Hi Guys,

I know this is probably very old news. But as most of you know, Obama plans to make a higher fuel efficiency standards on its vehicles. Are you guys happy about this? I think its about time!! But my big question is who and how does this affect the auto companies? Would high gas guzzling supercars get these requirements too?.. how about autocompany's like BMW where most of their cars consume more gas than Toyota cars! Also, are these auto companies putting different engines in the cars in the US vs the rest of the world?

I know this is a lot of questions as once! What do you guys think about all this?

Hi Guys,

I know this is probably very old news. But as most of you know, Obama plans to make a higher fuel efficiency standards on its vehicles. Are you guys happy about this? I think its about time!! But my big question is who and how does this affect the auto companies? Would high gas guzzling supercars get these requirements too?.. how about autocompany's like BMW where most of their cars consume more gas than Toyota cars! Also, are these auto companies putting different engines in the cars in the US vs the rest of the world?

I know this is a lot of questions as once! What do you guys think about all this?

I don't like it. If I want to buy a car that gets 1 mile per gallon and suffer the consequences I should be able to. 99% of the population is smart enough to want a more gas efficient car on their own volition, and legislating it is pointless and outside the scope of our constitution. It also invites unintended consequences.

I think the implementation is through "average" MPG. So if they sell 10 cars at 20mpg and 10 cars at 40mpg, their "average" is 30mpg. Manufacturers can still make gas guzzlers, but they have to produce more efficient vehicles to even it out.

I think the implementation is through "average" MPG. So if they sell 10 cars at 20mpg and 10 cars at 40mpg, their "average" is 30mpg. Manufacturers can still make gas guzzlers, but they have to produce more efficient vehicles to even it out.

No. You're correct yet wrong. Manufacturers can make inefficient vehicles but there is a "gas guzzler" tax that gets applied to these inefficient vehicles. So, yes, companies can still produce them but there is no average as you put it.

Requiring better MPG rates is smart however I think raising the bar on these things shouldn't be dictated by the whim of a President. I think there should be a commission on technology innovation whose purpose it is to evaluate such things as energy production and, by extension, vehicle emissions and MPG efficiency should keep working with technology producers to constantly evaluate the state of technology and how it can be best applied in area that directly impact the public and quality of life of the vast majority. I don't think it should be so much of a government mandate.

It's really not a necessary bill. This is a self correcting problem, as gas prices go higher, people want more gas efficient vehicles and (intelligent) auto makers respond to that demand. There really is no need to legislate it as that's the direction that automakers are already going.

They should be offering subsidies/tax breaks for efficient vehicle production. Maybe more specifically related to how many actually sell to consumers. That would encourage manufacturers to produce not just fuel efficient vehicles, but GOOD fuel efficient vehicles.

Not pro negative legislation to form the market. Not really pro forming the market on such a particular metric in the first place, but if they do it anyway I'd much prefer positive reinforcement as that doesn't completely fuck over existing business strategies.

The Nissan Leaf starts at $34,000. It's like some automakers aren't even trying yet. And some of them have become upset at these types of mandates.

I know this is probably very old news. But as most of you know, Obama plans to make a higher fuel efficiency standards on its vehicles. Are you guys happy about this?

It is fixing the wrong part of the problem. Yet it is (slightly) better than doing nothing.

Part of it is the implementation method. The president declares an edict that something will happen.... and does so without funding because the congress-critters are so busy bickering about how the the other side is not negotiating (and both sides are correct, there are almost no statesmen any more). They can't even pass a regular budget, let alone fund special projects.

By itself it is nothing more than a grab at popularity. He can make speeches all he wants but he is not in a position to elicit change without money. Either they meet the goals ("I started this grand plan") or it fails ("I was tough but my successor was not"), either way he has nothing to lose.


Yes we need to improve efficiency, but that is not enough.

Bumping the fuel efficiency by even 10% over the coming decade will not solve the problem. The lower numbers won't even account for the ever-increasing population, we need to hit them just to avoid worse consumption. Combined with every other nation seeing a huge demand in oil and other fuels, and the situation just gets worse.

What is needed is a transformation for ALL energy sources, and also a transformation in ALL energy consumption.

The problem is that it costs money. There are many technologies that already exist, but they are more expensive than oil, gas, coal, and other sources, so they remain untapped.

Hitting $5/gallon is enough for some people to switch from gasoline to natural gas; switching from one fuel to another doesn't solve the issue. Hitting $6 or $7 or $10 will push many others over to different fuels, but I still don't see that as enough to change their habits. I can't imagine a serious national change in habits until gasoline and other fuels hit $15 or $20 per gallon equivalent in today's money.


I don't see serious change happening until we get into crisis mode several decades from now. At that point all fuel will quickly spike (petrol, natural gas, electricity, and others will ALL be very expensive) and only then will enough people make the change to transform our patterns.

Hitting $5/gallon is enough for some people to switch from gasoline to natural gas; switching from one fuel to another doesn't solve the issue. Hitting $6 or $7 or $10 will push many others over to different fuels, but I still don't see that as enough to change their habits. I can't imagine a serious national change in habits until gasoline and other fuels hit $15 or $20 per gallon equivalent in today's money.

Maybe I'm optimistic but I think if we started using natural gas, it would stay effective until solar energy, or cleaner electrical energy (to produce fuel cells), or some alternate source of power was developed enough to create a better solution altogether.

For now, it makes 0 sense to me that we transport oil from all over the world just to drive to the store. We have decades of known natural gas with decades more to be discovered right in our back yard. It's cheaper than gas, helps US companies, burns much cleaner, and doesn't require any additional infrastructure to distribute (home fillup kits have already been invented). What are we waiting for?

The problem I see with trying to change our cars and power plants today is we're trying to skip too many generations of tech. We've been burning organic compounds for power for over a hundred years now and we suddenly want to switch to completely clean energy, it isn't going to happen. We need to make a small step into the world of nuclear power and natural gas cars until better technology arrives. Otherwise we're going to end up burning coal and oil for the rest of our lives.

Also, some car company needs to be innovative and change the way cars work. Think of how much crap is taken up in a car by things that should be obsolete. Steering wheels and gas pedals should be replaced by digital controllers (like a joystick) and mirrors should be replaced by cameras to name a few I can think of. Think of how much more efficient our cars would be if we reduced wind resistance, made them lighter, and added more interior room for the passengers. All while increasing safety (cameras can display much more than mirrors).

[quote name='frob' timestamp='1311270078' post='4838542']
Hitting $5/gallon is enough for some people to switch from gasoline to natural gas; switching from one fuel to another doesn't solve the issue. Hitting $6 or $7 or $10 will push many others over to different fuels, but I still don't see that as enough to change their habits. I can't imagine a serious national change in habits until gasoline and other fuels hit $15 or $20 per gallon equivalent in today's money.

Maybe I'm optimistic but I think if we started using natural gas, it would stay effective until solar energy, or cleaner electrical energy (to produce fuel cells), or some alternate source of power was developed enough to create a better solution altogether.
[/quote]

But as you pointed out, you are swapping from one fossil fuel to another without making serious change. That's just the cost of fossil fuels getting swapped, not the problem of energy dependence generally. It isn't until the change to an altogether better solution that the real issues get resolved.

We just need someone to invent rapidly chargeable batteries and we'll be fine.

[size="1"]Disclaimer: rapidly chargeable batteries much harder to invent than statement implies