New Auto Standards

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business...;8au&emc=au

I'm curious about what y'all think.

I love the idea of it. But, I wonder if the extra cost for the new, cleaner gas will offset added efficiency of the vehicles.

Not sure.... Though I may argue against chucktown about it, I generally support letting the market rule. But there are certain strategic aspects that should be considered, which if left to the whims of the market, will go unchecked until it is too late. The depletion of fossil fuels is one of those strategic issues, in my opinion, which makes it appropriate for the world in general to begin enforcing some method of conservation. There are too many things that fossil fuel is essential for (think air travel), where we all will be screwed if it runs out before an alternative is figured out.

Not to mention national security.... the less oil we need from the Middle East, the less motivation there is for terrorists, unstable nuclear regimes, etc etc.

I am ambivalent about the requirements for the production of fuel efficient cars - although I probably lean more towards letting the market decide or doing it state by state. But I'm not freaked out either way - we do have to conserve fuels.

But as a resident of California, if this includes the smog check regime we have out here, I hope all you people in other states enjoy this revenue grabbing scam. Bringing your car in for smog checks is just another way for the state to get money. They allow more pollution from different makes, models, and years - it is certainly not only for environmental preservation. It's a big hassle, unfair to poor people, and a huge scam.

My world and welcome to it.

The city of NY set energy standards which is great, then they made certain vehicles to be exempt. Guess how many Ford F-250' 4x4 we have running. Have to love how governments work.

The thing that puzzles me the most is why the auto industry is villified as having been 'obstiante' or 'refused to take action'. It seems to me that if the economics were there to justify moving towards more fuel-efficient vehicles then the move would have already been underway.

When it comes to legislating technilogimical advances .. it concerns me because while I may not have a firm grasp of all of the principles, I do recognize that the siutation isn't as simple as that. While I believe everyone supports the notion of more fuel-efficient vehicles, I doubt we are willing to accept some of the headache that will go along with the growing pains. Something that comes to mind for me is how many additional whiz-bangs are going to be added that have a lower service life now? Wih regulatory mandates taking the drivers seat ... quality and reliability of product will take a back seat. :mf_followthroughfart:

I general support conservation efforts - in fact, I strongly believe that is the direction that needs to be taken on a number of fronts. However, given how events have transpired, I will remain skeptical of the real benefit that is provided.

:2cents:

VTEnviro said:

I love the idea of it. But, I wonder if the extra cost for the new, cleaner gas will offset added efficiency of the vehicles.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Notice that you are told that there is a $1300/vehicle increase to implement this standard - I believe that is only added to the price tag as it sits on the sales lot, not what you can expect in uncertain O&M costs.

Dleg said:

But there are certain strategic aspects that should be considered, which if left to the whims of the market, will go unchecked until it is too late.

Click to expand...

I would agree that 'the market' does not necessarily take into account the strategy, or in the alternative, the benefit for conservation of fossil fuels.

However, I would add that I also believe that this plan has very little to do with strategic reserves and more about window dressing and appeasment to the environmental groups. To date, I would say that effectively getting fuel-efficient vehicles into operation has been problematic at best because the only way they have been rolled-out is with heavy subsidies. I think you are going to have to continue to rely upon such subsidies and other incentives to continue placing these vehicles into service.

Dleg said:

The depletion of fossil fuels is one of those strategic issues, in my opinion, which makes it appropriate for the world in general to begin enforcing some method of conservation. There are too many things that fossil fuel is essential for (think air travel), where we all will be screwed if it runs out before an alternative is figured out.
Not to mention national security.... the less oil we need from the Middle East, the less motivation there is for terrorists, unstable nuclear regimes, etc etc.

Click to expand...

The balance between conservation/preservation of fossil fuels, the development of alternative fuels, and environmental protection is quite the prickly pear. I see the one place where gains could be made, IMHO, is some serious thought placed into the cost-to-benefit relationship placed on how much one can emit in terms of environmental pollutants. At some point, the model of polluting to a prescribed criteria simply will not be achievable, especially considering costs for litigation. I see this as being the next real break through towards reaching conservation of resources and securing national security.

But then again .. what do I know? :violin:

JR

jregieng said:

My thoughts exactly. Notice that you are told that there is a $1300/vehicle increase to implement this standard - I believe that is only added to the price tag as it sits on the sales lot, not what you can expect in uncertain O&M costs.

Click to expand...

While I think this is a really stupid idea, I think the $1300/vehicle argument is baseless. By the time these regulations are implemented (in 2016), $1300 will be a drop in the bucket compared to the inflation over the next 7 years. Plus, regulations that were already in place, or at least very close to being implemented, were going to be raising the cost of vehicles by $800 anyway.

Who is going to pick up the sword for more efficient home electronics?

Soaring electricity use by new electronic devices imperils climate change efforts

I am not sayin' .... just sayin' ....

JR

I cannot begin to illustrate the distaste in my mouth over this vehicle emissions standards and other bull plop. There's also a bill in the works to scrap "older" cars so that, if you're buying a car, it'll have to be a newer one. Things are going to get so overdone that my, and many others', hobby of working on cars will not be possible in the near future.

Let's make an analogy for emissions and industrial waste causing "man-made" global warming. This whole political game is kin to the crowd sending a thug to the Washington General's (America) bench to beat up the water boy (average Jim) so the Harlem Globetrotters (China, India, ... , less developed industrial countries) won't lose. Drop in the ocean, people. Drop in the ocean. America is in a "feel good" and oblivious phase about what we can do to save the world. In the end, we're just hurting ourselves. Hell, emissions also come from volcanos, cows, and TREES, but we're not worrying about those. Wait... an emissions tax is wanted to be levied against the owners of all heads of cattle, too.

I'm not saying the earth isn't warming up. Maybe it is, but it's not caused by man. How many ice ages has this planet seen? And man is going to kill the earth in a total span of 200 years (starting over 100 years ago)? Finally, about the recorded temperatures of the earth over time, what is the accuracy / resolution of thermometers? What about 10 years ago? 30? 80? 100? How many 10's of 100's of places is the temperature recorded? The planet is large, shouldn't there be upwards of millions of temperature recorders?

For the record: I recycle, I drive a 32 mpg car, I have the thermostat at home set at 80 during the day and 78 at night in the summer, and I don't water my lawn.

I have all sorts of thoughts on the subject:

1) It always disturbs me when people with no scientific background make technological policy.

2) Those standards are going to be very hard to meet with todays cars. Tiny cars are the future UNLESS cars like the Volt get averaged in at 150mpg (which I hear they very well may).

3) I'm not sure this won't get overturned by the next administration.

4) I'm wondering why the car companies are lining up behind this. I think Ford has its ducks in a row, fuel economy-wise, GM is iffy (unless the Volt is allowed the afformentioned 150mpg)l, but Chysler is sunk, unless they convert completely to a Fiat lineup. That isn't happening according to their future product list shown in their restructuring plans.

wilheldp_PE said:

While I think this is a really stupid idea, I think the $1300/vehicle argument is baseless. By the time these regulations are implemented (in 2016), $1300 will be a drop in the bucket compared to the inflation over the next 7 years. Plus, regulations that were already in place, or at least very close to being implemented, were going to be raising the cost of vehicles by $800 anyway.

Click to expand...

I agree that the quoted $1300 is baseless because nobody really knows what the real 'cost' to implement this plan will yield.

Master slacker said:

I cannot begin to illustrate the distaste in my mouth over this vehicle emissions standards and other bull plop. There's also a bill in the works to scrap "older" cars so that, if you're buying a car, it'll have to be a newer one. Things are going to get so overdone that my, and many others', hobby of working on cars will not be possible in the near future.

Click to expand...

Heh ... I don't think we have felt the fury of the watermelon environmentalists yet ...

Master slacker said:

I'm not saying the earth isn't warming up. Maybe it is, but it's not caused by man. How many ice ages has this planet seen? And man is going to kill the earth in a total span of 200 years (starting over 100 years ago)? Finally, about the recorded temperatures of the earth over time, what is the accuracy / resolution of thermometers? What about 10 years ago? 30? 80? 100? How many 10's of 100's of places is the temperature recorded? The planet is large, shouldn't there be upwards of millions of temperature recorders?

Click to expand...

On that note, the thing that really, really bothers me about PROJECTING what may happen with climate change: if weather forecasters have problems predicting the weather on a daily basis, how can we know the weather with any REASONABLE certainty 10 yrs from now .. or 50 yrs from now? or 100y rs from now? How do we know that placing these curbs on emissions will have the DESIRED effect on the changing climate?

For that matter .. how does one enter into a climate change debate when no matter what happens, you pretty much say .. yep, the climate changed and therefore I must be correct?

Capt Worley PE said:

1) It always disturbs me when people with no scientific background make technological policy.

Click to expand...

See above.

Capt Worley PE said:

3) I'm not sure this won't get overturned by the next administration.

Click to expand...

An interesting point ...

Consider the bullet train amendment in Florida

Voters were offered a vote on whether Florida needed to finance a high speed train to service areas in south florida. It passed as a constitutional amendment since this was the only point of entry for an ordinary citizen to effect change in government short of successfully lobbying a legislator.

Okay ... enter a few years later (2004) when the state budget had begin to sag and the gubernatorial race made an ugly turn and outright stated that funding for the bullet train had become the enemy of funding smaller classrooms and additional teachers for education. The bullet train constitutional amendment was placed back on the ballot and effectively rescinded (voted down). Then governor Jeb Bush used his office to actively press the case that the people had made an error in choosing pursue the bullet train option since he personally did not like it.

Has education (or the state budget) improved by that measure? I will leave that to your imagination.

So, I think one can take a real lesson from that microcosm of history. It is really easy for conventional thinking, even on really big ticket items to change in as little as four years once with only minor arm twisting.

And let the beatings continue ... :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

JR

On a related but different subject...

My wife and I recently purchased a new refrigerator. We got one of those french door style with the freezer on the bottom because it was supposed to be more efficient, and we replaced the older just side by side. The new one is a little larger with cu ft (like 21cu ft to now 25 cu ft).

But, the energy use sticker on the new one had a scale of energy use for "refrigerators" where this one was at the lowest on the scale, 850kwh per year. I think the scale went from this one listed at 850kwh to 2500kwh on the high side.

THEN I looked at the old refrigerator I was replacing (20 years old), and it had the same sticker inside, but the scale was centered around - you guessed it - 850kwh, which was where it was rated for annual use.

I understand we may be making more efficient appliances / cars / etc. now than before, but how much are we just attempting to gain back because we want bigger / better / faster / more powerful / etc. Similar discussion to the gas mileage thread where it was made obvious that some cars 20 years ago could get better gas mileage than most today simply due to less weight and accessories (and new one's have what I consider necessary safety features)...

But, my point is how much is "efficiency" standards / improvements getting us if it's just attempting to fuel our need for bigger / better things?

Point taken about

The depletion of fossil fuels is one of those strategic issues

Click to expand...

... With many fossil fuels being listed as just lasting decades, what does the future hold for my kids? How can this planet support a growing human population when the fossil fuels run out?

benbo said:

I am ambivalent about the requirements for the production of fuel efficient cars - although I probably lean more towards letting the market decide or doing it state by state. But I'm not freaked out either way - we do have to conserve fuels.
But as a resident of California, if this includes the smog check regime we have out here, I hope all you people in other states enjoy this revenue grabbing scam. Bringing your car in for smog checks is just another way for the state to get money. They allow more pollution from different makes, models, and years - it is certainly not only for environmental preservation. It's a big hassle, unfair to poor people, and a huge scam.

My world and welcome to it.

Click to expand...

In IL if you live in the greater metropolitan Chicago area or the IL side of St. Louis area, emissions testing is required. The rest of state is not subject to it. BUt even then they have stupid rules on which cars have to do it. If it was built before a certain year you are exempt because the car would never pass the test. New cars have like 5 yr grace period before being subject to the tests. If you fail so many times and have proof that you had work done on the car and it still didn't pass, then you get a pass. so stupid.

How do we know that placing these curbs on emissions will have the DESIRED effect on the changing climate?

Click to expand...

We don't - but if Klatu gives us a visit, then we know it didn't work!

TouchDown said:

With many fossil fuels being listed as just lasting decades, what does the future hold for my kids? How can this planet support a growing human population when the fossil fuels run out?

Click to expand...

Fossil fuels have been about a decade of running out since the 1920s.

As an aside, I can see fuel taxes rising greatly due to increased efficiency driving less fuel purchased. The cost of infrastructure maintenance is only going to get higher.

Then again, with demand dropping, the cost of fuel should drop, too.

Trying to foresee the depletion of oil is rediculous. There is so much oil in sand and shale that we haven't even tapped yet. Also, let's not forget all of the Gulf leases that aren't even ALLOWED to drill, much less pump, oil for various reasons. Scare tactics are real. If a media group releases information (false or true) to the layman who has NO clue about science, technology, or the complete vastness of the earth, then that information spreads from the mass to the individuals and that's all they know. No one could ever convince me that billions of years of organic matter turned oil will be depleted in 200 total years. YGTBFKM.

Some friends of mine are petroleum engineers, they tell me we've plenty of oil and natural gas to last several more generations of human life.

As far as the CAFE standards go, I'll buy the safest car I can today. A few bucks out the door in fuel is a small price to pay for safety, besides operating a used full sized car is still cheaper than operating a new microcar.

My wife jokes that the Smart carries two dead people and the Yaris can carry four dead people. She's not a small car fan.

I have to say that I do enjoy the extra crsuh distance and inside room on the Maxx far more than I thought I would. plus the air bags everywhere, traction control and ABS.

maybe i'm just selfish, but i look at this from more of a "ahw man, there goes the ZR1, the new camaro, the challenger, and the GT500." and i'm as pro-free market as you can get.... but even i have to admit the reason we have EFI and catalytic converters in today's cars isn't because the auto manufacturers thought it would be nifty, it was the smog requirements of the 70s and 80s that got dumped on them which pushed them to make break-throughs.

This is only an attempt to drive auto sales. Get it in the public's mind that the price of cars are going up. People will justify buying a new car now, to save the extra money. Come 2016, the Govt will pat the Automakers on the back for giving it the old college try and automakers will have a good laugh about the whole thing, while counting the money. Since everyone forward bought cars, the demand will plummet and the automakers will get bailed out again.

Rinse. Repeat.