So explain to me why it needs to take until 2020 to make cars more fuel efficient?

[Skidmore]

I do not understand why this congress cannot create the incentives and the penalties for the auto industry to move out of the 1950s. Why not create incentives to hire people to retool factories and produce newer types of cars. Believe me, somewhere someone has already designed safe more fuel efficient cars.

Also, why the reluctance to rein in the oil industry?

[Gabi Hayes]

1. did you ever read Carter's Energy Policy Speech from 1977?

prescient, maddening/saddening because of what could have/should have been implemented

if we'd done what he proposed then, 911 probably wouldn't have happened, and we DEFINITELY wouldn't be in Iraq forever

[Eurobabe]

2. two words: OIL LOBBY

this is so seriously phucked up, i wrote to my senators, telling them, let's make it mandatory by 2010. everyone else is doing it, why can't the USA?

[greenman3610]

3. 150 mpg cars will begin to be available by 2010-11

GM Chevy volt will be the first, most likely. Toyota will
be in there somewhere with a plug in Prius.
Ford will have an entry.

It will take several years for the newer models to replace the
existing stock, and bring the fleet averages up.

The company has currently moved several hundred engineers to
focus on a "moonshot" program to bring the Volt to market.
It is their strategy to regain leadership.

Think about it this way.
What will the reaction be when the first one of these glides silently
down your street burning no gas at all?
Remember 1994, when nobody had a computer? By 1999, what happened?
That's what it's going to be like.
Game changer.

---

General Motors has assigned hundreds of engineers and allotted millions of dollars in an effort to become the greenest company in the auto industry, The Wall Street Journal reported.

"We have to have people think we are part of the solution, not part of the problem," the WSJ quoted Lawrence Burns, GM's vice president for research and development and global planning, as saying.

Among the projects GM is fast-tracking:

the Chevrolet Volt, a compact car with a huge T-shaped battery pack in the middle with a small gasoline engine in the front, not to drive the wheels but to serve as a generator to recharge the battery. GM estimates the vehicle could go 150 miles on a gallon of gas.

http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyautoinsider/13079/gm-turning-green.html
-------
GM signaled the start of production engineering of its hydrogen fuel cell Thursday when it told employees at its Honeoye Falls, N.Y., fuel-cell development facility that it will shift more than 500 of the fuel-cell engineers to core production engineering divisions from its advanced development laboratories division.

"We don't build cars in research labs," Larry Burns, GM's vice president of research, development and strategic planning, said in an interview with the Free Press. "This is another important milestone as we move fuel-cell vehicles closer to future production."

Burns said more than 400 GM fuel-cell engineers will report to GM's powertrain group to begin production engineering of fuel-cell systems. Another 100 will transfer to the global product development organization to start integrating fuel cells into future GM vehicles.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50775

[Tesha]

13. Bullshit.

> 150 mpg cars will begin to be available by 2010-11

Bullshit. For reasons that have to do with the immutable
of physics, no acceptable car will ever achieve 150 MPG.

Well, unless one lies about the mileage by ignoring energy
added to the car through other means (like being plugged-in
to recharge its batteries overnight). But if one is going to
play that game, one might as well go for the really big lie
and claim an infinite-MPG car (for cars that are simply
rechargeable electric cars).

Tesha

[Orsino]

18. Burning less gas is the point.

It's not bullshit, and it's not a lie. Gasoline isn't really a renewable resource, but electricity can be.

If we must keep driving, then all-electic or plug-in hybrids are the way to cut way back. We just have to get serious about generating electricity via other means than hydrocarbon combustion.

[Tesha]

19. Energy is energy

Energy is energy, and quoting a number like "150 MPG"
will just lead to unreasonable expectations (and
certainly unfair comparisons).

The only way a car achieves "150 MPG" is if some
power station somewhere is producing electricity.
And here in America, producing electricity usually
means burning oil, coal, gas, or uranium; only a
little bit of our overall electricity comes from
hydro, solar, wind, wave, OTEC, or geothermal
sources and that's not likely to change very soon.

A fair comparison would state the mileage in terms
of the overall amount of fossil fuel consumed, whether
it's burned in the car's internal combustion engine or
in the furnaces of the fossil-fuel power plant.

Tesha

[Orsino]

20. I disagree...sort of.

Long after the fossil fuels are gone, the sun will continue to shine, the wind will continue to blow, and geothermal energy will still be there for the taking. You can call those pipe dreams, but if so that's a failure of our will, and not the fault of an auto manufacturer.

There's also the fact that petroleum is scheduled to vanish long before the coal, so there is still an edge to good ol' AC from the wall socket--even if a shift from gas to coal eventually makes the coal more expensive.

It's precisely because not all fuels are created equal (or priced the same), though, that such comparisons have meaning. No, it's not as simple as the 150 mpg claim might make it seem, but that number is achievable, and to the individual consumer, the results will be real. The unreasonable expectations arise when we kid ourselves that electricity will always be easy to obtain in the same old ways.

Weaning ourselves off the gasoline is a good thing, but as you suggest, it's only a step in the right direction. Polluting or non-renewable energy sources are a bottleneck, and our profligate consumption will only make the inevitable transition more painful.

[Tesha]

24. You also need to consider the carbon question

Thanks -- I think we understand each other.

The only additional point I'd make is that you also
need to consider the carbon question. A coal-burning
power plant puts out more CO2 per kilowatt than an
oil-burning powerplant (or car) which in turn puts
out more CO2 per KW than a natural-gas-burning
power plant (or car).

Figuring out the total planetary cost of a mile
driven just gets harder and harder ;).

Tesha

[IDemo]

29. DOE, Argonne lab, and others on CO2

Among the misunderstandings facing electric transportation is the "but you're not lessening pollution, only moving it from the tailpipe to the smokestack" meme. It has been shown that even in areas of the country where the grid is primarily coal-powered, CO2 and other greenhouse gases would be significantly less using electric vehicles (according to California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)).

more-> Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks


--internal combustion (ICE) on left, electric vehicles on right:
source: Argonne National Laboratory

[greenman3610]

33. trust me, I have considered the carbon question

Which is exactly why I support electric vehicles.

I would beg you to consider:
Plug in vehicles will be replacing petroleum with (currently wasted)
"spinning reserve" power by charging mostly at night, during
off peak hours.
Work is already in progress to take advantage of millions of
battery powered cars for exactly the electrical storage we
need- to support the grid during peak demand,
to take better advantage of solar and wind.
'Vehicle to Grid" technology, already demonstrated, will
make possible a doubling of potential wind/solar contributions
to the grid.
This will cut the need for more power plants by shaving the
top off the need for "peak power' units, which are notoriously
expensive and ineffecient.
Result: Utilitities can sell more power, while building fewer
conventional plants, electric bills can be reduced, and
plug in owners may be able to get PAID for providing
grid support while their cars are plugged in,
up to 2-4 thousand bucks a year.

read more at:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/v2g/index.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0729/p17s02-stct.html
listen to lecture number 3 at
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid231.php

[Tesha]

34. I don't think you understand how power plants are used.

Your description of how the recharging of electric
vehicles will affect generation seems incorrect to
me. Today, peaking plants are used during the day
when loads are, well, at a peak. Meanwhile, the
base load plants (commonly, the coal-fired plants)
run at maximum output at all times.

Adding a new load during the night won't change
the way the coal-fired plants are used, it may
just force more peakers to operate overnight.

The only ways EVs are justified for minimizing
pollution (note: I'm only talking about "minimizing
pollution" here) are:

o If they use regenerative braking to recapture
momentum, and/or

o The other electricity that they recharge from
is derived from either renewable sources or
nuclear power.

Tesha

[IDemo]

41. The Department of Energy would disagree with you on both points

- There is abundant spare capacity in the US to power over 80% of our vehicles via the grid.
- Greenhouse gases would be reduced even in areas using coal power.

Mileage from megawatts: Study finds enough electric capacity to "fill up" plug-in vehicles across much of the nation

RICHLAND, Wash. – If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of these 198 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics. (Note: an earlier version of this release contained the number 220 million for these types of vehicles. The 220 million figure included vans, the 198 million excludes vans).

Researchers at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory also evaluated the impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, on foreign oil imports, the environment, electric utilities and the consumer.

<snip>

"the study suggests the idle capacity of the electric power grid is an underutilized national asset that could be tapped to vastly reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

======================================================================

-- On the reduction of pollution, several studies have shown that carbon monoxide and all greenhouse gases would be reduced with a move toward electric vehicles.

From the same article above:

"The potential for lowering greenhouse gases further is quite substantial because it is far less expensive to capture emissions at the smokestack than the tailpipe. Vehicles are one of the most intractable problems facing policymakers seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Pratt.

Argonne National Laboratory also conducted an exhaustive study for the DOE's Office of Transportation Technologies called 'GREET' (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation). It found as well that greenhouse gases would be significantly reduced by the widespread adoption of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Although the benefits are greatest in areas with hydro or nuclear power, even in parts of the country with coal power, greenhouse gas levels would be less than for an equivalent number of internal combustion powered vehicles.

[Tesha]

43. The story you cite doesn't actually support the claim you're making.

The story doesn't say anything about which of the
"idle capacity" would be used. As I said, the base
load plants tend to run at or near capacity.

Tesha

[IDemo]

47. Seemed fairly clear to me

“We were very conservative in looking at the idle capacity of power generation assets,” said PNNL scientist Michael Kintner-Meyer. “The estimates didn’t include hydro, renewables, or nuclear plants. It also didn’t include plants designed to meet peak demand because they don’t operate continuously. We still found that across the country 84% of the additional electricity demand created by PHEVs could be met by idle generation capacity.”

[IDemo]

23. "Equivalent miles per gallon" is the term used with EV's or plug-in hybrids

Saying that electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids return "X - mpg" requires a qualification: they are still using energy, even if not carbon-based. But they ultimately will use far less of it no matter from which source.

Comparing the total energy usage of vehicles which use completely different fuels and propulsion systems is referred to as a "well-to-wheel" analysis. By using a common measure of energy such as megajoules, it is possible to derive "equivalent miles per gallon" (or kilometers per megajoule) for non-internal combustion vehicles. Beginning with the energy content of the source fuel from the ground, and removing the energy required to refine/process it and transport it to filling station or electrical outlet yields a "well-to-tank" (or "well-to-station") efficiency number. The "tank to wheel" figure follows: internal combustion engine and drivetrain efficiency, versus the efficiency of motor/motor controller and battery charging for an electric vehicle. It is here where the electrics, whether in "pure" EV's or hybrids, blow internal combustion out of the water.

Well-to-wheel analyses have shown that EV's such as the Tesla do indeed return very much higher numbers (as much as double) than even very fuel efficient vehicles like the 1993 Honda Civic VX (EPA-rated at 51 mpg).

[Radical Activist]

35. No way.

First, even if we do power electric cars from coal, its more efficient than oil. Not all energy sources are alike.

And did you also notice Democrats pushing for more renewable energy in the Senate bill? America may not have many renewable now, but we will. There's a big difference between renewable and non-renewable energy.

But there's another way around your pessimism. There's now a company that will put a solar panel roof on electric cars. Don't tell me that's the same as oil or coal!

[MrSlayer]

4. I think you know quite well why that is.

Big oil has a tremendous amount of influence. There is so much money involved it doesn't pay to limit the amount of crude oil consumed. Honestly, we could switch to something cheaper and more efficient tomorrow but the big oil/big money people don't want it.

[soothsayer]

5. exactly! Don't China and other countries have high MPG cars now?

yes they do.

[krispos42]

7. Yeah, if you like being stuck in the back of a Geo Metro equivalent.

Tiny cars=good gas milage.

They don't sell here. Even now, with gas hoving at near all-time highs, SUVs continue to sell briskly.

That's changing a little bit.

[IChing]

30. That's bullshit and you know it.

A study completed earlier this year by the French environment and energy agency Ademe and the World Energy Council indicates that over nearly 30 years, the average fuel consumption of European cars has dropped by more than 20% to around 6.5 l/100km, or 43 mpg. By contrast, average fuel economy of new cars in the US is now 21 29.3 mpg. (See update below.)

France itself appears to be the European fuel economy leader, with the average consumption of new cars on sale in France now at 46 mpg.

Contributing factors are the ongoing shift to diesel, the improved efficiency of the vehicles, public policies maintaining high fuel prices to discourage consumption, and a strong focus on public transportation.


As far as power goes diesels won LeMans.



http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/average_fuel_co.html

---------------------------------------------------------
For a solution in the states is simple, if you want to buy a 'new' gas hog then you pay a hefty carbon tax every year
that helps discourage consumption and those monies go to public transportation.
I am really tired of this "we can't do it mentality"

[krispos42]

31. It's not bullshit. SUV sailes are doing just fine.

And the historic 30-year fuel economy numbers include the SUV craze of 1990 to today.

We as Americans don't like buying small cars. Not overall. People give up a lot of comfort, accessories, power, and aafetly for a rather modest increase in fuel economy.

Using my car as an example... my 1989 Olds Regency 98 is a full-size, six-passenger sedan with a big trunk and a 165-horsepower V-6. I get an observed 24 miles per gallon in mixed driving. I'm usually on the highway, but half of my driving is fast-moving commuting in moderate traffic and the other half is speed-limit commuting at 3am.

Looking at cars from the same model year, in order to get any sort of modest fuel-economy increase, I have to get a car that is significantly smaller in all dimensions and a lot lighter, too boot.

Now, this car that I drive was not really my choice. It was a gift ($1), and when my wife and I got divorced I opted to take the older car because I'm mechanically handy. It is bigger than I need it to be.

But people here are not really looking to trade in their cars for an econobox. We don't want to drive something tiny and frail. So we mandate a fuel-economy increase. This will either make all vehicles more efficient, or it will force the car makers to limit the number of SUVs and other gas-guzzlers sold per year, driving up retail prices.

That works for me.

[krispos42]

6. Part of it is product cycles

A car's production cycle is usually about 8 years or so between major overhauls with some refinement and refreshment during the cycle. Big car makers have a dozen or more different models currently in production, with the next generation being finalized as I type this. That's a lot to modernize and upgrade!

And the tooling... oh God, all the tooling to make this stuff. At my job, we hydroform like the automakers do, just on a very very much smaller scale. Our tool for the hydroforming is pretty simple: two slabs of steel, about 30 inches on a side and ten inches thick, with the shape of the faucet housing milled into each half. Designed to make together with precision measured in the thousandth of an inch.

If my boss hurries, he can make a new tool in 4 weeks, including the heat-treating and hand-polishing.

Multiply that by the number of factories and the number of parts, and you get an idea of what a headache changing the production lines are. There's a reason Ford still makes the Crown Vic and Lincoln Town Car on a 30-year-old automotive platform: it works pretty well and it paid for itself sometime during the Reagan era.

Any automaker could meet the goal tomorrow. Unfortunately, their entire product line would be cars like the Civic and Focus because making things like the Camry and Impala, Forester and RAV4, would lower their average fuel economy too much.

In cars right now, the engine and body technology is advanced enough for our cars to have excellent power-to-weight ratios (and thus performance) while being fuel efficient. This is after twenty-plus years of development following the post-oil-embargo crackdown.

The 1985 Ford Escort has a mere 68 horsepower, the 2005 Ford Focus has 130, as an example, while both got similar gas milage.

We might well see a dip in those numbers as automakers stop offering engine upgrades in order to increase fuel economy. No more optional V-6 or V-8 engines, for example.

The advent of new clean diesel engines is starting to roll out here, and those get better milage because of their more efficient thermodynamic cycle. The hybrid production lines still have to come up to snuff, mostly in automotive-quality motors, generators, and battery packs. New technology like BMW's 'steamer' will also drastically reduce fuel consumption while driving as well.

[Skidmore]

8. I can get an idea of how many jobs that tooling would create and

that it would be a good investment.

[gravity]

25. And who will pay for those new jobs?

It will passed onto the consumers, especially since US auto manufacturers are already in the red.

[krispos42]

32. The automakers don't need to hire any new people...

as long as the changes can be incorporated into the product life cycle. No extra cost. But you have to give the engineers time to design everything, and the tool-and-die makers time to machine them.

[cassiepriam]

10. If it was some toy for bush or cheney it would have been done yesterday.

[cassiepriam]

9. Skidmore honey you know why.

Same reason people die for lack of health care.
Same reason Iraqis are being slaughtered like baby seals.
Same reason Nancy P talks big but does nothing.

[Tesha]

14. Not to put too fine an edge on it, but "Democrats are cowards"? (NT)

[cassiepriam]

15. Cheney and Bush have all the cajones. Dems have none.

[Skidmore]

16. Cowards is not the word that comes to mind.

"Owned"--maybe is better. "Sold out," if you prefer two words.

[Eagle_Eye]

11. Selling more gasoline makes more money for the oil companies

A population in constant need (addiction?) of a product such as gasoline can be manipulated by people in power. If you constantly need to fill up that set of wheels, you constantly need to meet the demands of the people who control the gasoline.

[Tesha]

12. Congress could, if it wished, simply *BAN* the sale of gas-guzzlers.

> So explain to me why it needs to take until 2020 to make
> cars more fuel efficient?

Congress could, if it wished, simply *BAN* the sale of
gas-guzzlers. But that would probably annoy the people
and corporations who have bought and paid for Congress,
so don't look for that sort of bold action any time
soon.

Instead, you'll see lots of these "off in the distance"
feel-good measures that the bribers hope can be reversed
before their deadlines come around.

Me, I hope oil rapidy continues becoming more expensive
'cause that's the only way that Americans will eventually
break their addiction to the stuff.

Tesha

[Warren Stupidity]

17. If our leaders were interested in even TRYING to fix the problem

CAFE standards would be increasing by 10%/year for the next 10 years. That would bring us to around 70mpg in 2018, if my math is correct. (70 = 27(1 + 0.10)^10). We should not stop there. A 100+mpg standard should be acheivable.

Concurrently carbon use taxes need to be put into effect: see Al Gores very interesting proposal to substitute carbon use taxes for payroll taxes. Finally the existing federal gas taxes should remain in place but rather than going into subsidizing automobile and truck transportation, the federal highway fund should be renamed the federal mass transportation fund and its focus should be on subsidizing the development and operation of mass transportation systems that provide a viable option to auto and truck transportation.

I honestly believe that we are ready for such a challenge, the only thing we lack is the leadership to make this happen.

[gravity]

21. It's not easy making cars more fuel efficient

The only way to do it is to make smaller cars with less powerful engines. We are already at the limit of what we can do with the combustion engine, and that newer technologies are only adding decreasing marginal returns to the efficiency.

Auto companies today try to make their cars as fuel efficient as practically possible, since it is a selling point. Many times however, consumers will sacrifice some fuel efficiency if it could mean a more powerful engine on the same car.

The problem isn't just with the auto manufacturers, it is convincing the consumers to sacrifice bigger more powerful cars for smaller ones. There are many fuel efficient cars on the market today, but not everyone is buying them because they aren't as practical. For this to change the price of gas has to increase to the point that it is worth the sacrifice.

[Javaman]

22. We will be past peak oil and it will be to expensive to

produce a car for the general masses by that point, so it's more wishful thinking on the part of our congress critters. The oil corps are laughing all the way to the bank.

[sutz12]

26. That's when all of their stock options mature. nt

[Solo_in_MD]

27. Physics with a dose of thermodynamics

150 mpg cars are a lie. Just because the energy is going coming a powerplant does not mean they are truly getting 150 mpg.

[kenny blankenship]

28. No one could have foreseen that gas prices would ever rise!

No one, I tells ya!

(I think all my life there has been plenty of awareness and evidence that oil was finite, it would run out one day, and it would be increasingly priced to the advantage of foreign suppliers rather than to our consumers. But nobody wanted to act on it and the US government refused to take a longer view than either Detroit or Big Oil wanted/paid them to.)

[Radical Activist]

36. Its more than anything the Clinton/Gore administration did.

But you're right that we can do better.

[AlGore-08.com]

37. What about VP Gore's Partnership for the New Generation of Vehicles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNGV

The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles was a cooperative research program between the U.S. government and major auto corporations, aimed at establishing U.S. leadership in the development of extremely fuel-efficient (up to 80 mpg) vehicles while retaining the features that make them marketable and affordable. The partnership, formed in 1993, involved 8 federal agencies <1>, the national laboratories, universities, and the United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR), which comprises DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation. On track to achieving its objectives, the program was cancelled in 2001 at the request of the automakers, with some of its aspects shifted to the much more distant FreedomCAR program.

(snip)

GM, Ford, and Chrysler all created working concept vehicles of 5 passenger famly cars that acheived at least 72 mpg <4>. GM created the 80 mpg Precept, Ford created the 72 mpg Prodigy, and Chrysler created the 72 mpg ESX-3.

Researchers for the PNGV identified a number of ways to reach 80 mpg including reducing vehicle weight, increasing engine efficiency, combining gasoline engines and electric motors in hybrid vehicles, implementing regenerative braking, and switching to high efficiency fuel cell powerplants. Specific new technology breakthroughs achieved under the program include <5>:

* Development of carbon foam with extremely high heat conductivity (2000 R&D 100 Award)
* Near frictionless carbon coating, many times slicker than Teflon (1998 R&D 100 Award)
* Oxygen-rich air supplier for clean diesel technology (1999 R&D 100 Award)
* Development of a compact microchannel fuel vaporizer to convert gasoline to hydrogen for fuel cells (1999 R&D 100 Award)
* Development of aftertreatment devices to remove nitrogen oxides from diesel exhaust with efficiencies greater than 90 percent, when used with diesel fuel containing 3 ppm of sulfur
* Improvement of the overall efficiency and power-to-weight ratios of power electronics to within 25 percent of targets, while reducing cost by 86 percent to $10/kW since 1995
* Reduction in cost of lightweight aluminum, magnesium, and glass-fiber-reinforced polymer components to less than 50 percent the cost of steel
* Reduction in the costs of fuel cells from $10,000/kW in 1994 to $300/kW in 2000
* Substantial weight reduction to within 5 to 10 percent of the vehicle weight reduction goal

(more... )

[Radical Activist]

38. A subsidy to the auto industry

and none of it made it to the market. The car companies are still claiming they don't have the technology available.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Gas was cheap during the Clinton/Gore years and they had a GOP Congress

If gas were still $1 a gallon, I guarantee you that people wouldn't be interested in raising fuel efficiency standards.

[Radical Activist]

42. Clinton always had excuses

but change is never going to be easy no matter what the circumstances. I just don't want another President like that who is only going to stand up for something when its easy.

[RestoreGore]

40. Gold Bars Speak Louder Than Moral Conscience

The technology is out here now that allows cars to 80 to 100 MPG. However, to actually bring them to market ata price consumers could afford would lessen profits for oil companies, and God forbid that happen.

[rustydad]

44. No Free Lunch

Look folks fuel efficiency is ruled by some simple concepts. Lighter cars get better mileage especially in stop and go traffic. Smaller cars get better mileage at highway speeds because of the laws of air dynamics. Driving slower greatly increases mileage if the car is designed right. Now my son in law is a fireman and he drives an Ford Excursion because they have four kids and he has seen many accidents where small cars meet big cars and it is not pretty. So to get manufacturers to build and consumers to buy small, lightweight, fuel efficient cars the government must mandate weight, size and engine design, and car speeds below 60 mph. Otherwise they will never make a 100 mpg fleet which is attainable today. And no sane politician wants to vote to mandate size, weight, speed, and engine design. So if blame needs to be found remember Pogo, "I have met the enemy and it is I". Bob, my vehicle is a 25 lb bike.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. I'm with you -- I love the way it was splashed across my paper

as if this was a huge achievement.

By 2020???? That's supposed to be a big achievement?

By 2009, how about?

And 100 mpg by 2015.

It can be done -- apparently the technology exists. What doesn't exist is the will to make it so. Obviously, some pushing will be required.

[Deja Q]

46. Time to get the auto engineers to make a better engine.

In short, it's all horsepuckey.

We have hybrids now.

We could have had 100% electric cars since 1969, if GM was even remotely accurate with its electric car design.

We will always need oil. And the oil execs won't go broke by taking the sort of hit EVERY business has to endure at some point. Even insurance companies, and they fudge with numbers as well.

[BlooInBloo]

48. It doesn't.