U.S. 54.5 MPG Fuel-Economy Standard May Cost $157 Billion ($2,000 per new vehicle)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 6:18 PM GMT
    The irony is that at least in the short to medium term this could mean far more pollution as people choose not to upgrade their cars to new ones which have progressively become far more fuel efficient. Also unsurprisingly is a voice of support form the President of GM, the recipient of substantial bailout dollars.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/doubling-fuel-economy-may-cost-2-000-a-car-157-billion-u-s-draft-says.html

    A proposed U.S. rule requiring automakers to double average fuel economy of vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 may cost $157 billion, two agencies said in a draft.

    The standard would add an average of $2,000 to the price of each new passenger vehicle sold by 2025, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Environmental Protection Agency said in a proposed rule posted today on NHTSA’s website. Benefits of $419 billion to $515 billion in fuel savings would offset the costs, the highway agency wrote.

    “It’s probably a good thing long-term,” Mark Reuss, president of General Motors Co. (GM)’s North America operations, told reporters today at the Los Angeles Auto Show. “There’s a blend here of things that people will and won’t pay for. It’s our job to make sure we offer what people will pay for and keep offering technologies at an ever-decreasing cost.”

    The proposed rule requires annual fuel-economy increases of 5 percent for cars. Light trucks like pickups and sport-utility vehicles can raise fuel economy at 3.5 percent for the first five years the rule will be in effect. Then, unless regulators decide differently in a midterm review, trucks also would have to boost fuel economy by 5 percent a year.

    Today’s draft detailed a proposal agreed to in July by President Barack Obama’s administration and automakers including GM, Ford Motor Co. (F), Honda Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) Daimler AG (DAI) and Volkswagen AG (VOW) were among automakers that didn’t sign on and weren’t part of a ceremony in Washington where Obama touted the rule as part of his plan to reduce the use of imported oil in the U.S.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 9:50 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidThe irony is that at least in the short to medium term this could mean far more pollution as people choose not to upgrade their cars to new ones which have progressively become far more fuel efficient. Also unsurprisingly is a voice of support form the President of GM, the recipient of substantial bailout dollars.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/doubling-fuel-economy-may-cost-2-000-a-car-157-billion-u-s-draft-says.html

    A proposed U.S. rule requiring automakers to double average fuel economy of vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 may cost $157 billion, two agencies said in a draft.

    The standard would add an average of $2,000 to the price of each new passenger vehicle sold by 2025, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Environmental Protection Agency said in a proposed rule posted today on NHTSA’s website. Benefits of $419 billion to $515 billion in fuel savings would offset the costs, the highway agency wrote.

    “It’s probably a good thing long-term,” Mark Reuss, president of General Motors Co. (GM)’s North America operations, told reporters today at the Los Angeles Auto Show. “There’s a blend here of things that people will and won’t pay for. It’s our job to make sure we offer what people will pay for and keep offering technologies at an ever-decreasing cost.”

    The proposed rule requires annual fuel-economy increases of 5 percent for cars. Light trucks like pickups and sport-utility vehicles can raise fuel economy at 3.5 percent for the first five years the rule will be in effect. Then, unless regulators decide differently in a midterm review, trucks also would have to boost fuel economy by 5 percent a year.

    Today’s draft detailed a proposal agreed to in July by President Barack Obama’s administration and automakers including GM, Ford Motor Co. (F), Honda Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) Daimler AG (DAI) and Volkswagen AG (VOW) were among automakers that didn’t sign on and weren’t part of a ceremony in Washington where Obama touted the rule as part of his plan to reduce the use of imported oil in the U.S.


    Build Keystone and build it now!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 10:06 PM GMT
    Why do you hate the planet?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 12:17 AM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidWhy do you hate the planet?


    I assume you talking to me?

    Build Keystone = hate the planet? You're sounding more and more like a democrat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 6:23 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidBenefits of $419 billion to $515 billion in fuel savings would offset the costs


    What happened to American Exceptionalism? Here we have an opportunity to be the best at something again and riddler wants to be a lazy whiner instead.

    Basically Oh Noes some people might postpone buying a more efficient car so? People do that now. People whose and earnings have been stagnant for decades will postpone big purchases.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 6:35 AM GMT
    intentsman said
    riddler78 saidBenefits of $419 billion to $515 billion in fuel savings would offset the costs


    What happened to American Exceptionalism? Here we have an opportunity to be the best at something again and riddler wants to be a lazy whiner instead.

    Basically Oh Noes some people might postpone buying a more efficient car so? People do that now. People whose and earnings have been stagnant for decades will postpone big purchases.


    Lazy whiner? My, how easy it is to spend other people's money - the irony of course is that conservatives are far more generous with their own money than liberals who apparently would rather spend that of others. This bizarre belief that arbitrary constraints will result in innovation that is sustainable or necessary is ridiculous - especially since it means money being reallocated from other ideas and ventures. The US could do simple things like deregulating fuel sources in internal combustion engines to really spark competition with things like Natural Gas - instead, the gut reaction is to force consumers and producers to work within a set of arbitrary constraints.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 8:06 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidThis bizarre belief that arbitrary constraints will result in innovation that is sustainable or necessary is ridiculous - especially since it means money being reallocated from other ideas and ventures. The US could do simple things like deregulating fuel sources in internal combustion engines to really spark competition with things like Natural Gas - instead, the gut reaction is to force consumers and producers to work within a set of arbitrary constraints.


    Prove that Natural Gas as a motor fuel is not increasing in use in the US due to your imaginary regulations which need deregulated. Show some indication to suggest that US Automakers will avoid including more Natural Gas (or biofuels) as part of improved fuel economy standards, and that their reluctance to do so is caused by excessive regulation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 8:24 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidThis bizarre belief that arbitrary constraints will result in innovation that is sustainable or necessary is ridiculous


    From part of the original article which you ignored:
    Automakers will be able to meet the new standards using technology that exists today, Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, a group that supports raising fuel-economy standards, said today in an e-mailed statement.

    Hmm. Your doom and gloom misrepresentation of progress is annoying.

    Here's more of the original article which you ignored:
    By 2025, U.S. mileage standards and other fuel-efficiency moves will reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day, about one-fourth of the petroleum the country imports, and save consumers more than $8,000 a vehicle in fuel costs

    I like the idea of cutting oil imports by 1/4 and saving 8000 in fuel costs with some better vehicle in my future. Maybe you don't.

    “We believe that these standards to reduce petroleum use in cars and light trucks represent an opportunity to increase our national and economic security in an unprecedented way by dramatically decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum,” said a letter signed by 108 congressmen. Are you opposed to national security? Are you opposed to economic security?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 2:16 PM GMT
    intentsman said
    riddler78 saidThis bizarre belief that arbitrary constraints will result in innovation that is sustainable or necessary is ridiculous


    From part of the original article which you ignored:
    Automakers will be able to meet the new standards using technology that exists today, Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, a group that supports raising fuel-economy standards, said today in an e-mailed statement.

    Hmm. Your doom and gloom misrepresentation of progress is annoying.

    Here's more of the original article which you ignored:
    By 2025, U.S. mileage standards and other fuel-efficiency moves will reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day, about one-fourth of the petroleum the country imports, and save consumers more than $8,000 a vehicle in fuel costs

    I like the idea of cutting oil imports by 1/4 and saving 8000 in fuel costs with some better vehicle in my future. Maybe you don't.

    “We believe that these standards to reduce petroleum use in cars and light trucks represent an opportunity to increase our national and economic security in an unprecedented way by dramatically decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum,” said a letter signed by 108 congressmen. Are you opposed to national security? Are you opposed to economic security?


    It's also technologically possible to grow all the food required in the world using a skyscraper - that doesn't mean it's cost effective to do so. I like the idea of cutting oil imports as well - but what you don't seem to understand is this will likely increase costs in the short to medium term as it makes it too expensive for people to upgrade to newer cars. As for "proving" the regulatory issues with respect to natural gas, here:

    http://gas2.org/2009/07/31/natural-gas-conversions-could-cost-a-couple-hundred/

    It costs between $12,500 to $22,500 to convert a gasoline-powered car to natural gas in an autoshop. That old gas hog just can’t be greened up for cheap. Now. But it could be. [...] CNG conversion costs are only high because of an old EPA licensing requirement, says Marc Raush.

    “The cost of the conversion kits are actually relatively inexpensive. If there was a sensible licensing fee (or no fee) the cost for the work could be just a few hundred dollars.”


    It's a pity though that those like yourself seem to want regulatory solutions instead of being more creative considering simpler and more cost effective ones. It's always apparently too easy to spend other people's time and money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 5:32 PM GMT
    Why don't people ride a bike or take public transit? Oh right...the auto industry made that dsmn near impossible with lobbying.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 5:54 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidWhy don't people ride a bike or take public transit? Oh right...the auto industry made that dsmn near impossible with lobbying.


    Would that be the same industry that is largely run by unions especially after the bailouts?
  • dancedancekj

    Posts: 1761

    Nov 18, 2011 5:56 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidWhy don't people ride a bike or take public transit? Oh right...the auto industry made that dsmn near impossible with lobbying.


    Some cities (such as my own) are pretty impossible to bike or take public transit in, since the infrastructure is not setup in such a way to accomodate it. I am actually looking into getting an electronic bike at some point. It's going to get too snowy to safely bike here in the Midwest pretty soon, although there are plenty of people that still do it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 6:39 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidWhy don't people ride a bike or take public transit? Oh right...the auto industry made that dsmn near impossible with lobbying.


    Would that be the same industry that is largely run by unions especially after the bailouts?


    Look at any other developed nation not only can you safely bike in them but they have CLEAN reliable and efficient public transit.

    Unions have nothing to do with it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 6:45 PM GMT
    dancedancekj said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidWhy don't people ride a bike or take public transit? Oh right...the auto industry made that dsmn near impossible with lobbying.


    Some cities (such as my own) are pretty impossible to bike or take public transit in, since the infrastructure is not setup in such a way to accomodate it. I am actually looking into getting an electronic bike at some point. It's going to get too snowy to safely bike here in the Midwest pretty soon, although there are plenty of people that still do it.


    Sadly anywhere that isn't a major city in tgis country is tough to reliably bike in. They had to fight tooth abd nail for bike lanes on Philly, not only are they few and far between but cops, delivery trucks,and all other manner of vehicle continue to drive/park in them. Then people get pissed if you ride on the sidewalk or midde of the road -.-.

    Oh god and for some reason joggers love jogging in the bike lane like 2-3 people wide WITH headphones in. SOMETIMES IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 6:46 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidWhy don't people ride a bike or take public transit? Oh right...the auto industry made that dsmn near impossible with lobbying.


    Would that be the same industry that is largely run by unions especially after the bailouts?


    Look at any other developed nation not only can you safely bike in them but they have CLEAN reliable and efficient public transit.

    Unions have nothing to do with it.


    Unions do have a lot to do with it. I should not that most other developed countries don't have the same type variance in population density that the US does - and hence a greater need for a more distributed individual forms of transport. The subsidies to drivers in the form of free highways contributing to urban sprawl has also not helped. Your intense need to blame corporations for anything sort of highlights the blinders to the level of damage government regs have done to consumers and the environment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 8:07 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidWhy don't people ride a bike or take public transit? Oh right...the auto industry made that dsmn near impossible with lobbying.


    Would that be the same industry that is largely run by unions especially after the bailouts?


    Look at any other developed nation not only can you safely bike in them but they have CLEAN reliable and efficient public transit.

    Unions have nothing to do with it.


    Unions do have a lot to do with it. I should not that most other developed countries don't have the same type variance in population density that the US does - and hence a greater need for a more distributed individual forms of transport. The subsidies to drivers in the form of free highways contributing to urban sprawl has also not helped. Your intense need to blame corporations for anything sort of highlights the blinders to the level of damage government regs have done to consumers and the environment.


    Again with the bullshit, why is it so hard for you to be honest?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 10:29 PM GMT
    When I asked:

    intentsman said Show some indication to suggest that US Automakers will avoid including more Natural Gas (or biofuels) as part of improved fuel economy standards, and that their reluctance to do so is caused by excessive regulation.


    riddler moved the goalposts to:

    riddler78 said
    It costs between $12,500 to $22,500 to convert a gasoline-powered car to natural gas in an autoshop. That old gas hog just can’t be greened up for cheap. Now. But it could be. [...] CNG conversion costs are only high because of an old EPA licensing requirement, says Marc Raush.

    “The cost of the conversion kits are actually relatively inexpensive. If there was a sensible licensing fee (or no fee) the cost for the work could be just a few hundred dollars.”


    It may come as a surprise to you to learn that automakers engineer new automobiles in a way that does not involve backyard retrofit kits. Apparently you would prefer "greening up" old gas hogs with cheaper NG conversion kits than designing new vehicles from bumper to bumper for higher efficiency - including in some cases fuels other than gasoline. Even if NG retrofit conversion kits were faster and cheaper and easier, the result would be an older less efficient vehicle using a different fuel. Contrast that to building a new highly efficient vehicle designed for that fuel on purpose.

    In some other thread you rambled about "new innovations new ideas" and now you want to retrofit old inefficient vehicles instead of making new ones.

    Here's some samples from the current generation of vehicles that were made to use NG on purpose instead of as an afterthought.
    2012 Honda Civic ( Honda also signed on to the draft agreement in the original post, so there goes your theory that GM only did it as a duty to their bankruptcy agreement)

    "Oh but a Honda Civic is so small" the naysayers might whine.

    OK, are these factory built Natural Gas fueled vehicles big enough?
    Garbage Truck
    Bus

    Retrofit conversion kits have NOTHING to do with new vehicle efficiency standards, or with the viability of manufacturing vehicles to use Natural Gas fuel