New CAFE Standards: 42 MPG Cars, 26 MPG Trucks by 2016

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

By the way, most hydrogen is collected by using a steam reforming process on methane gas. It's MUCH more efficient than electrolysis

Sure, but then methane is the actual main energy source (as well as whatever energy is put into the process). By steam reforming it, you're splitting out the carbon, leaving hydrogen.

[bigralph]

I'm sick and tired of the global warring what eve it is called. Cattle emit more co2 then a car. http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...rs-427843.html

[diddiyo]

Originally Posted by bigralph

I'm sick and tired of the global warring what eve it is called. Cattle emit more co2 then a car. http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...rs-427843.html

make being a vegetarian illegal NOW!

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by bigralph

I'm sick and tired of the global warring what eve it is called. Cattle emit more co2 then a car. http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...rs-427843.html

ya, but you can't exactly eat your car either.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

ya, but you can't exactly eat your car either.

LIAR!!!!!

[MrIcky]

Originally Posted by rayhawk

That all sounds very comforting, unless you understand the laws of physics and realize that all those things about electric vehicles make no sense. And when the government spends money, that is not a boon to the economy, every dollar they spend requires 5 people to go out and make a "real" dollar by actually contributing to the economy.

What don't I understand about the laws of physics to make a 100 mile battery operated car? I think you need to read a little more: http://www.teslamotors.com/. And they are getting better very quickly due to all the research being put into large batteries right now.

As far as stimulating the economy with an unfunded mandate , so there's a hint of sarcasm there. An unfunded mandate means the feds says the state has to make this happen, then they (the US) DOESN'T spend any money. Then the states work out charging stations with contractors using tax breaks and fee schemes. Then more powerplants get approved because they have to be. <----"small boon" to the economy.

[Fireball]

Originally Posted by nards444

I dont see why there is a complaint for better gas milage.

If a business wants to produce cars that get better gas mileage, then they should be free to do so and no one is complaining about that. The complaint comes when a cadre of government bureaucrats/politicians dictate to businesses what gas mileage should be.

[FNKNSTN]

Originally Posted by theholycow

15 guys driving old trucks through the woods vs. 150,000 people stuck in traffic...totally different. The trees literally clean the air, which is why the air is fresher in rural states despite the nasty polluters that don't have any emissions standards.

I agree. Every car will get 0mpg idling in traffic... except Hybrids and electric cars, they just pick up where they left off. But you're mis-informed about trees 'litterally cleaning the air'. They merely convert CO2 to O2. The reason the air is fresher in rural states is because they're full of farm lands and forests, rather than cities and roads full of millions of people. Not to mention all the storms that blow through middle America.

Does this mean that people in rural areas should be allowed burn tires in their backyards and pour paint thinner into local streams because they're the only ones polluting air and water for hundreds of miles around?

Just add up the population of small towns in rural states and see how much CO2 they produce as a whole.

This isn't about air quality anyway. This is about the mythical 'Global Warming' and and dependence on oil from the Middle East.

That's the "All of the US should become The People's Republik Of Kalifornia" attitude, and there's 49 states that have a different idea. What's the point of having states if they're all going to be ruled by one? IMO the federal government is too big and powerful already, and we resent having a second federal-like government that's not even supposed to have any power over us.

Last I checked, Washington DC was closer to you than me. And last I checked, it was a dude from Chicago who officially made this decision, not a KALIFORNIAN. ICH KOMME AUS KALIFORNIAN, NICHT BARACK OBAMA.

I agree. The federal government has gotten really big over the past 8 years.

Do you think that the fed's would step in if the all-powerful and influencial California wanted to lower the age of consent to 12? Because a 12 year old girl with D-cups and a baby face should be legal, right?

The big problem with hydrogen is not the danger, but the fact that it's not an energy source; it's merely an energy storage medium. You can't mine hydrogen, you can't capture it; you have to make it by using more energy than it will deliver. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but if you're going to do that anyway you might as well make something more like the fuels we currently use, without any special handling requirements (now the danger issue comes into play). If you're going to make all the energy some other way and store it in the car fuel you might as well make ethanol and biodiesel from non-food materials.

Since when is hydrogen not an energy source? Buy a small tank of hydrogen, open the valve and take a match to it.... tell me what happens. It's not a viable answer to our 'problem' because it currently takes more energy to break off hydrogen molecules from naturally occuring compounds, such as water.

No danger? I'm sure you remember hearing about the Hindenberg when is went up in flames. Or maybe the first detonation of the Hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen is not just flammable, it's explosive when compressed and liquified. Add enriched radioactive materials and you've got the greatest car bomb ever known in the trunk of your car.

Can't be mined? Yes it can. From extraterrestrial sources where it occurs naturally as a liquid, or in hydrogen rich compounds that could later be refined on Earth.

[FNKNSTN]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Tell that to the Sun!



Sounds like you've just described the model for the battery in an electric car!

But technically we don't "make" hydrogen. We can use chemical reactions or electrolysis to collect it from the earth. An easy way is to pull it out of water molecules. Think of it as mining on a molecular scale. We "mine" a lot of elements out of common molecules this way, including some metals.

Dude, did you graduate from high school or something? Maybe you read a lot too... and listen to the news... and watch educational shows.

'Cause reading your post is like a breath of fresh air. I can tell from the few words you wrote that you actually know what you're talking about.

[FNKNSTN]

Originally Posted by theholycow

Sure, but then methane is the actual main energy source (as well as whatever energy is put into the process). By steam reforming it, you're splitting out the carbon, leaving hydrogen.

Isn't that the whole point????

The trick is to capture the Hydrogen in one tank and the CO2 in another.

CO2 is compressed, liquified, and sold just like Hydrogen, Helium, and Oxygen.

I'm at work right now... in a chemical plant... and we are using CO2 that was delivered via tanker truck yesterday.

[MrIcky]

The hydrogen economy for vehicles was much hyped for a while, but it is quietly whithering. Fuel cells have never really made sense: you use electricity to make hydrogen, then you use hydrogen to make electricity. It makes more sense to develop better technologies to skip the middle step.

I don't know why people are doom and gloom over this really, the timing is a rough, but (again) you HAD to know this is the way things were headed. The current administration talked about it on the campaign trail. The former administration had the same basic Cafe goals, but by 2020. So it's always been when not if.

The one thing that has changed is that gas hit $4.00/gal last summer and pushed people's willingness to accept faster changes.

[FNKNSTN]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

Part of your post I agree with, but part of it I don't. California doesn't 'do it just fine'. California lead the way into the current recession. California has been losing industrial base at a rate well above the national average for years. California would be losing population base if not for immigration. California is suffering a 'brain drain' where their educated and affluent are tending to move toward other states.

California also did itself disservices by being the poster child for urban sprawl. The California Lifestyle model for urban infrastructure was copied often in the west and that's part of why we are where we are now with this crap. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So now it's about the economy, huh?

I guess Idaho can't lose what it never had, right?

The national average is so low compared to California because there are so many wide open spaces amongst the 'red' states... covering a lot of area, but aren't exactly industrially inclined.

The more you've got, the more you've got to lose when times get tough.

California does just fine when it comes to paying absurd taxes. We're all getting by, and have been for decades so I don't know what you're talking about.

And I really don't understand what you're referring to when you say 'California Lifestyle' and there being some problem here.......?

[FNKNSTN]

Originally Posted by rayhawk

What does California do just fine? Not much but get in the way of technology and innovation, overtax, overspend, and overregulate. California is an embarassment to the United States.

Overspend and over-regulate, yes. But that can be blamed on the people in the capital.

Over-tax? Gimme a couple quotes... then give me a suggestion on what we should pay, if you are so wise.

Technology & Innovation... what are you talking about? You just pulling this out of your ass or what? Give me one example of how California ignores advances in technology and puts down innovation.

California can't help it if GM decided to build the Camaros in Canada, and base their company in Michigan.

[FNKNSTN]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

That have proven to be ineffective at actually reducing pollution. But are great at raising revenue which is negligible due to the extremely high corporate tax that drives business to neighboring states like AZ.

How does this not make sense? What "pollution" are you talking about? You might produce the same amount of toxic gasses per gallon... but you can make that gallon last longer with a high mileage vehicle. I would rather get 100 miles per pound of CO and CO2 then I would getting 10 miles per pound. Did you ever happen to visit LA in the 60's and 70's? The air quality is a lot better now than it was then.

I have no problem with SMOG laws. But again If I wanted that for my state let me lobby my politicians for it. I understand the risk of not having emissions. But that shouldn't be a federal decision. Let the States decide. Kinda like helmet laws. Not the smartest law ever passed but people accept the risk. And this really isn't the issue. CAFE has nothing to do with emissions. two completely different agendas.

What land of make believe to you live in? This was a decision made by the government, not the general public. Do you really think that the public would protest outside the capital with signs saying that they want to smog their cars, and if they didn't pass, they wouldn't be allowed to drive them?

And how is the helmet law not a smart law? Name one down-side to wearing a helmet. Tell me how it might negatively affect your health while you're going 75mph on the highway.

And if it's not about emissions... then why do you morons keep bringing it up? Lack California is some whack-job state or something. Get over yourselves and join the party.

think each state should determine what works best for them. The truth is the percentage of cars 30 years old and older shrinks each year. And there is almost no measurable impact to vehicle pollutants in the boonies because the concentration is so limited. And furthermore, just because you suffer from the Sunshine Tax State by choosing to live there, doesn't mean I have to when I don't live there. I did live there for Nine years and left for a reason. And dammit they found me all the way out here in FL...

You know what would work best for California? It would work best if there was no age of consent law. I say that if you put a bag over a 13 year old girl's head, covering that baby face of hers... and if she's so physically developed that you cannot tell that she's only 13 years old, then she should be LEGAL. But only because that's what's best for the state. Let the marijuana offenders and statutory rapists out of jail, save on some tax money.

And you're right. Those old clunkers are disappearing for good! And pretty much any new car you buy will get twice the mileage of your old clunker.

Yes, in the boonies, the concentration of vehicles is less. Maybe if everyone in California spread out (it's a big phuckin' state) then we could all pollute more than we do now... right?

"Suffer from the Sunshine State Tax"? Who's suffering? I'm not. My 33 year old 10mpg getting Silverado passes smog with flying colors. Last I looked, it was only people from the other 49 states on here complaining about these CAFE standards and California's supposed influence on the whole thing.

I concede that the President pushed this and used CA as the standard. CA has yet to prove that it's MPG standard works. In my opinion CA made a mistake with it's own version of CAFE. Their decision to implement this could have cost their citizens many choices in cars as some manufactures may have had to limit the models to attain the correct MPG numbers. The Current administration just bailed them out from a bad decision making their CAFE numbers the national Standard. I kinda thought of this on the fly. Again, why should the rest of the country have to bail out their bad decision. Just cus it looks good?

I never knew of any MPG standard in California? All I know is that when gas prices went up in California (where demand is highest, and cost is highest - but I can afford it even in my 10mpg truck), people started selling their Silverados and F-150's and started buying Japanese Hybrids. So does it now make sense that Obama wants to push American car companies to increase their mileage standards? To compete with the Japanese maybe? I know a ton of you guys HATE Toyota... so what's wrong with Obama wanting to make an American company more competative so it can survive on its own in the future?

And what's this bullsh*t about California being limited on the styles of cars they can buy? This whole CAFE thing only says that American car companies have to offer cars which - in their class - average a certain MPG. If 35 was the magic number, that would mean a company could make two mid-size sedans. One that gets 50mpg, and one that gets 20mpg (like the 2010 SS maybe? - depending on your driving style and conditions).

I like how all these dipsh*ts on here talk about California like they're residents.

The truth is GM has the highest average Fleet MPG of any car manufacturer in the world. According to the CAFE standard. So, I'd say the current standard is fine in light of the financial troubles the big three are in. This new standard will be costly to implement. Can they do it? Sure! Is it the right time for new costly restrictions? Not in my opinion.

Costly? How?

I like how everyone everwhere else thinks that we're suffering. And how they feel like they're suffering hahahahahahahahaahh Ahhhhhhhhhh sucks for you! I'm staying in Cali.

Or are you better suited to make my decisions for me?

Yes, I am. You can trust me, sweetheart