Tweet
Environmentalists are not enthused about the prospects of meaningful climate legislation for the rest of President Obama’s first term. They may be able to eke out some legislation on oil spill response, a weak renewable energy standard (though Lindsey Graham’s introduction of nuclear power into that debate puts that in peril) and some renewables and energy efficiency tax incentives, but in the main you’re not going to see much of anything out of Congress that would really bring down carbon concentration in the air.
That effort moves to the regulatory agencies now. The EPA already plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which could lead to retiring many old coal-fired power plants. And now, they are teaming with the Department of Transportation to deliver new rules on fuel economy that could reach pretty sharply high levels:
The Obama administration on Friday is expected to suggest nearly doubling fuel economy goals for new cars and light trucks — possibly to more than 60 miles per gallon by 2025.
Under orders from the White House, the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department have been working for several months on the next phase of gas mileage standards for motor vehicles built between 2017 and 2025.
Auto industry and environmental sources say the agencies will suggest rules improving fuel economy between 3 percent and 6 percent per year. Environmental groups are urging the administration to ultimately set the annual increase at 6 percent, which would force the national fleet average beyond 60 miles per gallon in 15 years.
A 3 percent annual increase would hit around 46 mpg by 2025.
While this sounds very high, it’s not unfathomable. Cars in Europe and Asia have a far higher fuel efficiency than they do in the US. And if electric vehicles and other non-gasoline options get a boost in legislation which may pass after the elections (although it’s worth being wary about the Pickens Plan part of the deal), you could totally see this becoming realistic.
The EPA took the first step on this today with a notice of intent. They evaluated scenarios for a 3%, 4%, 5% and 6% increase, so they’re keeping everyone guessing. However, it does appear that future fuel economy standards will be going up substantially in the coming years.
31 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
We should be using thorium.
60 MPG in 15 years? You might think that in 15 years the ICE would be extinct at 20% efficiency. Just goes to show the mindset. At 60 mpg what is the form of stored potential energy utilized? Let me guess…gasoline? Boy this is real change, or just protectionism? How about a war! A war on energy! Rather than a war on people for energy! Just might have more positive results, than death, destruction and wasted money! Like the .80 cents of every dollar we spend on gas that is wasted today, just like yesterday and the day before and the year before and the generations before. I suppose it is a start. Looking back to see how we got here is not the problem! It is the solution……….
Someone thinks that in 15 years we can get average fuel efficiency higher than every new car or truck sold today? Can I get the other side of that bet?
Go nuclear, even France did it.
60 mpg isn’t very difficult actually. There’s already production engines exceeding that number, used in cars throughout Europe. It’s also a logical benchmark, considering that it’s the bottom end for an ICE to be easier on the environment than a BEV. Obviously, that varies depending on a region’s power supply, but it ranges from 60 to 80 mpg.
Efficiency won’t save us. See “Jevons’ Paradox.”
Nuclear’s not that great of an idea. Extremely expensive to build and maintain. And the ones in France do have their share of small scale leaks, which do a considerable amount of environmental harm. Really doesn’t take much for that stuff to do a lot of damage.
What tech are they talking about to reach that number plug in diesel hybrids? fuel cells, low weight carbon fiber car parts? Obama suggesting something whats the plan to get there? Not being negative just very very curious.
My suggestion regrading fuel economy standards is that pick-up trucks and SUVs MUST be counted as passenger cars unless they are not useful as cars, say by requiring trucks not covered by the standard to have either a stake-bed or tool boxes of some sort as a bed. No more counting fancy pick-ups like the Z71 with aluminum wheels and leather seats getting 17 MPG as a non-compliant work vehicle because contractors complained.
As for nuclear power: no way, the consequences of an accident are just too great.
If we’re going to continue a pissing contest with China, Th may not be the best solution.
I get better than 60mpg on my Kymco People 250. Today.Nyah-nyah.
.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/67857
We have the tech. We can do this my diary is only one idea but any idea to get us to 60 mpg means government intervention and creating jobs for this to work.
Can this pass now after the election any bill Obama wants to pass becomes harder to pass.
Non-hybrid diesels can already beat that number. And they do it in cars far cooler than any hybrid on the road.
Can they do it with a big caddy sized car? Also to make that much diesel it would mean more jobs building new refineries to meet demand which would be a good thing.
Cash for Clunlers right agter GM launches the Volt? Just how many Volts can GM crank out if they run the factory night and day?
As I understand it, there is a big loophole in the law in that the average fuel economy is not weighted based on how many of each car are sold. So GM could have a model that gets 100mpg but costs $100,000 and no one ever buys it. Yet it counts just as much toward the average fuel economy as the Escalade.
Crap that would make the law useless:(
Like this?
Since cars like this are already a reality, it seems to me that all we lack is the will to go to the next level:
http://www.automobilemag.com/green/news/1003_2011_porsche_918_spyder_hybrid_concept/index.html
The status quo is seductive—but apathy is deadly. Someday, we are going to have to learn to live within our means. There is no reason it should not start today as a favor to future generations.
Again, it is the same old jingoistic stuff. Dependence on combustian engines. Great, in 15 years this country will be second to China in just about everything, GDP, technology, mass transportation and battery technology All or in part because a lot of mental midgets in US government jobs. We ought to be banning combustion engines in 15 years. And it should be possible with non acid battery technology. If Roosevelt could build an atomic bomb, Obama ought to be able to build a sustainable transportation battery.
A practical battery for BEVs is at least 10 years off (Lithium-Air batteries), and there’s billions of dollars going into research for it. Who knows how long it will be until it’s economically feasible though, as even current EVs are more expensive than their ICE equivalents. Banning combustion engines won’t work, as you’ll leave countless people stranded, with no means of transportation. Until lithium-air, or something of equal or greater potential becomes a practical, affordable reality, ICEs are a necessity.
You all are aware scientists are working like mad at the ephemeral Lawrence Livermore Labs to get fusion ignition started, right? As in, right now? If physicists can manage to accomplish this feat, fusion energy will be available (at which point, all fission reactors the world over become targeted for obsolescence), along with elimination of a sizable portion of our nuclear waste.
Some good news on the immediate horizon for the crowd that cannot imagine life without Valhalla-sized power plants, anyway.
Better than that, we have the world’s first photograph of an atom. Atomic theory is now visible fact, ladies and gentlemen.
60mph can be done with internal combustion engines. It’s called a diesel hybrid. Ford, one of the
BigWhiny Three, unveiled one a couple of years ago, which was touted at about 60mpg city.Nuclear fusion power has been “just around the corner” for nearly 50 years, as has artificial intelligence. I suspect they’ll both stay around the corner for at least that much longer.
spot on comment -
as you point out, current technology already provides American sized vehicles in fleets the ability to get to 40 mpg, and for EU sized vehicles to reach 60 mph.
There is no need to wait 15 years – granted the fact of current cars being in any “US country wide” average means it will indeed be 15 years to get to that 40 as an average for all vehicles on the road if Obama were to declare 40 mpg the law beginning next year.
But if Obama wants to force the change over to electric he needs to set 100 mpg as the goal for any new current year vehicles fleet average.
Yes, the radioactive decay products from Thorium are so much safer then those from Uranium. /s
VW turbo diesel does 50+ mpg today.
Right. And the problem? Neutrons.
We have a very good fusion reactor, and its at a more-or-less safe distance. The sun.
Not enough Lithium.
Well then epa can issue a regulation banning combustion engines in ten years. But I will not reley on Bereley to give us the battery. There ought to have been a government sponsored project to get this done as fast as possible once our dependence on foreign fossil fuels became a national security issue as became obvious when the Clintons were in power in the 90s. In part we developed the atom bomb as a defensive measure to Germany’s atom bomb project. Our approach to developing battery power ought to be partly defensive as well. It is a national security issue. After all Stephen Rattner, the NYT guy, turned financial guy who was in charge of reorg of the automotive industry now blithely asserts there will not be viable commercical batteries in his lifetime. What a vision.