealth and not sustainable long-term growth is what put GM in the position that nearly killed them (among numerous other companies).

Also, regarding your gripes about economic theory. It's based off of market behavior, makes a prediction, and tests whether that prediction can successfully explain the data. The fact of the matter is that a lot of basic economic theory is testible...that's why its a theory and not just a hypothesis.

I'm not quite sure why you trailed off on the "sustainability" kick. Any company focusing on long-term growth needs to keep a careful eye on changes to their systemic and unsystematic risk. But most companies do not. They're run by executives that are less concerned about where they put the company in 20years and more concerned about where they put the company in 5years. Executives want to max out their pay packages and move on. They are there to please shareholders, that is all. Well, shareholders are a dime-a-dozen and don't care about a company's ability to stay viable in the long-run, just the short-run. This has been the corner-stone of American-Business.

Like you, I want foresight and long-term-planning that focuses on future success. The problem is that executives don't care about making life easier for "the next guy", they want as much pay as they can get, and leave the company with a higher stock-price than they went in with. To hell if they've set the company on a collision course with oblivion for that quick buck right now! Look at AIG for a perfect example.

However, I want us voters to be more aware of economic theory and market functions. The average person is being manipulated because they don't even realize how they're being played.

For example:

• Trickle Down doesn't work. It has no predictive value and repeatedly has shown to not influence demand in the slightest. Trickle down only serves to enrich suppliers at the expense of taxpayers
• The Laffer Curve is far from apex and really only applies at tax rates above 60%
• Public Good and Positive Externalities are critical to the survival of this country's prosperity. We need more public funding in education, infrastructure, R&D, exploration and social safety-nets, NOT LESS! Losing the middle class will kill the private sector, not enrich it. But right now, the private sector is essentially cashing in on the middle-class by exporting jobs, influencing elections and lobbying to keep the Fed Rate low and the US in a consumption spiral.

The problem is, there are a number of self-proclaimed "conservatives" that are anything but; and they command legions of followers that sincerely believe the opposite of what I mentioned in my bullet-points. Never questioning the validity. It's these ignoramuses that are desperately handing over the wealth and prosperity of our nation in the hopes that their blind support of the uber-wealthy will bring them back their livlihood.

I hate to break it to everyone, but ultimately enriching the wealthy beyond their own level of productivity only leads to Feudalism, not prosperity.

Enjoy being a serf

Right. Actually I'm a bit confused by "far from it" followed by agreeing with what I was at least trying to say? They make decisions good for the short run, that's exactly what I meant by "not sustainable". The imaginary "stock value" is just that. In fact... the whole stock market is essentially a bunch of empty nothing... stocks aren't actually worth anything.

My point about tying it into environmentalism is simply because it's corporate lobby that distracts from everyday self interest that SHOULD precipitate taking action... but that would detract from quarterly profits (not stop them mind... it'd simply detract). I absolutely agree that CEOs tend to think about THEIR money, not even their company, much less the consumer. None of that makes much sense, whether you tie in environmentalism or not. Sustainability (with or without an environmental comparison, but ESPECIALLY with) should have always been expected. Expected... not forced to happen. But, you have people much like you mentioned trying to convince others that some sort of "expectation" equates to interrupting the "American way" of making money. Well... why the H isn't sustainability/responsibility "the American way" in the first place? If you can't afford to do it, if it doesn't work, if it isn't helpful... it simply shouldn't have been done in the first place. Your business wasn't sustainable, and it isn't anybody else's fault for pointing it out. It's your company's fault. Why isn't this the mindset?

@ clinpsych

Oh I see, I got side-tracked by your discussion of environmental theory not playing a part in economic theory.

I argue that economic theory does include environmental theory. Economics deals with finite resources and changes in "systemic risk" which is bascially a change in the operating environment that a business does not have direct control over. That environment can be economic, political, environmental or all of the above.

Why isn't [sustainability] the mindset?

I'll try to give the short explanation.

Imagine if the buggy-wip industry had a powerful lobby. How tirelessly would they work to prevent the automobile and train from becoming the mainstays of transportation in the US.

In short, it's the status quo. Change is hard, unpredictable and expensive. It behooves a business to work very hard to achieve consistency, otherwise they cannot predict revenues well, and if they cannot predict revenues well, their shareholders get pissed. Why do you think the most rapidly changing companies that take the most educated risks either started out doing that from square-one, and ignore shareholder sentiments (Intel/AMD/Google) or they decided to go LBO and ditch shareholders entirely (Virgin).

There are better alternatives, but the dinosaurs don't want to evolve...that's hard and expensive, so they'll fight progress until the alternatives are so much more cost-effective that they will have no choice but to change course for at least 10x the cost at 200% the pace, or they will die in massive numbers like the music industry.

I am chuckling a little, because I'm not sure (still) what we ostensibly disagree upon. Other than the music industry (what?). But anyway... of course business will always work to furnish immediate results.... just plain period, no matter what. What I am talking about is expectations from consumers...

Why isn't the attitude do it right or don't do it at all? From consumers? It shouldn't matter in the end what a theory based on an imaginary baseline says compared to this question.

@ clinpsych

Per the music industry, I'm alluding to how they fought tooth and nail to try and justify the prices they charged for music by attempting similar things that Hollywood and TV tried when the VCR became available for the average consumer. It took iTunes to really drag the industry by the nose into safe(r) arenas to sell their product, where before, the music industry largely fought any movement into digital space.

Why isn't the attitude do it right or don't do it at all? From consumers? It shouldn't matter in the end what a theory based on an imaginary baseline says compared to this question.

It depends on the product. Consumer sentiment indeed matters depending on the elasticity of the demand. Look at Organic and Cruelty-free produce. Consumers that purchase this stuff are willing to pay a premium to get it. Because there's money in it, many producers are changing course to make inroads on that revenue stream. And just as interestingly, there are groups like Tyson and Monsanto that have successfully lobbied to label their products "organic" even if those products contain GMO ingredients or are GMO themselves. Also, regarding cruelty free, look at the successes that Halmark farms and others have had with making it illegal for people to bring survailance equipment to spy on the activities of these groups, particularly given that they've shown several offenses of animal cruelty, well beyond even many base-lines laws against animal cruelty, let-alone things that garner the "cruelty-free" label.

You already can get engines that grab over 50mpg.... It is called diesel...

So everything will be diesel? What are you saying?

Well, diesel is the superior system. There is a reason all commerce and agriculture lives and dies by it. It no longer has the environmental and noise concerns. It really is time to go that direction honestly.

...or biodiesel. Convert those McDonald's drive-throughs into fry-o-lator fuel stations. ;-)

I agree Eric,diesel has a lot fewer problems that gasoline

diesel is the better way to go.No ignition system needed so no spark plugs to foul,far better fuel-energy ratio and far far better mileage.You go a lot farther on a gallon of diesel than you do gas.It is more xpensive but it is worth it.All of Europe as well as a lot of the rest of the world runs on diesel which also is home heating oil.

@ dave-1582577

Why do you hate America?

hehehe...don't you know that demanding that our industries take routs that improve efficiency and spur overall long-term growth is job-killing?

"I wanted to put a bullet through the head of every panda that wouldn't screw to save its species"

-Fight Club

Hey Mark, You sound like a True Intellectual Giant . So if were Not burning foreign Oil and we have None of our own nor are we drilling . What exactly do You think we will be powering our economy on ? That's assuming that we have one ? Windmills , Wave Power, Solar Panels ? Remember, i said to Power the U.S. Economy, not a Car the size of a Roller Skate.

This won't be legislated, it will be rules enacted by the DC bureaucracy.

And if you were a rational thinking individual, Mark, you would hate it too, since no one in this country was given an opportunity to vote on that bureaucracy and yet they can control our lives.

Mark....a true image of a leftist stuck in their own little fantasy world where NOTHING is their fault!

Wake up Mark, the world doesn't revolve around you!

Mark, We can get off foriegn oil in less that two years, if we would only drill for our own oil. Wait, Obama doesn't like that idea, does he.

Hey Mark R-638735, you want off of foreign oil? how about natural gas. The technology is in use in commercial fleets and we have lots of it. all you have to do is insist that the car makers provide them on their lots and that gas stations provide the natural gas pumps which they already have piped all around the country. All you have to do is out-bid the Oil Companies for some of that "Good Representation".

I could seriously see Republicans trying to create coal-powered car technology, in order to produce domestic fuel.

Mark, you would hate it too, since no one in this country was given an opportunity to vote on that bureaucracy and yet they can control our lives.

Seriously? You can look at the Congress as it currently works and make a statement like this? Thanks to the Tea Party, they can't vote to control their own bladders and you want them to vote on every little regulation, even the ones like this that are so obviously beneficial? Did you just stop thinking when you got to the end of this sentence, or what?

We can get off foriegn oil in less that two years, if we would only drill for our own oil. Wait, Obama doesn't like that idea, does he.

Simply not true. Even T. Boone Pickens doesn't believe this and he's a lot more authority on the subject than you do. There isn't enough domestic oil to last more than a few years. Bad idea.

Clotho,

We can produce gasoline from coal today using technology from WWII Germany for only $2.40 a gallon. If spend a tenth what we'll spend to get cars to 54mpg we could probably get that down to $1.75, half what we pay today for a gallon of gas.

Tim that is a bald faced lie about oil only lasting a few years!!!!!!!!

It's the EXISTING wells that will only last a couple dozen years we have many many BILLIONS of barrels of untapped reserves.

How is this beneficial, Tim? If people demand smaller, more efficient cars, wouldn't the car companies be smart to make them - which doesn't require a bureaucracy? Yes, and in fact that has happened, finally.

Do you remember how much trouble Detroit got itself into and why? I'll remind you - they ignored the demands of the American people and continued to make oversized, overpriced, inefficient cars. People bought Toyotas, and we bailed out Detroit. In a nutshell, of course.

Speaking of thinking, think beyond the end of your nose.

If these cars get such great gas mileage, how will the government - both state and federal - make up the lost revenue that they get from gas taxes? Higher gas taxes? So what have we, the consumer, really gained?

If we switch over to electric, where will we charge the electric cars - and how will the government make up the lost revenue from ALL gas taxes? And how, if not by coal which powers the majority of electric plants now, will the plants that make the electricity for the cars create their power? You do understand, this is just shifting the energy burden around - not eliminating it, right?

Do YOU want a milage tracker in your car, whereby which the government sends you a bill every month from the mileage you drove?

Where exactly does it end, this government control and manipulation of our lives and how do you so willingly buy into it? More importantly, do you not see the consequences?

That oil has to exist first and in large quantities that willlast us more than a few months

Tim that is a bald faced lie about oil only lasting a few years!!!!!!!!

Well, I'll try to ignore your ignorant and rude response and simply insist that you provide actual evidence to support your position in the form of exactly (or even roughly) how much oil is proven to exist with U.S. borders. According to the EIA we imported 361,748,000 barrels of oil in May. Even if we stay at that level (which is highly unlikely) that's 4,340,976,000 a year.

So, smart ass, exactly how much oil do we have?

How is this beneficial, Tim? If people demand smaller, more efficient cars, wouldn't the car companies be smart to make them - which doesn't require a bureaucracy? Yes, and in fact that has happened, finally.

Not really. Average fuel efficiency has not changed significantly in 30 years. That's how it's beneficial - by using less oil.

Contrary to Free Market Religious Fanatics, there are many, many things that do not get solved by the free market. In fact, the "free market" value proposition is actually based on the opposite, i.e. scarcity. Using more oil, thereby making it scare, leads to greater profits - which is exactly what we're seeing lately. Reducing fuel consumption is in direct opposition to the "Free Market" founding principle.

Tim that is a bald faced lie about oil only lasting a few years!!!!!!!!

Annual U.S. Oil consumption: 6.8B barrels (18,690,000/day); Source: U.S. CIA

Proved U.S. Oil Reserves: 22.3B barrels; Source: U.S. E.I.A.

That's about 3.3 years' supply.

But, unlike you, I will not call you a liar, but will assume that your statement was made in ignorance of the facts, as well as courtesy.

Wow, the derp is strong in this vine

dbrew,

I think you are trapped by wishful thinking because that car will be closer to $250,000.

thumbs up on your post!!!

Even if we drilled for all the oil we have, it would come nowhere near meeting the US consumption. Your answer means nothing.

Oh, and did I actually see a right-wing American telling us we should do what Russia, India and China are doing? Two dictatorships and a country with among the highest percentage of poor in the world?

Supporting proper care for the environment is not left or right, unless you are one of those people who can only think in binary terms, i.e. everything you disagree with is "leftist".

Charlie, you don't know a thing about oil, the U.S. and Canada have the largest oill reserves in the world, dwarfing those of the entire MIddle East.

Those who feel that America can drill its way out of this problem really do not understand the oil industry or how oil drilling works. First of all, it should be noted that the known US oil reserves are about 21 billion barrels, and it is estimated that there are an additional 130 billion barrels still yet to be discovered. This SOUNDS like a lot (and it is) until you put it into perspective with these two facts:

1. The US uses close to 20 million barrels of oil a day. So, we would burn through our known reserves in about 3 years. Assuming the estimates on undiscovered reserves are correct AND we were actually able to find it AND we were actually able to extract it, this is only 17 years worth of oil at the current rate of use. Of course, as the population increases and more cars hit the road, the rate of usage will only increase. Additional fuel economy may drive usage down, but a) we still need oil to make laptops, iPhones, toothpaste, toilet seats, drugs, carpet, shampoo, fertilizer, etc., and b) higher fuel economy tends to cause people to drive more and therefore use up more fuel.

2. There is also the problem of RATE OF PRODUCTION. In other words, how many barrels of oil can we suck out of the ground in one day, AND can that rate keep up with the rate of usage? The United States currently produces around 7 millions barrels of oil per day. In order to keep up with domestic usage, we would have to TRIPLE the number of oil wells. Also, a lot of this oil is in VERY difficult to get places, like deep water off the continental shelf. As opposed to drilling a hole in the ground in Texas, discovering and drilling for oil in the ocean is a horribly expensive, slow, and dangerous process. So, it would take a long time and a lot of money to get the wells in place, and then their rate of production still would not be able to keep up with domestic demand.

The only way the US would be able to wean itself from foreign petroleum would be to:

1. Increase domestic production as quickly as possible.

2. Cut usage in half by demanding FAR higher fuel economy standards - standard way higher than 50mpg.

3. Make mass transit WAY more readily available so that if you live near a big city, you don't have to own a car unless you just want it for the weekend. However, this would cost trillions since we have spent the last 50 years dismantling our railroad system. It pains me to see the old, overgrown railroad right-of-ways that COULD have been used for commuter light rail.

Long story short - its too late to do anything about it now. We do not have enough domestic fuel, time, money, or political will to do what needs to be done to solve this problem. The United States (and much of the developed world dependent on oil) will collapse in the next couple of decades. The Amish and Amazonian tribes will be the only ones spared the pain of this collapse.

@ Will-1091847

While I agree with your assessment of the limitations of our oil reserves and ability to exploit it meaningfully. I disagree with your forecasted outcome

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they've exhausted all of the other options"

-Winston Churchill

Personally, I believe that the US will make the switch successfully, but it will happen only after the large oil lobbies exhaust all of their power over the government. Right now they're still too powerful...look at how they've got the GOP jumping through hoops the same way that health insurers had the Dems jumping through hoops on the HCR bill.

The technology is here, and it's improving and getting more pervasive. Because it's no longer in the hands of just a few producers, it won't be as easy to compell and lobby the outlier like it used to (like how GM stupidly quit the EV1 due to lobbying pressure). In some ways it's fortunate that we had two major oil crises in such short duration that there are fewer people who are willing to buy inefficient vehicles and increasingly see the risks of depending on energy from foreign sources.

That kind of consumer demand shifts will be a game-changer for the big conglomerates, who will either stubbornly refuse to change and become increasingly irrelevant, or they will eventually shift gears and really start changing the game in an attempt to outpace their other major competitors (though I don't see the latter happening until it's almost too late to change).

It's based on JUNK SCIENCE. This is nothing more than Obama once again screwing with the people. He WANTS THIS COUNTRY BROKEN!

They can already hit a 52 mpg standard on diesel cars in Europe. It isn't junk science. As long as it fits four people comfortably and can hit 65mph in a reasonable period of time, I don't care about the power that i'm never going to use.

For most people, purchasing a v6 is total overkill. It is like having a 1200watt quad core gaming rig sitting around when all you do is e-mail and use facebook...

AnnieRich- What college did you get your engineering degree from? And a people or species that is too dumb to change and becomes extinct because of it deserves to parish.

Who says she has a degree...........or any formal education for that matter?

Eric 97 -- Seriously. My favorites are the Corvettes I see sitting in traffic at stop lights, or trying to speed and cut in and out of traffic on the freeway, only to get pulled over by the highway patrol. Real life isn't a video game and sometimes being practical is the smart way to go.

@in agreement - Just a little jealous, are we?

I think we should declare it treason to be a US citizen owning so much as a paperclip in a foreign country and start lopping the heads off of these job exporters. Bring the jobs back here and execute all the illegals in this country. We should also force emerging markets to buy our wares with the full might of the US military to back it up. Buy US and support our workers or die... I think it is a pretty simple solution to our economic crisis.

This is a national crisis and you are either with us or against us. If you are a US citizen who fired his employees here in favor of Chinamen, you are against this country and its hard working citizens.

No one said we needed to act democratically to the entire damned world. Democracy is for our people. All those other foreign rats can live at our mercy.

just what he wants. ANY PLACE he can screw us he's going to.

AnnieRich

Don't be such a DA, we have had federal gast tax for years, take the rock off your head, poke it out and look around.

The problem is that they are not goals, but mandates. I am an admitted gearhead and love the latest gadgets with the most power available. The only thing that will change the mindset of people like me who love their cars is a huge price in the cost of fuel.

Today, even at $4/gallon and driving 10,000 miles per year at 25 miles per gallon, I will spend only about $1,600 on fuel per year. If I have to pay $8,000 extra to get 50 miles per gallon it will take 10 years to make up for the fuel savings - not a great return on the investment.

CVA,

What does the "VA" stand for because the "C" obviously stands for Communist.

The thing that has repeatedly shown itself to be a failure is GOVERNMENT planning for economies and production. Otherwise Carter could have planned himself out of his recession, right.

History is repleat with examples of Government managed production falling on it's face. THe Soviet Union fell because they could barely get toilet paper to the market, much less food and appliances.

FYI Vehicle life is gauged to be 10 years, 3X life 30 years. When tested in a validation lab we tested parts for 3X life expectancy, it could fail after 1X life, but we tested till 3X life to determine component life expectancy. Just thought you should know.

You are so very wrong. It was the Stonecutters. They also made Steve Gutenberg a star.

I don't understand your point. More mpg should equal less. Simple math 101. It will almost double todays standards.

What the hell are you talking about. Your comment makes no sense.

You might try taking a class in economics where the subject of elastic demand is discussed. When the price of a product declines, i.e. the cost of gas per mile driven, consumers are very likely to consume more of that product. The cost of driving is elastic, just like practically everything else. I am afraid that this is not simple. Thinking is hard work; that is why so few people like yourself do much of it.

Because I wouldn't want to drive 10 miles to work when I only need to drive 5 miles. I'd rather go to the Target 3 miles away than get another absolutely fascinating tour of suburbia on the way to the Target that's 6 miles away. And I can pocket the difference in cost of gas.

Hydrogen cell fuel is a fantasy. Understand chemistry. The energy it take to separate the hydrogen atom from whatever it is attached to would equal the energy you would get from using the hydrogen as fuel.