I don't get the US fascination with the CAFE standards issue -

If I owned a chunk of Detroit, it would be exactly the sort of well-meaning diversion
(in the absence of a C&C-based global treaty)
in which I'd want to entangle the "environment movement".

Or is it just that vanishingly few people have studied Jevon's Paradox ?

Regards,

Bill

CAFE has long since been an standard that does not have a reach. It is like the two minute hundred yard dash or the 16 minute mile.  Who cares?   My stupid Ford Five Hundred that I drive just over 4000 miles a year can achieve the goal of CAFE.

Pretty much there's only 2 ways the car companies can meet the demands:

Go electric
Go diesel

And while diesel is pretty cost competative right now (and has solved all the environmental issues to make it as clean as gasoline)

Problem being that both technologies don't have much market share in the US light duty fleet.

And the only one which shows any room for real growth is electric.

Diesel pretty much is, what it is right now, and isn't going to get much better.

Diesel pretty much is, what it is right now, and isn't going to get much better.

Why do you say this?

Diesel pretty much is, what it is right now, and isn't going to get much better.
Why do you say this?

Because it's true.
Only real diesel technology on the horizon is HCCI Diesel.

And thats highly more complex/expensive than a normal diesel engine.

And it only yields a whole 14% increase in fuel effeciency.

Meanwhile a Diesel Jetta is currently about equivalent to a Gasoline Prius.  (About 45 mpg in real driving range)

Next year's Prius expects to DOUBLE the mileage up to 94 mpg.
And thats just scratching the surface of what electric has to offer.

Diesel tech isn't going to going advance more than just a little.
And even if by some chance you could magically make a 100% effecient diesel engine, it STILL wouldn't be enough.
Because an electric car running on the least green grid electricity in America is still greener than a diesel car.

So it's not a matter of better engineering, because it's physically impossible for any combustion engine to surpass electric technology.

Hey, all:

One reference to 'electric' in the speech and one in the plan--one reference to 'battery', none at all to 'hydrogen', one reference to sustainability (and that is "unsustainable") --all together very short-sighted, limited, and disappointing.  

Strictly on the subject of CAFE standards--we should immediately match China and the EU, to eliminate an objection and bargaining chip they use on Carbon negotiations.  Plus it is a matter of simple leadership.  

One reason Detroit gets away with their CAFE standards is the advertising they use--wasteful practices glorified as if an inherent right, which Detroit then uses to justify the standard.  

We really should know better.

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Hey, all:

GreyFlcn:  You have steadfastly and in a contrived ignorant, deceitful fashion completely overlooked, in more than this thread, the clear repeated fact that when I have referred to Hydrogen use in transportation, I am referring to solar Hydrogen, and not the fossil fuel reliance you seem to slavishly stick to.  Just what is your agenda, after all?  

I told you very directly, and in a clear and simple manner in a previous thread, that if you continue to argue against solar Hydrogen in transportation compared to fossil fuels, you should at least have the decency to address the Carbon emissions from solar Hydrogen, which you have not, instead you cut and paste the same references to the same tables on your own site, with the same data which is still uncited and therefore still unsubstantiated.  Just what is your agenda, after all?

I provided a reference from a third source to a table, and quoted values from it, stating the improvement using solar Hydrogen over fossil fuels in a vehicle.  I did it; you can, too.    

Until you have done those things, you are a troll.  As you continue to follow me around on this site with the same cut and paste troll remarks, you are a stalker.  Grow up.  As before, I will let you have the last word--go ahead--use another reference to your own site.

On-topic:  

From Obama's speech:
"Good ideas are crushed under the weight of typical Washington politics. Politicians are afraid to ask the oil and auto industries to do their part, and those industries hire armies of lobbyists to make sure it stays that way. Autoworkers, understandably fearful of losing jobs, and wise to the tendency of having to pay the price of management's mistakes, join in the resistance to change. The rest of us whip ourselves into a frenzy whenever gas prices skyrocket or a crisis like Katrina takes oil off the market, but once the headlines recede, so does our motivation to act."

Sadly, I see virtually no improvement in Obama's proposals over those of others.  Obama's statement could be instantly autobiographical.  

California, typically ahead of the pack among the states, is hardly ahead on this issue so is hardly a model of real progress.  And, substituting biofuels for fossil fuels will simply not work, as they are not sustainable, and about the only result will be further loss of habitat to agriculture, impacting biodiversity, and higher food costs.  

I agree pretty much completely with the comments made by Pangolin ("When jumping off cliffs....") including the comment that Detroit is finished, but I would add, except for huge pickups and SUVs and Hummers--pathetic.  

Biodiversivist is also on point on the bottleneck, and furthermore, the cars on the other side will be Japanese and others.

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!