Real progress on energy

For all the recent talk about stalemates, vetoes, filibusters, and gridlock in Washington, last night the Senate passed an impressive and important energy bill.

The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation’s vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.

After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.

The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies’ pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground. […]

The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.

Good. The first national standards on fuel economy (CAFE) were passed in 1975 and have barely been touched since. Senate Dems, with a narrow Jeffords-inspired majority, launched an effort to boost fuel-economy standards in 2002, but Republicans and the oil companies strangled the effort before it went very far.

But the broader political dynamic has clearly changed in recent years. Not only is there a Democratic majority with a mandate to act on energy issues, there is also stronger public demand and fewer Republicans willing to take a stand on the wrong side of the issue. Dems hammered away yesterday, emphasizing both environmental and national security concerns, and managed to come away with a strong piece of legislation that won bi-partisan support.

This is not to say the bill couldn’t have been better — and would have been were it not for the Senate minority.

One measure Dems were anxious to pass was successfully filibustered.

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a $32 billion package of tax breaks for renewable energy that would have been financed mostly by new taxes on major oil companies.

Democrats came three votes short of overcoming a threatened Republican filibuster that was keeping the measure from being attached to a broader energy bill. With a final vote of 57-36 — and a number of senators not voting — Democrats could resurrect the measure later, though there was no immediate indication of that.

The tax proposal had some bipartisan support, but some Republicans argued that the nearly $29 billion in additional taxes on major oil companies was too harsh on the oil industry.

Poor oil industry, with their multibillion-dollar profit margins. It’s good to know the Senate GOP has their backs. Honestly, do they want Dems to paint them as shills for Big Oil in ’08?

In any case, kudos to Senate Dems for passing an important piece of legislation. On to the House.

maybe there’s hope after all

  • 35 MPG by 2020! This is not a step forward this is friggin retarded! 8 MPG in 13 years while they strip renewables from the energy bill! Hell Naw! That is 26 Friemans! We could rebuild Iraq a sa shining city on a hill in 26 Freidmans!

    Thias is like the police telling the assassin that he needs to stop killing for money but as he needs to feed his family he can ramp it down over the next decade or so. Puhleeezzeee!

    I hope to Jeebus that the Japanese build cars that get 50 MPG across the board while Detriot stands there with its dong in its hand trying to squeeze 1 more MPG out of the Hummer while trying to figure out where all teh market share went.

    Apparently the goverment to too broken to help. Looks like the people are going to have to do this ourselves.

  • Good move. How did the Motown pols vote on this one?

    Now all we need is the Dems to open up more areas for domestic drilling (ie, pehaps the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to start), and create more domestic oil supply. Decrease demand, increase supply and perhaps see oil prices start heading the wrong way, with less dependence on the Middle East to boot! While they are at it, perhaps they could ease regulation on nuclear generation facilities, further decreasing demand for fossil fuels, polution and perhaps again lowering the price of oil…

  • Does anyone know what the penalty for missing the CAFE standards are?

    Ferrarri can’t meet the standards and must pay some sort of fine. How is the fine calculated?

  • In any case, kudos to Senate Dems for passing an important piece of legislation. On to the House.

    Big deal. Resuscitate me when the nuclear winter from the war with Iran is over.

  • Sorry to be a dark cloud here, but this is almost 30 years too damned late. When the price of oil collapsed in the mid 80s due to OPEC greed, (even in my awkward geeky teenaged years) I thought that governments around the world should have used the oil crash as a time to develop alternatives to oil. They didn’t. Instead they cut all the tax breaks for alternative fuels, bought SUVs and partied like it was the summer of 1972.

    The price of oil is not going to drop anytime soon folks. Supply is pretty much steady (for now) and demand is going up. Doesn’t leave much room for price drops. To be blunt, the only way oil going to drop significantly is for a couple of major economies to collapse.

  • 2020 is a fine target date. 35MPG is pathetic.
    The big 3 are foundering because they have a very difficult time getting anything right. Them getting something right in a hurry is about as realistic as the flying cars on the Jetsons.

    But c’mon. 35MPG? It should have been set at 50, with some wiggle room to slightly lower it if they could prove a valid design reason. But it’s a small step in the right direction. And it’s better than nothing

  • How about tying auto-maker’s tax rates to CAFE performance? Benchmark is 35 MPG. Each MPG over any the company saves .5% on their taxes and vice versa. Companies who do not produce more fuel efficent cars will soon find themselves paying much higher taxes.

    Better yet, nuke CAFE and just tie the rate to the MPG of each model. Taxes on sales from 20 MPG SUVs will be 7.5% higher than on a 35 MPG sedan. While we are at it we can tax the buyer as well. Let’s add 7.5% to the sticker price via a tax for killing our planet. All the extra money collected can be dedicated to solar & wind R&D.

  • Does anyone know where the hell Barbara Boxer was during the motion to invoke cloture on Baucus’s amendment to take tax dollars from oil companies for support of alternative energy? The amendment was filibustered, but the vote was 57-36. Boxer didn’t vote, Reid (for procedural purposes or something?), voted against, and Mary Landrieu also voted no. Right there were 3 votes that could have saved the amendment. I imagine McCain might have voted yea as well if he wasn’t flip-flopping all over the country right now. Anyway, Landrieu and Boxer should be pilloried, and Harry Reid needs to do some explaining. What a joke.

  • MNProgressive,

    That’s too rationale that it won’t fly. Imagine, SUV owners having to actually pay a big league fuel tax for their gas guzzling penis extensions.

    We did that here in Canada for NEW SUVs only, but excluded ALL pickup trucks even the ones driven by the urban Home Depot Cowboys.

  • I’m wondering if Bush will veto this. If he does, then we’ll have a chance to do it over again, only a lot better, in 2009.

  • “Ferrarri can’t meet the standards and must pay some sort of fine. How is the fine calculated?”

    Ferrari is not a US automaker. As such, my guess is that the law does not apply to Ferrari.

    “…and Mary Landrieu also voted no. Right there were 3 votes that could have saved the amendment.”

    Mary Landrieu is bought and sold ten times over by big oil. Big oil owns her, her children, any future grandchildren ad infinitum per stirpes. She will always put big oil over the best interests of this nation (consider all of the refineries in Louisiana). However, Reid did vote no so he can bring the bill up again, and with Boxer and Sen Johnson out of SD (when he returns from his illness) the Dems will have 60, and that likely means one or two GOP senators may switch sides–possible both ways.

  • Now all we need is the Dems to open up more areas for domestic drilling (ie, pehaps the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to start), and create more domestic oil supply.

    No offense, but that’s an idiotic and short-sighted view.

    Here’s a better idea — we start looking 20, 50 or even 100 years ahead by NOT drilling for more oil and instead find ways to run cars on something else.

    Honestly … if kids can get a car to run on soybeans, then auto makers (primarily American) need to stop whining like toddlers in need of a nap when asked to increase their average fleet mileage by one MPG a year. There’s no reason they can’t get twice that — they just choose not to. And it’s ricockulous, pathetic, and monumentally idiotic.

    It’s time we solve our energy problems by looking decades ahead, instead of just to the next fiscal quarter.

  • Here’s a better idea — we start looking 20, 50 or even 100 years ahead by NOT drilling for more oil and instead find ways to run cars on something else.

    No offense, Mark but you are living in lah-lah land. What the hell do we do over those next 20-50-100 years as energy prices sky rocket and alternative sources of energy aren’t yet available?? Start riding our bikes, take cold showers and burn candles?

    We have to both find short term AND long term solutions to the nergy issue… there is no quick fix. Find ways to increase supply of legacy fuels today, develop technology to limit those demands on the legacy fuels while wncourage/fund long-term technology advancements to use alternative sources of energy for the long term future.

  • Thanks for the response Bubba. Have I missed something about Boxer – is she out of commission for some reason?

    Has anyone noticed that Gordon Smith has become a pretty reliable pro-environment vote over the past couple of years? I assume it’s because he’s battling a tough reelection campaign in blue Oregon in ’08, but I also wonder if his breakdown in the Senate over Iraq might have opened his eyes a little bit. As a former Oregon resident, he always seemed to be a slightly paler hue of evil that the typical religious Republican.

  • No offense, Mark but you are living in lah-lah land. What the hell do we do over those next 20-50-100 years as energy prices sky rocket and alternative sources of energy aren’t yet available?? Start riding our bikes, take cold showers and burn candles?

    Not sure where you’ve been the past three decades, but their ARE alternatives already out there.

    The problem is that your Republican buddies in the oil, energy and auto industries are doing absolutely nothing to set up the infrastructure to make them more feasible, and the government sure as hell hasn’t taken any steps to make it more financially viable to do so. They tried with this bill, but the GOP (along with a few asshat Dems) blocked it.

    So we’ll just go ahead and drill in ANWR (even though there’s only a single day’s supply) or drill off the coast (screw the reefs—they just sit there and don’t do nothin’!).

    In the mean time, all alternatives will be kept too expensive and no real investment in research done. And all for one thing: profit.

    It’s fucking sickening.

  • “One measure Dems were anxious to pass was successfully filibustered”.

    “Anyway, Landrieu and Boxer should be pilloried, and Harry Reid needs to do some explaining.”

    CB, get real… doesn’t look like the Dems were all that anxious to pass the measure!!!

  • The nuts and bolts are all quite complicated and ever so slightly tedious. Without going into any details, any bill on energy facing in the right direction is to be welcomed, and this one appears to have some teeth. So that’s good.

    This little part, however, is new to me and looks a little strange:

    […] and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground. […]

    Granted, part of the problem is the billions of tons of carbon dioxide pumped into the thin and delicate atmosphere annually through fossil fuel burning, which creates the greenhouse effect and hence global warming and climate change. But storing it underground.. ? Evokes thoughts of nuclear waste.

    Something that never gets mentioned in all of this is GOD = Global Oxygen Depletion. For every atom of carbon burned two atoms of oxygen are removed from the atmosphere. In effect, we’re reversing the process of photosynthesis that occurred over hundreds of millions of years, during mainly the Paleozoic Era, fixed the carbon that we are now burning and released the oxygen that we are now breathing. Trouble is we are reversing this process that took millions of years to accomplish in a handful of decades. It is absolutely not surprising that serious consequences are befalling us.

    One of these is a not insignificant reduction in atmospheric oxygen — the oxygen we breathe that keeps us alive. If you sleep in a room with the windows closed, it’s more difficult to waken up and get up than if the windows were left open. That’s oxygen deficiency. It’s the cause of drowsiness and indolence. It accounts, along with pollution, for the rise in absenteeism at work and respiratory ailments like asthma. It simply makes us more sleepy.

    So, why trap all that necessary oxygen underground? We already have a carbon-dioxide recycling system ready-made for our immediate use. It’s called vegetation. Although we’ve destroyed far too much of it, it’s not beyond recovery. Renewing our respect for and appreciation of the life-sustaining work of plants would simultaneously counter carbon-dioxide accumulation, reverse oxygen depletion and provide all the necessary ingredients for biofuels and bioenergy.

    Renewable energy and re-greening the planet go hand-in-hand.

  • ah, and it was so nice when jrs jr wasn’t here blathering…….i guess all good things must come to an end……

  • “CB, get real… doesn’t look like the Dems were all that anxious to pass the measure!!!”

    JRS Jr, I asked you once before, now I will ask you again, please get your head out of your arse, unless you think that keeping it there is helping you develop new energy ideas/resources using personal methane production.

    As noted above, and as anyone who knows just a little bit about Senate procedure can tell you, Reid voted no so that he can raise the measure at a later date. This is very common and has been the standard practice of Senate majority leaders for decades. Further, anyone who knows Louisiana knows Landrieu is owned by big oil. Just like the majority of her GOP bretheren and sister-en(?). As for Boxer, my guess is that she would have been there had her vote been required to attain 60. As soon as Sen. Johnson is back on the Senate floor the 60 threshold will be met and she will no doubt be there. And once that 60 threshold is met, and the measure comes up for an actual yea or nay vote, it would not surprise me at all that a number of the GOP oil industry shills in the Senate will suddenly switch votes and support the measure so that they cannot be painted as the big oil whores that they truly are for the upcoming election.

  • “but their ARE alternatives already out there”

    Really? Please do tell the CURRENT alternatives that are efficient enough to substitute for today’s fossil fuel demand – and won’t cost you, I (and/or our goverment) our right arm. I’ll actually start: Nukes are one… but the greenies are the ones that blocked that one!

    Missed you too Billy-Boy!

  • The Wall Street Journal notes the measure “now faces a number of hurdles in the House, and the White House has raised the possibility of a veto over provisions that would outlaw gasoline price gouging and would subject OPEC to US antitrust laws.”

    Good to see that Bush has his priorities straight. Before we hang/burn Landrieu, Reid and Boxer in effigy, this should be the focus of Republicans.

    That said, I am curious to know why the hell they voted the way they did.

    Bubba @13 “…per stirpes…” – LOL – are you saying that Landrieu’s indentured servitude to big oil is an exception to the rule against perpetuities?

  • “But storing it underground.. ? Evokes thoughts of nuclear waste.”

    Goldilocks, don’t get me wrong, I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. But, assuming a practical method for storing such things can be developed, isn’t undergound an OK place for such things (the oxygen issue aside)? Isn’t this similar to the natural method of storing carbon(frozen peat bogs, the pine needles that have dropped from millenia of pine trees in the cold climes of the northern and southern hemispheres, undeground oil)? Granted, I may just be confused or confusing issues on this…

  • “Bubba @13 “…per stirpes…” – LOL – are you saying that Landrieu’s indentured servitude to big oil is an exception to the rule against perpetuities?”

    Homer, I didn’t think anyone would pick that up!!! And, yes. One of the rare and little known exceptions.

  • Re: Mark D @ #14
    …if kids can get a car to run on soybeans

    After reading that article, how can a rational person not conclude that automakers, Big Oil & Big Corporate Government are colluding to artificially rig the game in favor of the corporate worldwide cabal that owns this planet?

    I am beside myself with disgust over the “treat-em-like-children” methodology that the Big Corporate Media and the Big Corporate Government use to manipulate the 75 million American Idol minions (I guess that’s why it was high school students who built the soybean car). It is obvious that the solution to many of our problems, such as renewable energy, are within immediate reach, but the best that Big Corporate Government can offer is excuses.

  • Really? Please do tell the CURRENT alternatives that are efficient enough to substitute for today’s fossil fuel demand – and won’t cost you, I (and/or our goverment) our right arm.

    Um … that was kind of the point of my post: The GOP-led Congress and White House (along with a few select suckass Dems) have done absolutely nothing to make the current alternatives more affordable.
    Instead, they hand out billions in tax breaks to companies making billions in profits, and do all they can to keep the status quo. Probably because it’s so profitable.

    If they would refocus their efforts for the long term, we could have current techologies fill the gap quickly. For example …

    There are battery-powered cars for around-town driving, and they could easily be charged with a small solar power station in the back yard. But they’re too expensive because auto makers won’t work to make the technology more affordable.

    There are solar and wind power options for homes. But not enough money has been put into research to make the cells more efficient and the batteries last longer.

    There is biodiesel already out there, but again, auto manufacturers seem disinterested in making more cars that run on it.

    There’s E85 ethanol, but making it from corn isn’t as efficient as it should be. Yet there isn’t a push for other plant alternatives from which ethanol could be distilled.

    And there’s not a damn reason every single auto maker couldn’t have all of their cars get 50 MPG. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. There just isn’t. With computer controls and fuel injection they could do it next year if they wanted. But they choose not to do so for reasons I have yet to fully understand.

    Also, don’t get me started on the claims we need to drill for more oil. A lack of oil is NOT the problem. A lack of refining capacity is—and that’s because the oil companies willingly shut down numerous ones in order to increase profits.

    Granted, none of the above are a cure all alone, but when added together they make a huge impact. Better yet, the switch to these technologies would realistically only need a few years to really get entrenched and start taking over.

    Unfortunately, none of the industries (auto, oil, energy, etc.) nor the politicians they financially support, will admit it and will instead do everything in their power to slow the process down.

    It pisses me off not because I’m a tree-hugger (though I am a bit), but because I’m a father who doesn’t want to see his kids living in a barely-habitable world. That’s where we’re headed, and I plan on doing all I can to help fix it.

    I’ll actually start: Nukes are one… but the greenies are the ones that blocked that one!

    Actually, I think Chernobyl and Three Mile Island had more to do with it than a few environmentalists. I should note, however, that I don’t necessarily agree that nuclear power can be a good option.

    But only once they figure out a clean, safe and reliable way to dispose of the used fuel rods. Unfortunately, they have yet to do so (and burying it in a mountain is neither clean nor reliable).

    Oh … sorry for the thesis, everyone. I get a bit worked up over this stuff.

  • Whoops … that should read that I don’t necessarily disagree about nuclear power being a good alternative.

    My fault.

  • And don’t forget the NIMBY attitude of too many americans. For example, wind power can help in the short term and long term, but because blinkered americans (primarily wealthy ones) do not want the big propellers anywhere near their pristine views, this available renewable resourse is not used anywhere near enough.

  • here in vermont we are having that exact discussion about wind turbines. everyone thinks they would be hideous. but what about power lines themselves? they’re kind of hideous if you look at it from that point of view, but people will tolerate them.

    i don’t happen to share their opinion. i was recently in palm springs, and i thought the wind farms there were beautiful.

  • I do not think they look bad at all. Here in DC, they would look fine along the anacostia (whcih is pretty much my backyard). And while driving through the Alleghenies a couple weeks ago, there is a small windfarm atop the mountains, and they looked almost regal.

  • Bubba, out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind a majority leader voting no on cloture in order to bring up the amendment at a later date? If Reid had voted yes, would that have precluded reintroduction of the measure (and, if so, why?), or is it purely a “custom” that has developed over time? I appreciate your knowledge, as the machinations of the Senate elude my understanding a great deal of the time and I’m always anxious to learn more. Thanks!

  • “And there’s not a damn reason every single auto maker couldn’t have all of their cars get 50 MPG. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. There just isn’t. With computer controls and fuel injection they could do it next year if they wanted. But they choose not to do so for reasons I have yet to fully understand.”Mark D

    I certainly agree with most of whats been said here regarding the need to invest more in research into alternative renewable energy sources, and the need to give automakers a good kick in the a** to encourage them to research way to produce more fuel efficient vehicles as well.

    However, I have to disagree with Mark D on the above comment. His comment seems to indicate sufficient research has been completed and that technology exists to allow ALL cars to consistently get better than 50 miles per gallon of gasoline when driven by the average driver. If this were true, I’d expect to see at least one such car available new from at least one manufacturer. The only car that might have been capable of this was the Insight, and while that works ok as a commuter car, it doesn’t really fit the general purposes of a family of 4. Even the Insight wasn’t as efficient as public transportation and it did nothing to reduce congestion in urban areas (it probably contributed to it by reducing an incentive to car pool or use public transportation).

  • Great points Mark, yet even all of those changes were done immediately today, the forms of renewable technology are still not available to come close today’s energy needs at a reasonable cost to governments and their society. Change will come gradual, so in the meantime why don’t we try to also limit the expense of legacy fuels by allowing more drilling, allowing more domestic refining, etc…

    Witness Western Europe, they still drive gasoline powered vehicles… unless you claim their governments too are all wedded to big oil. Oh that’s right, they have much more of their energy generated by Nukes, despite 3 Mile Island and Chernoble.

  • “Witness Western Europe, they still drive gasoline powered vehicles…”JRS Jr
    And yet most europe pays more for gasoline than we do here, so there goes your argument for the need to limit the expense of legacy fuels. If prices go up, many people will use less fuel that’s how a market system works. Additionally alternative energy sources and the research to develop them will become more cost effective and therefore more quickly developed and adopted. Temporarily pushing down prices by drilling areas that we don’t need to drill will discourage conservation as well as development and adoption of alternative fuels.

    “Change will come gradual, so in the meantime why don’t we try to also limit the expense of legacy fuels by allowing more drilling”JRS Jr
    Because it will come less gradual if there are significant financial incentives to change.

  • Danny, despite their higher prices, I don’t see many of the euros driving electric cars!

  • Great points Mark, yet even all of those changes were done immediately today, the forms of renewable technology are still not available to come close today’s energy needs at a reasonable cost to governments and their society.
    –JRS Jr

    There’s just one small issue with that approach: The costs of not doing so will be much, much, much greater in the long run then the short-terms costs will be.

    Besides, we manage to spend a billion dollar a week in Iraq, so I’m not sure how investing a few billion a year to get these technologies more advanced and out to consumers isn’t doable.

    Change will come gradual, so in the meantime why don’t we try to also limit the expense of legacy fuels by allowing more drilling, allowing more domestic refining, etc…

    Once again, we have plenty of oil. It’s refinery capacity that’s the issue. Of course, we then get into how piss-poor oil companies are at running a refinery cleanly. Trust me … I live way too close to Sugar Creek and know what’s in that soil (my dad’s company used to insure the place).

    The solution, IMHO, would be smaller refineries that are easier to keep an eye on and that could easily be converted to ethanol (or similar) production when the time comes. As a bonus, they could be built more locally, thus making transport of the fuel less of an issue.

    Witness Western Europe, they still drive gasoline powered vehicles

    Most of those vehicles actually run on diesel—they get better gas mileage and burn cleaner than the diesel we have here. No reason we couldn’t do the same but have cars run on biodiesel.

    Well, there is a reason we don’t: Auto makers have no incentive to do so.

    His comment seems to indicate sufficient research has been completed and that technology exists to allow ALL cars to consistently get better than 50 miles per gallon of gasoline when driven by the average driver. If this were true, I’d expect to see at least one such car available new from at least one manufacturer.
    –Danny

    If I have a friend who can squeeze 30 MPG out of a 2004 Corvette he has running at 600 HP just by tweaking the computer-controlled fuel injection, how the hell can the geniuses at Ford, GM or Chrysler not do it?

    Plus, there’s the Prius and the Civic Hybrid, for starters. There’s also a number of other vehicles that with a few tweaks could easily get 50 MPH in real-life driving conditions.

    What’s totally ridiculous is that there’s a proven demand for high gas mileage cars (just look at a Prius waiting list), yet so few auto makers actually go out of their to make them.

    It. Makes. No. Sense.

    The only car that might have been capable of this was the Insight, and while that works ok as a commuter car, it doesn’t really fit the general purposes of a family of 4.
    –Danny

    Again, this goes to what I’ve been posting: We could have family-friendly cars that do this if the auto makers would put just a tiny amount of effort into it. But they don’t. Instead they focus on improving the leaf springs for their 10 MPG trucks because, you know, that’s more important.

  • Aren’t the CURRENT mpg requirements higher in Europe and other parts of the world than they are here? And aren’t the auto manufacturers, including GM, Ford, etc. already manufacturing for and selling cars in those markets that meet those higher standards, and effectively competing with foreign manufaturers? So why can’t they here?

  • Aren’t the CURRENT mpg requirements higher in Europe and other parts of the world than they are here? And aren’t the auto manufacturers, including GM, Ford, Chrylser, etc. already manufacturing for and selling cars in those markets that meet those higher standards, and effectively competing with foreign manufaturers? So why can’t they here?

  • JRS Jr,

    I didn’t say they did. I just said that there is no need to drill the Eastern Gulf of Mexico or ANWR, and that increasing oil costs would add market incentive to the development of alternative energy sources.

    They may not yet have replaced any significant portion of their gasoline cars with electric cars, but doing that only shifts the energy generation from inside the car to the electric power plant. If coal and oil are still the most significant source of electricity, then the reliance on fossil fuels isn’t eliminated.

    I don’t have the time to look for it right now, but what percent of Western Europe’s electricity comes from fossil fuel and what percent of the U.S. electricity comes from fossil fuel?

    Also, I’m of the general impression that the public transportation system throughout Eurpoe is significantly better than throughout the US. How does the fuel efficiency of the entire fleet of Western European cars compare?

    If anyone knows or has time to look it up, please chime in with answers to these questions. If my assumptions are incorrect on these matters, I’d certainly appreciate being enlightened.

  • “If I have a friend who can squeeze 30 MPG out of a 2004 Corvette he has running at 600 HP just by tweaking the computer-controlled fuel injection, how the hell can the geniuses at Ford, GM or Chrysler not do it?”Mark D

    First it sounds like you are moving the goal posts on me here. You said 50MPG. Now you’ve just reduced the target by 60%! The bill that brought about this discussion already requires fleet efficiency to improve beyond the 30MPG you mention here, so I don’t see how that explains much. Second, I’m not sure what your friend did, but there are a lot of potential reasons GM can’t do the same to production ‘vettes. Of the top of my head I could venture a guess that marketing requires the ‘vette to compete with other performance cars with respect to power. It is also possible that the “tweak” affects output of regulated pollutants. Furthermore it is possible that the tweak reduces engine life making it more difficult to cover warantee expenses across the entire fleet.

    “Plus, there’s the Prius and the Civic Hybrid, for starters.”Mark D.
    Sorry, you are mistaken here. Speaking from personal experience. I drive a Prius. They get great gas milage, but the average driver isn’t going to get 50MPG without changing their driving habits. My lifetime average for 6000 miles is just over 54MPG. I accomplish this by NEVER driving over the speed limit and FREQUENLY driving as much as 10mph below the posted speed limit. Here in the Chicago suburbs, the posted expressway speed limit is 55mph, so I spend most of my time driving between 35mph and 55mph. I can tell you that since I started driving my Prius, I haven’t yet passed anyone on the expressway. I can also tell you that an overwhelming number of drivers drive between 10mph and 30mph OVER the posted speed limit. Additionally I watch far ahead for stop lights, stop signs and tight curves and get my foot off the accelerator and start coasting to stop burning fuel for as long as possible to minimize the use of the brakes rather than burn up all that momentum (and therefor fuel).

    Using this ( http:///www.greenhybrid.com/ ) source of real world drivers who care enough about their fuel economy to track it, you’ll see that the median fuel efficiency of the Prius is about 47.6 (meaning the majority of drivers who care about thies fuel economy get less than 50MPG. It would be very unlikely for other Prius drivers who don’t pay as much attention to their fuel economy (the average car driver) to get even the mean 47.6. The Civic does worse than the Prius. Even then you are talking about cars that can’t really tow much of anything, have limited cargo space, seat 5 people at most (including driver), and only 4 comfortably. Throw a roof rack on top and you are going to take another hit on your milage.

    “What’s totally ridiculous is that there’s a proven demand for high gas mileage cars (just look at a Prius waiting list), yet so few auto makers actually go out of their to make them. “

    Except for the Prius, the manufacture of hybrids seems to be keeping pace with the demand. I haven’t seen any reports of other hybrid cars selling out of stock and being difficult to obtain. It isn’t like the manufacturers haven’t been designing them:

    Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Ford Escape, Chevy Silverado, Honda Civic, Lexus RX 400h, Mercury Mariner, Toyota Highlander, Lexus GS 450h, Saturn VUE, Toyota Estima, Nissan Altima, Saturn Aura, Lexus LS600hL, Mazda Tribute

    Just curious. Which one do you own?

    Anyhow, my point is that saying that they can make ALL cars get better than 50MPG today doesn’t make it true. Drivers want a certain amount of acceleration. Drivers want to drive fast on the expressways, drivers want to accelerate all the way to the light or sign so they can get in front of just one more car. Drivers want to tow stuff. Drivers want to transport stuff. Drivers want to fit their entire family in the vehicle. Drivers want to be able to drive long distances across the county, state, or country occasionally. All these things get in the way of 50MPG.

  • Hey soccer mom’s…complain you need bigger SUV’s to carry kids?…Consider no soccer at all. Our whole lifestyle and thinking have to change before we go over a cliff. Go to http://www.clusterfucknation and read about peak oil truth. Our happy motoring society crisis will extend way past our cars if we don’t make drastic changes in our energy consumption. If we don’t change our lifestyles 35mpg won’t matter much, especially when you only get 10gals/wk to use. Just look at all the cars on the freeways now, or the malls, or downtown or even your own neighborhood and it becomes self-evident. Saying 35mpg is better than 20mpg doesn’t really change much. A scooter gets 100mpg…now there’s a difference that matters.
    The senate bill is still feeble but pointing in the right direction. Hell, we should already be at 35mpg. Bring back the electric car. Tax all oil profits over a reasonable amount to pay for alternative energy sources and research. Nobody really loses by that action. So far, big oil does everything in its power to keep us dependent on oil like a dealer to oil junkies.
    I don’t see this senate bill as nearly enough but it’s a start we will have to live with.

  • First it sounds like you are moving the goal posts on me here. You said 50MPG. Now you’ve just reduced the target by 60%! The bill that brought about this discussion already requires fleet efficiency to improve beyond the 30MPG you mention here, so I don’t see how that explains much.

    First, that was an example that shows if an auto mechanic who smokes pot every day can get 30 MPG out of a sports car that usually gets in the single digits just by tweaking the car’s computer, there’s no reason a family sedan made by real life automotive engineers with tons of cash can’t get 50 MPG.

    I apologize for not making that clear enough.

    Second, I’m not sure what your friend did, but there are a lot of potential reasons GM can’t do the same to production ‘vettes. Of the top of my head I could venture a guess that marketing requires the ‘vette to compete with other performance cars with respect to power.

    He plugs a laptop into the computer, which shows charts of peak power, torque, RPMs, etc. He can then adjust the numbers, which in turns tells the computer how to control the fuel injection. Pretty simple, really.

    Oh, and there’s nothing anywhere that requires any car to compete with any other car in terms of power, so I’m not sure what you were getting at.

    It is also possible that the “tweak” affects output of regulated pollutants. Furthermore it is possible that the tweak reduces engine life making it more difficult to cover warantee expenses across the entire fleet.

    It doesn’t really affect the exhaust much (at times it may run a bit richer, but not enough to make it violate any laws). Long term effects should also be negligible since all he’s doing is adjusting the amount of gas entering the motor, the burn rate, etc. It puts very little added stress on the engine itself.

    “Plus, there’s the Prius and the Civic Hybrid, for starters.” – Mark D.
    Sorry, you are mistaken here. Speaking from personal experience. I drive a Prius. They get great gas milage, but the average driver isn’t going to get 50MPG without changing their driving habits.

    I realize most people won’t baby their car enough to get that kind of mileage on average. This is why I keep posting, time and again, that it will take a few changes here and there to get to that 50 MPG number. In fact, I posted, “There’s also a number of other vehicles that with a few tweaks could easily get 50 MPH in real-life driving conditions.

    Am I not making that clear enough on that? Seriously … not sure how much more clear I need to make that distinction, but obviously I do since I’ve posted the same thing three times and no one is getting it.

    A bunch of stuff from Danny that proves he is, in reality, a helluva lot better driver than 90% of Americans … including myself.

    🙂

    Using this ( http:///www.greenhybrid.com/ ) source of real world drivers who care enough about their fuel economy to track it, you’ll see that the median fuel efficiency of the Prius is about 47.6 (meaning the majority of drivers who care about thies fuel economy get less than 50MPG. It would be very unlikely for other Prius drivers who don’t pay as much attention to their fuel economy (the average car driver) to get even the mean 47.6. The Civic does worse than the Prius.

    Actually, you just proved my point: It would take very little to have cars reach 50 MPG on average. These cars are already close—by making the necessary tweaks to the motor and computer system, they’d be there easily, without massive investment.

    Add in some even moderate investment and even large sedans and trucks could get that type of mileage.

    Even then you are talking about cars that can’t really tow much of anything, have limited cargo space, seat 5 people at most (including driver), and only 4 comfortably. Throw a roof rack on top and you are going to take another hit on your milage.

    And these situations happen how often for the average driver … ? How often does the average person need to tow something?

    As far as space goes, there could still be larger cars. And there’d still be no reason they couldn’t get better mileage.

    Except for the Prius, the manufacture of hybrids seems to be keeping pace with the demand. I haven’t seen any reports of other hybrid cars selling out of stock and being difficult to obtain.

    I have.

    It isn’t like the manufacturers haven’t been designing them:
    Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Ford Escape, Chevy Silverado, Honda Civic, Lexus RX 400h, Mercury Mariner, Toyota Highlander, Lexus GS 450h, Saturn VUE, Toyota Estima, Nissan Altima, Saturn Aura, Lexus LS600hL, Mazda Tribute
    Just curious. Which one do you own?

    Once again, you just made my point: Auto companies have spent so little time, money and energy into the technology that the cheapest car on that list is out of my price range.

    If they had made the move sooner and put more of an effort behind it, we’d see the same thing we do with computers: Great technology at increasingly affordable prices. Instead, there’s a $3,000 to $12,000 difference between a hybrid and the regular version. And that’s huge to someone on my budget.

    (For the record, we have a Saturn and Honda that both average more than 30MPG).

    Anyhow, my point is that saying that they can make ALL cars get better than 50MPG today doesn’t make it true.

    And coming up with infrequent scenarios and listing mileage that’s only 3 MPG off of what I suggested doesn’t make it impossible.

    Drivers want a certain amount of acceleration. Drivers want to drive fast on the expressways, drivers want to accelerate all the way to the light or sign so they can get in front of just one more car. Drivers want to tow stuff. Drivers want to transport stuff. Drivers want to fit their entire family in the vehicle. Drivers want to be able to drive long distances across the county, state, or country occasionally.

    You are 100% correct. Although …

    All these things get in the way of 50MPG.

    Only because auto makers continue to say it’s too hard to do and just leave it at that, rather than putting forth the thought and effort into making it happen.

    And that’s kinda my entire point with this particular subject.

    I realize you’re just playing devil’s advocate, but these “well, it can’t really be done” arguments drive me nuckin’ futs because I know from personal experience that it can be done.

    We just have to try.

  • Luke, my memory is fading, but there are special cloture and filibuster rules in the Senate. It is my understanding, if I remember correctly, that one of the rules on cloture provides that only a person who has voted no on cloture (i.e. voted to continue debate on the matter at hand) can resubmit that same matter for a cloture vote. When Frist was senate majority leader, particularly towards the end of his term and near the last election, he was required to do this quite often when he couldn’t muster the 60 votes needed to end cloture on a number of items brought to the floor of the senate.

  • “can get 30 MPG out of a sports car that usually gets in the single digits just by tweaking the car’s computer, there’s no reason a family sedan made by real life automotive engineers with tons of cash can’t get 50 MPG.”
    Because you say so? Anyhow, I don’t know what real world milage is for a corvette, but the EPA estimates are 26MPG hwy, so if your pot smoking friend is accurately measuring 30MPG that is still only a 15% increase.

    “Oh, and there’s nothing anywhere that requires any car to compete with any other car in terms of power, so I’m not sure what you were getting at.”
    Of course there is. It’s called a market economy. If a sports car doesn’t compete in terms of power, sports car buyers won’t buy it. A car that doesn’t get bought certainly won’t burn any gasoline, but the competitors car that is bought instead still will.

    “It doesn’t really affect the exhaust much”
    “Long term effects should also be negligible”
    Again, because you say so? Even if you are right about these two examples I came up with off the top of my head, it still doesn’t negate the need for a car to compete with others in it’s class, nor the likelyhood that there are other valid reasons the car isn’t sold with the “tweak” already done.

    “This is why I keep posting, time and again, that it will take a few changes here and there to get to that 50 MPG number. In fact, I posted, “There’s also a number of other vehicles that with a few tweaks could easily get 50 MPH in real-life driving conditions. Am I not making that clear enough on that? Seriously … not sure how much more clear I need to make that distinction, but obviously I do since I’ve posted the same thing three times and no one is getting it.”

    You’ve been implying that the manufacturers could accomplish 50MPG by changing the design of their cars. Now if you want to argue that 50MPG could be accomplished by changing the way people drive their cars, I’ll wholeheartedly agree with you, but the manufacturers can’t change the way drivers drive. And not manufacturer has built a single car that gets better than 50 miles per gallon of gasoline that will sell enough to support the investment yet. So if there aren’t ANY yet, what could possibly make you think that with a few “tweaks” ALL cars should be able to accomplish that as driven by the average driver? I suppose it comes down to how you define “tweak” If you define it as changing the design of all cars to make them less than 2000 lbs, accelerate 0-60mph in 30 sec. and carry no more than one passenger, then I guess I could agree with you. Of course then I’d be disagreeing with your definition of “tweak”.

    “A bunch of stuff from Danny that proves he is, in reality, a helluva lot better driver than 90% of Americans … including myself.”
    Perhaps true, perhaps not. But the purpose wasn’t to show how good a driver I am, but rather to explain real world experience of what it takes to accomplish >50MPG even in a Prius. And to demonstrate that even given the amazing marvel of engineering that is the Prius, 50MPG is still not attainable by the average driver, so there is no reason to believe that a few “tweaks” would make it attainable in ALL cars. Just because you want it to be true doesn’t mean it is.

    “Actually, you just proved my point: It would take very little to have cars reach 50 MPG on average. These cars are already close—by making the necessary tweaks to the motor and computer system, they’d be there easily, without massive investment”
    No, these cars are are already close, because they’ve completely redesigned how an automobile operates (that’s a lot more than just tweaks) And yet they still aren’t there. The massive investment has already been made and this is the best they’ve accomplished so far, and even then the car doesn’t fit the purchase requirements of many.

    “How often does the average person need to tow something?”
    The question is how often would a car like the Prius, Insight, or Civic hybrid not fit the purchasing requirements of the average driver. Seeing as hybrids still don’t make up 50% of all cars sold, the obvious answer is: most of the time.

    “As far as space goes, there could still be larger cars. And there’d still be no reason they couldn’t get better mileage.”
    Which is exactly what this bill is designed to do. Improve mileage. But saying “there’d still be no reason they couldn’t get better mileage” is a LONG way from saying ” And there’s not a damn reason every single auto maker couldn’t have all of their cars get 50 MPG. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. There just isn’t. With computer controls and fuel injection they could do it next year if they wanted.”

    Thank you for including the link to the “Holmen Courier” article. I like hearing that hybrids are becoming more popular and other models are selling out. Looks like it will help the manufacturers reach that 35mpg goal by 2010. Now they just need to step up production a bit. Still a long way from all cars getting 50MPG, but most of us seem to agree that a fleet average of 35MPG is a step in the right direction, and a step that has been a long time coming.

    “Once again, you just made my point: Auto companies have spent so little time, money and energy into the technology that the cheapest car on that list is out of my price range.”
    Nope. Didn’t make your point at all. Just the opposite. Auto companies have spent so much time, money, and energy into the technology that the cheapest car that can profitably include the technology is out of your (and many others) price range. The “tweaks” are too expensive to make and the cars can’t compete for your purchase.

    “And coming up with infrequent scenarios and listing mileage that’s only 3 MPG off of what I suggested doesn’t make it impossible.”
    True, but the scenarios that make the average buyer choose something other than hybrids (and other high milage vehicles) whatever they are, obviously aren’t infrequent. Nobody I know besides myself has purchased one of these >40MPG vehicles, and the reasons I listed are just some of the ones I’ve heard from these people. There are many reasons that go into the decision to purchase a car, but in the end if making a car get better than 50MPG means that the majority of people won’t buy it, then other cars that don’t get better than 50MPG will still have to be built and sold to compete for the consumers purchase.

    “Only because auto makers continue to say it’s too hard to do and just leave it at that, rather than putting forth the thought and effort into making it happen.”
    Nope. It’s a matter of physics. It requires a certain amount of energy to accelerate a mass at a given acceleration rate. It takes a certain amount of energy to overcome air resistance and rolling friction, and interntal friction at high speeds. A certain amount of energy is lost (wasted) everytime you step on the accelerator or brake. The more you transport the heavier the car is, the more energy it takes to accelerate it and the more energy that is lost when you deccelerate it. The more people and cargo you want to transport the larger the vehicle needs to be and therefore the heavier and less aerodynamic it is. Every joule of this energy all comes from the gasoline the car burns. It has to come from somewhere. eventually there are limits as to the amount of gas you have to burn to get the energy needed to accomplish what the car is intended to do.

    “I know from personal experience that it can be done.”

    And I know from personal experience that 50MPG can’t be done with current technology just by “tweaking” existing vehicles computer controls and fuel injection. It requires expensive technology and equipment coupled with changing they way people drive their cars.

    I agree that auto manufacturers should be encouraged to improve. That’s what is good about this bill. I agree that this bill could be a bit more agressive, but this is what they could get passed. It’s better than what we’ve had. Hopefully it will make it to law and hopefully future bills will continue to improve. As gasoline gets more expensive the technology in these cars will become more affordable (comparatively), more people will buy them, and this will drive the financial incentive for manufacturers to continue to research and develop high mileage vehicles. It all comes down to what people buy.

    Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to convince the greater population to change their driving habits to improve their fuel economy. They all want the auto manufacturers to do it for them, but they don’t want to pay for it, and they won’t accept a change to the usefulness of their cars.

  • Danny–
    I don’t have time to address your latest post, but let me just address this one point:

    Nope. Didn’t make your point at all. Just the opposite. Auto companies have spent so much time, money, and energy into the technology that the cheapest car that can profitably include the technology is out of your (and many others) price range. The “tweaks” are too expensive to make and the cars can’t compete for your purchase.

    No offense to you (seriously … this isn’t aimed at you personally), but I call bullshit.

    Companies have NOT spent “so much time, money and energy” into hybrid or alternative fuel technology. They’ve half-assed the process just for good PR and to add one high MPG vehicle to compensate for all their gas guzzlers. If they had been serious, the cost differences would not be so great at this point in 2007. If you can prove to me otherwise, I’d love to see it.

    I’ll try my best to give you a better idea of the “tweaks” I have in mind (along with some links as to how they’ve already been done), as well as a few other thoughts about your comments.

    I’ve got a busy weekend ahead, though, and if I don’t post it this weekend I’ll post a response Monday.

    Oh, and that 26 MPG listing for the ‘vette is so much crap I don’t even know where to begin (again, that’s aimed at Chevy and the CAFE standard, not you personally).

    Oh … and I would like to note something else real quick:

    THANK YOU!

    This has been a great discussion — I’ve learned quite a bit … such as the fact I suck at getting my point across clearly.

    🙂

  • “If they had been serious, the cost differences would not be so great at this point in 2007. If you can prove to me otherwise, I’d love to see it.”
    I’m not certain how to prove it. I’ll give it some thought. But think about this for a bit.

    Toyota has been selling the Prius for a decade now and they began their research a couple of years before that. They completely redesigned the way an automobile transmission works. The’ve turned control of when, if, and how fast the engine runs over to a computer program that is constantly trying to balance the demads of the driver with both fuel efficiency and clean exhaust. They’ve added electric motors to the car that both double up as generators to try and recover as much of the lost (wasted) energy as possible from things like hard acceleration and hard breaking. After 10 years of production and additional years of research, the technology has matured to the point that it no longer needs a car specially designed around it. They are now able to and have added this technology to other cars they sell (such as the Camry, the Highlander and a couple of Lexus). The system works remarkably well and reliably given just how differently it operates compared to a traditional car. So it isn’t “half-assed”, nor is it “one high MPG vehicle”. They are serious and have demonstrated so by ramping up production of the Prius nearly 10 fold in 2007, and announcing plans to offer HSD versions of all their automobiles in the rather near future. And yet the cost differences are what they are. Even after 10 years of development. Some is profit, some is recovering cost of investment, and much of it is additional materials and labor to build the car.

    “Oh, and that 26 MPG listing for the ‘vette is so much crap I don’t even know where to begin (again, that’s aimed at Chevy”
    Keep in mind that the 26MPG was not a number chosen by Chevy. That number came from the EPA, and more specifically it came from the exact same tests that gave the Prius a 50MPG hwy rating. If 26MPG is so much crap, then the Prius 50MPG is an equal amount of crap from exactly the same test. Both these numbers 26MPG for the ‘vette and 50MPG for the Prius are possible if the car is driven the way I described. Neither number is likely for the average driver.

    “THANK YOU!
    This has been a great discussion — I’ve learned quite a bit”

    You’re welcome! And thank you. I agree this has been a great discussion. I truly enjoy discussions like these. I usually learn something new (like from that link you included).

    “… such as the fact I suck at getting my point across clearly.”

    I’ve had a lot of practice.

    I may not think to check back to this post after today. I’ll send my email address to the address listed on your website at daddyology. If you want to continue this discussion in this public forum, email me to let me know when you post here again. If you’d rather take the discussion somewhere less public, just send your response directly to my email. Doesn’t matter to me either way.

  • assuming a practical method for storing such things can be developed, isn’t undergound an OK place for such things (the oxygen issue aside)?

    NUMBY: Not Under My Back Yard!

    While not meaning to sound like a Cassandra, it might nevertheless be worth pointing out that a massive planetary belch of carbon dioxide would hardly be simply a question of its impact on the atmosphere. One evening in 1986 a cloudy mixture of carbon dioxide and water droplets erupted without warning from the depths of Lake Nyos in Cameroon. As the ground-hugging mist dispersed through nearby villages for over 20 kilometers in all directions, it killed over 1,700 people, as well as most of the animals in its path. Just two years earlier a similar occurrence had killed 37 people at a nearby lake. How comfortable do you feel about the assumption that billions of cubic meters of carbon dioxide will “very likely” remain underground if we decide to pump it down there? Ever heard of cracks and fissures in the earth’s crust? Would you want it anywhere near where you live?

    Look for much better ideas in the forthcoming book Prescription for the Planet.

    Okay, it’s a shameless plug. Mea culpa.

  • Mark D (#28) writes: But only once they figure out a clean, safe and reliable way to dispose of the used fuel rods. Unfortunately, they have yet to do so (and burying it in a mountain is neither clean nor reliable).

    It’s already been figured out. Another customer for my upcoming book! I’ve noticed that energy topics initiate a huge amount of comments on this site. Clearly it’s an issue that’s on a lot of people’s minds. And like you, Mark D, I’m also a parent who wants to leave a better planet for my kids and yours, and everybody else’s. I will be sure to write a piece on the new book as soon as it’s ready to hit the shelves. I believe you will all be pleasantly surprised and optimistic once you read it. The technology is actually the easy part. The politics is a bitch!

  • Comments are closed.