CAFE stds on the chopping block

[agesilaus]

NYT

Good riddance. There is no way that the average fleet mileage would ever come close to those numbers anyway. Hopefully the ethanol scam will be cut at the same time.

[mtofell1]

ShinerBock wrote:

Very solid points. A good friend of mine were talking about this very same thing the other day with the 2010+ diesel regulations of .01 g/HP-hr PM and .2 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes to get there compared to the 2004 emissions regulations of .2 g/HP-hr PM and 2.5 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes for that.

I think I just realized I need smarter friends. All we talk about are wives, football and beer :?

[FishOnOne]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

LIKE2BUILD wrote:

I took several graduate classes in Environmental Studies and one of the professors always talked about SLOT Efficiency....SLOT= Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law deals with entropy (chaos) in a system, the transfer of heat (energy) and that all inputs of energy into a non-reversible system interact until it reaches equilibrium.

Basically, it means exactly what you just said. You can't just look at the EPA rating on the sticker and assume you're more efficient. You have to look at SLOT efficiency, or the entire system required to make the car plus the efficiency of each individual vehicle. Does it take more energy to create the parts of a hybrid car? Maybe. Will it last as long as a diesel or gas powered car? Does it need the same, fewer, or more inputs (replacement parts) than an equivalent combustion powered car. What are the sum total pollution outputs of each piece of the manufacturing pie to make each car, the fuels (electricity of petroleum), and the replacement parts.

A diesel locomotive is a great example. If you look at the fuel they guzzle it will boggle your mind. But, if you compare fuel useage in terms of gallons/ton/mile the locomotive is vastly more efficient than an equal number of semis needed to carry the same load the same distance. Also, when you compare vehicle maintenance, road/track maintenance and all other pieces in the puzzle the locomotive still wins. So yes, a locomotive burns a LOT MORE fuel than a semi, but when you compare how much work it does for the same amount of fuel it's a huge advantage. The road surface? concrete and asphalt can be sort-of recycled. Steel train tracks? Melt them down and get almost all the steel back into new tracks.

KJ

Very solid points. A good friend of mine were talking about this very same thing the other day with the 2010+ diesel regulations of .01 g/HP-hr PM and .2 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes to get there compared to the 2004 emissions regulations of .2 g/HP-hr PM and 2.5 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes for that.


We were debating whether the considerable drop in fuel economy in the truck itself, more fuel needing to be transported since more is being used, DEF manufacturing and transport logistics that come with it, the manufacturing of the plastic jugs for DEF along with their environmental impact, special catalysts that require more rare earth mining, and DPF's along with their cleaning equipment worth the difference in emissions standards. From what we gathered, it would probably be better to go back to the 2004 emissions standards, but that was based on what we know and not any hard data.

2 very, very good posts that make one go; hmmmmmm! 🙂

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[wilber1]

rhagfo wrote:

Tyler0215 wrote:
Like all Government agencies the EPA issues new regulations to justify they're existence, with out regard to common sense or need for more regs.

I believe this is the biggest reason, justify and get more money.

Yes, in the 70's they were needed we had some pretty bad air in several cities. That said there is a point of diminishing returns. that is where the common sense goes out the door.

Fleet average of 54 mpg, could mean a lot of electric or hybrid. While the car produces less emissions, what does it take to produce the car in the first place. The environmental impact of producing the batteries. How is the electricity that powers an all electric car produced. Hydro power is on the hit list, that leaves oil, gas,coal, or nuclear. Just saying there are trade offs.

Many look at diesel PU as bad, but I can move a 7,800# vehicle down the road at 20 mpg to match this a 2,600# car would need to get 60 mpg!

But if there is only one person in a truck (which there is most of the time) you are still burning 2 1/2 times as much fuel to get that one person from A to B.

[wilber1]

US automakers are global players and the rest of the world isn't going to stop moving forward because of something a US president signs. They will continue to develop these vehicles or become uncompetitive in wold markets.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

ShinerBock wrote:

LIKE2BUILD wrote:

I took several graduate classes in Environmental Studies and one of the professors always talked about SLOT Efficiency....SLOT= Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law deals with entropy (chaos) in a system, the transfer of heat (energy) and that all inputs of energy into a non-reversible system interact until it reaches equilibrium.

Basically, it means exactly what you just said. You can't just look at the EPA rating on the sticker and assume you're more efficient. You have to look at SLOT efficiency, or the entire system required to make the car plus the efficiency of each individual vehicle. Does it take more energy to create the parts of a hybrid car? Maybe. Will it last as long as a diesel or gas powered car? Does it need the same, fewer, or more inputs (replacement parts) than an equivalent combustion powered car. What are the sum total pollution outputs of each piece of the manufacturing pie to make each car, the fuels (electricity of petroleum), and the replacement parts.

A diesel locomotive is a great example. If you look at the fuel they guzzle it will boggle your mind. But, if you compare fuel useage in terms of gallons/ton/mile the locomotive is vastly more efficient than an equal number of semis needed to carry the same load the same distance. Also, when you compare vehicle maintenance, road/track maintenance and all other pieces in the puzzle the locomotive still wins. So yes, a locomotive burns a LOT MORE fuel than a semi, but when you compare how much work it does for the same amount of fuel it's a huge advantage. The road surface? concrete and asphalt can be sort-of recycled. Steel train tracks? Melt them down and get almost all the steel back into new tracks.

KJ

Very solid points. A good friend of mine were talking about this very same thing the other day with the 2010+ diesel regulations of .01 g/HP-hr PM and .2 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes to get there compared to the 2004 emissions regulations of .2 g/HP-hr PM and 2.5 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes for that.


We were debating whether the considerable drop in fuel economy in the truck itself, more fuel needing to be transported since more is being used, DEF manufacturing and transport logistics that come with it, the manufacturing of the plastic jugs for DEF along with their environmental impact, special catalysts that require more rare earth mining, and DPF's along with their cleaning equipment worth the difference in emissions standards. From what we gathered, it would probably be better to go back to the 2004 emissions standards, but that was based on what we know and not any hard data.

2 very, very good posts that make one go; hmmmmmm! 🙂

[thomasmnile]

agesilaus wrote:
What do CAFE stds have to do with Smog anyway.

An extrapolation of the hardcore climate change crowd. Burn less fossil fuel of all stripes, less CO2 in the atmosphere which still goes out tailpipes, stacks, etc. Catalysts, scrubbers and the like are about removing or chemically converting sulfur and nitrogen combustion products to 'inert' less harmful compounds or trapping particulates. But that pesky CO2...

CAFE just seemed like a noble way to address things in a way that people are more receptive to. Who doesn't want a fuel efficient vehicle?

[ShinerBock]

LIKE2BUILD wrote:

I took several graduate classes in Environmental Studies and one of the professors always talked about SLOT Efficiency....SLOT= Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law deals with entropy (chaos) in a system, the transfer of heat (energy) and that all inputs of energy into a non-reversible system interact until it reaches equilibrium.

Basically, it means exactly what you just said. You can't just look at the EPA rating on the sticker and assume you're more efficient. You have to look at SLOT efficiency, or the entire system required to make the car plus the efficiency of each individual vehicle. Does it take more energy to create the parts of a hybrid car? Maybe. Will it last as long as a diesel or gas powered car? Does it need the same, fewer, or more inputs (replacement parts) than an equivalent combustion powered car. What are the sum total pollution outputs of each piece of the manufacturing pie to make each car, the fuels (electricity of petroleum), and the replacement parts.

A diesel locomotive is a great example. If you look at the fuel they guzzle it will boggle your mind. But, if you compare fuel useage in terms of gallons/ton/mile the locomotive is vastly more efficient than an equal number of semis needed to carry the same load the same distance. Also, when you compare vehicle maintenance, road/track maintenance and all other pieces in the puzzle the locomotive still wins. So yes, a locomotive burns a LOT MORE fuel than a semi, but when you compare how much work it does for the same amount of fuel it's a huge advantage. The road surface? concrete and asphalt can be sort-of recycled. Steel train tracks? Melt them down and get almost all the steel back into new tracks.

KJ

Very solid points. A good friend of mine were talking about this very same thing the other day with the 2010+ diesel regulations of .01 g/HP-hr PM and .2 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes to get there compared to the 2004 emissions regulations of .2 g/HP-hr PM and 2.5 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes for that.


We were debating whether the considerable drop in fuel economy in the truck itself, more fuel needing to be transported since more is being used, DEF manufacturing and transport logistics that come with it, the manufacturing of the plastic jugs for DEF along with their environmental impact, special catalysts that require more rare earth mining, and DPF's along with their cleaning equipment worth the difference in emissions standards. From what we gathered, it would probably be better to go back to the 2004 emissions standards, but that was based on what we know and not any hard data.

[LIKE2BUILD]

rhagfo wrote:
Yes, in the 70's they were needed we had some pretty bad air in several cities. That said there is a point of diminishing returns. that is where the common sense goes out the door.

Fleet average of 54 mpg, could mean a lot of electric or hybrid. While the car produces less emissions, what does it take to produce the car in the first place. The environmental impact of producing the batteries. How is the electricity that powers an all electric car produced. Hydro power is on the hit list, that leaves oil, gas,coal, or nuclear. Just saying there are trade offs.

I took several graduate classes in Environmental Studies and one of the professors always talked about SLOT Efficiency....SLOT= Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law deals with entropy (chaos) in a system, the transfer of heat (energy) and that all inputs of energy into a non-reversible system interact until it reaches equilibrium.

Basically, it means exactly what you just said. You can't just look at the EPA rating on the sticker and assume you're more efficient. You have to look at SLOT efficiency, or the entire system required to make the car plus the efficiency of each individual vehicle. Does it take more energy to create the parts of a hybrid car? Maybe. Will it last as long as a diesel or gas powered car? Does it need the same, fewer, or more inputs (replacement parts) than an equivalent combustion powered car. What are the sum total pollution outputs of each piece of the manufacturing pie to make each car, the fuels (electricity of petroleum), and the replacement parts.

A diesel locomotive is a great example. If you look at the fuel they guzzle it will boggle your mind. But, if you compare fuel useage in terms of gallons/ton/mile the locomotive is vastly more efficient than an equal number of semis needed to carry the same load the same distance. Also, when you compare vehicle maintenance, road/track maintenance and all other pieces in the puzzle the locomotive still wins. So yes, a locomotive burns a LOT MORE fuel than a semi, but when you compare how much work it does for the same amount of fuel it's a huge advantage. The road surface? concrete and asphalt can be sort-of recycled. Steel train tracks? Melt them down and get almost all the steel back into new tracks.

KJ

[ShinerBock]

One word, Inflation!

$1 in 1987 is equivalent to $2.14 today so you are still paying about the same price for fuel given inflation since the average fuel cost is about $2.25.

$100,000 in 1987 is equivalent to $213,767 today with inflation.

Per the US census, the median household income in 1987 was $25,986 which is $57,576 today with inflation. That median income is slightly higher than the last census report for 2015 at $55,775.


Here is the US governments inflation calculator if you want to check yourself ---> LINK

[wnjj]

NJRVer wrote:

Gdetrailer wrote:

NJRVer wrote:
40 years ago the auto companies complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 30 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 20 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.


Guess what? They met them and they are still here.

At WHAT COST?

30 yrs ago you could buy a fully loaded top trim level 1 ton pickup truck for a mere $12K! Sure it only got 10 MPG empty but considering today you will pay in excess of $60K for fully loaded 1 Ton pickup truck and it only gets 14 MPG empty!

The Companies were forced to spend BILLIONS of dollars per year to "clean" the air and "improve" economy.. The companies cannot afford to absorb that cost so that cost IS PASSED ONTO THE CUSTOMERS!

I am not against clean air, but there ARE considerable limitations to just how much more "reduction" in pollution and increase in mileage can be had.. There are many inherent losses with Internal combustion engines that cannot be helped or "improved".. There becomes a point in time where the gains are so small compared to what the consumer can bear in costs.

One of the CHEAPEST solutions to improving the "economy" is to REDUCE or REMOVE the alcohol!..

Cutting gas with alcohol easily reduces the mileage by 10% or a bit more.. You end up using more gas overall and the alcohol process burns up a lot of energy in crops and processing..

30 years ago gas was what?....$1 a gallon? A good size house could be had for less than $100,000.

30 years ago the median income was how much?

30 years ago an electric vehicle was some weird looking thing with three wheels.

30 years ago almost nobody had a computer or "car phone".

Those prices you list are about 2.5x now from 30 years ago. The cost of vehicles has definitely out paced those by a wide margin. Some of that increase is features like DVD players, heated seats and safety features.

[NJRVer]

Gdetrailer wrote:

NJRVer wrote:
40 years ago the auto companies complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 30 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 20 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.


Guess what? They met them and they are still here.

At WHAT COST?

30 yrs ago you could buy a fully loaded top trim level 1 ton pickup truck for a mere $12K! Sure it only got 10 MPG empty but considering today you will pay in excess of $60K for fully loaded 1 Ton pickup truck and it only gets 14 MPG empty!

The Companies were forced to spend BILLIONS of dollars per year to "clean" the air and "improve" economy.. The companies cannot afford to absorb that cost so that cost IS PASSED ONTO THE CUSTOMERS!

I am not against clean air, but there ARE considerable limitations to just how much more "reduction" in pollution and increase in mileage can be had.. There are many inherent losses with Internal combustion engines that cannot be helped or "improved".. There becomes a point in time where the gains are so small compared to what the consumer can bear in costs.

One of the CHEAPEST solutions to improving the "economy" is to REDUCE or REMOVE the alcohol!..

Cutting gas with alcohol easily reduces the mileage by 10% or a bit more.. You end up using more gas overall and the alcohol process burns up a lot of energy in crops and processing..

30 years ago gas was what?....$1 a gallon? A good size house could be had for less than $100,000.

30 years ago the median income was how much?

30 years ago an electric vehicle was some weird looking thing with three wheels.

30 years ago almost nobody had a computer or "car phone".

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Besides they aren't banned in CA.

Maybe not in Ca as a whole but in many cites in Ca they are. Big fine to burn a cow in many cites. :E

[Me_Again]

NRALIFR wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
No one is against common sense regulations. It's just that with anything connected to the government there is no common sense! To bad in four years everything the POUS has done will be undone with the click of a pen. Just like it is being done now.

As far as "at what cost" hahaha silly rabbit it's the Unions fault....it's always the unions fault!

Don

Well, that's the problem with bypassing congress, forcing change down the country's throat with a pen and a phone, and giving powerful federal agencies the ability to implement a myriad of rules and regulations that affect our daily lives. As soon as there's a change of power, as just happened, the former majority is going to find out what a pen and a phone tastes like. I don't like it, but that's the way things seem to be.

Unfortunately, everything seems to be dominated by the most extreme groups on both sides of the isle. Our legislative processes weren't designed to be speedy and efficient. Becoming impatient with the process and taking an "ends justifies the means" approach to governing will never produce lasting change. It tends to just produce social upheaval, which in the end is self-destructive.

:):)

Nothing will change until people are elected to do what is best for the country and not just the bureaucrats and elites!

The current situation will just change how we are taken advantage of. As they put some more change in your front pockets they will steal your wallet out of your back pocket.

[troubledwaters]

MARKW8 wrote:
Maybe we can even see the Cuyahoga River to burn again.

Mark

Yea, so we can push granny off the cliff into a burning river.

[transamz9]

NJRVer wrote:

agesilaus wrote:

NJRVer wrote:
40 years ago the auto companies complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 30 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 20 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.


Guess what? They met them and they are still here.

Yes but do you think that auto manufacturers can continue to sell Pickups, especially HD Pickups and other large SUV type vehicles and still achieve a 54 miles per gallon fleet average.

It's not physically possible. They'd have to drop large vehicles from their product list. And how many small vehicles today come remotely close to 54 mpg? I think the diesel Rabbit was up there but did VW do it honestly?

I could probably dig through old news stories and find the same quotes, but they actually managed to meet them.

It's not a question of if they can achieve the goal but more of a question of what will we as a consumer have to give up or pay for this achievement.

The automakers have proven that they can get the exhaust clean. Look at the tailpipes of the new diesels. So why have such an unrealistic goal for fuel economy? Why not just set a goal of burning no fuel? The auto manufacturers know that there are people that want the most fuel efficiency so they will always compete to better that but there are also people like me that put power and capability first and then just try to get the best economy out of what I have.