54.5 is the top, not the average. The required MPG rating is based on the vehicles footprint. (look it up if you don't believe me)
Now think about it. Make the vehicle bigger, and your MPG requirements decrease.
BRILLIANT. So they've just mandated that vehicles increase in size - again.
Earlier CAFE standards birthed the sport truck and FUV (aka: SUV).
Now if I really wanted to save the planet by using less fuel (and dastardly CO2), I have to risk my life in a sea of larger and larger yahoos talking on their cell phones, texting, and watching their 17" screens while driving in their monster-mobiles.
Govment is, , , - yeah we need another change fer sure.
Interesting, Everyone argues if this is good or not. No one asks how can Obama assume the power to designate this standard. Not one of our elected Senate or Congressional Rep. voted for or against it. Transformation complete! Welcome to the United Socialized States and thank you for complying.
Adding taxes to the cost of gasoline is probably the best way to increase MPG. Then car designs, and MPG, will be market driven. To avoid serious economic implact, the taxes should be raised slowly and with advance warning. One problem is the ripple effect that increased gas (and diesel) cost has on the economy. For instance, shipping costs going up impacts the cost of everything. It would be necessary to avoid that ripple effect for legitimate business transportation. It is almost always worse to create change through regulation rather than through market forces. When government gives rebates for buying specific technologies (like electric vehicles) they are choosing for us rather than letting us choose what we like.
Energy efficiency has to be improved. The greenhouse effect is real and CO2 has to be reduced. This will result in big changes. We shouldn't complain about it, we should view this as an opportunity. Energy in all its forms will be more expensive, but if the money is spent here and not sent to the middle east, then at least it will help our economy and our country. This is going to be a heck of a business opportunity.
I am David Wofsey, the inventor of the Sonic Spark Plug, US Pat 5,610,470. Todays present objective in the Automobile Market is Gas Mileage that I am continually quized. Unfortuneately, very few people, including government, and industry understand combustion in the automotive cylinder. Therefore, an Oportunist Market has developed. The major problem is to extensively increase mileage, energy is developed by the splitting of the Nitrogen Molecule through the process of Lean Burn. Mainly, Turbo Chargers, Computor Chips, and resetting of the Oxygen Sensor Reference. Combustion in the automotive closed cylinder is Ozone with the translation of Oxygen to a higher energy level resuting from increase of temperature and pressure. The Automotive Engine would not function if this translation did not take place.. When Ozone reacts with a split Nitrogen Molecule, 226,000 calories per mole are released, and the NOX product, NO3 which is the Nitrogen Ion that is chemically active, and could form Nitric Acid. In its release to the atmosphere, it can effect the Hemoglobin of the Blood in high concentration.
My major concern is the effect on Photosynthesis. There are two Potosynthesis Cell Centers. System II breaks the water molecule to release Oxygen. Also, Hydrogen Ions are carried over to System I to capture Carbon-di-Oxide through its Somatoes to be processed by the RuBisCO Enzymes for the formation of starches, sugars, protiens, fruits, and etc. The Stomatoes of the leaves are controled by Guard Cells that are sensitive to environmental stimuli: temperature, humidity, and pollutants. Carbnon-di-Oxide is the basic food of plants, and trees.
In our quest for 54.5 MPG, are we risking damage to the Agricultural System?
Yep, There are several ways of getting there but weight reduction will be important to all of them. I'm just happy the discussion has not centered around the idiotic idea that safty is tied to big & heavy. Safety can be achieved through other means (intelligent hiway, crash avoiding sensors, etc) OK, I;m biased, I love lightweight cars.
It would seem to me that rather than mandate fuel economy standards and require manufacturers to meet new guidelines with possibly expensive solutions, we should more fully open our markets to manufacturers and that have been faced with high-priced fuel markets for years.
During the oil crisis of the '70s, the Japanese introduced our market to affordable and even sporty cars that got great fuel mileage and were of high enough quality that many are still on the road today.
So why don't we have access to the full portfolio of International vehicles (some manufactured by US companies) that are getting 40+ MPG today? There were emission and safety regulation differences in the '70s and 80's that restricted access to European vehicles for instance, but I don't believe that those are impediments now. In fact I believe that the EU requirements on emissions are much more stringent than ours and are tied to fuel economy requirements which outpace US CAFE requirements through 2020.
We save US manufacturers the cost of reinventing the wheel for the local market and we let consumers define how they want to balance power, efficiency, and cost by choosing from a more complete international menu of driving options.
If the aim is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce emissions then the government might consider taxing fuel to reach that goal. Incentives are not always positive but the right ones are effective.
And J Wiliams, I've had 4 years of college physics and a masters in engineering and you sir are wrong on all counts. A diesil-electric hybrid can easily achieve these goals now and give you more acceleration than you can possibly use even in a drag race. Wake up and smell the roses you've been out in the Obama hating swamp too long.
There IS another approach other than a federally-mandated CAFE, and it is the european approach....tax the bejesus out of gasoline at the pump, and let the market decide how efficient of cars they want to buy. It has worked for them in driving the available auto fleet towards smaller body, smaller engine, heavily diesel powered autos. Plus the taxes levied can go directly to the federal fund to potentially reduce other tax burdens. In that scenario the choice of cars IS truly market-driven. It IS the most equitable solution, i.e. drive more miles, drive a fuel hog, pay more $$$$, your choice of cars is not federally mandated.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.