Posted on 08/28/2012 8:15:42 PM PDT by TigerClaws
Same here ... and pay for it with increased prices to my customers (aka "inflation", which is what this all really is) and/or not give as many raises to employees.
Dependence on foreign oil is the one thing that could be accomplished by a change of the rules. Congress needs to lead, follow or get out of the way. Drill, baby, drill!
The EPA needs to be abolished or made subservient to each individual state’s department of commerce. Same applies to the NHTSA. Let each do research and give recommendations. If the public wants to “Go Green” then they can purchase a vehicle with meets those specifications. Just don’t mandate that you cannot buy anything not EPA or NHTSA approved.
Lastly, there must be Tort reform. Nowadays products are designed to avoid litigation, not to be the best possible at fulling its intended purpose.
They can’t make laws out this far. These are just rules, and in no/way are they etched in some, they must be chamged. It’s just too much for functional powerful vehicles. Of course govt vehicles would be exempt because they’d need real vehicles that actually can do hard work without breaking down.
Well they said 54.5 MPG in the article.
The Origami 3000.
We need nuclear in the north and solar in the south.
I'm for any energy source that will give us 100% energy independence. I see it as one front in the WOT.
Again, another perfect example of liberal solutions that go against nature. Nobody wants to drive unsafe eggshells,yet this is what the libs think is the best solution ever. They ignore the problems that are made worse by their solution because their solution outweighs them - ends justify the means and if that means more people die in lighter,more crushable cars then they’ve found another way to reduce the population too.
Duh, regulate all you want, but you can’t regulate F = m X a.
The EPA doesn’t want diesel passenger vehicles on the US market. Their claim is that NOx emissions are too hard to control. High thermal efficieny creates more NOx emissions. The EPA isn’t interested in fuel efficieny, only emissions. The engine control systems on vehicles are designed for reducing emissions, at the expense of fuel economy, no fre lunch there. Otherwise, the fed regulations overall are the largest cause of poor fuel economy.
Let’s also declare the speed of sound to be 10,000 miles an hour.
And our new official language will be Swedish.
I was wondering what could make cars get better mileage. Now I know, Obama’s rules. The little god of almighty government has spoken.
>>The amount of energy in a gallon of gas has not changed.
Actually, that is not true, from a practical perspective. With ethanol mandates, gas is really 10% ethanol today. BTU content of ethanol is 2/3rds that of gasoline by volume, so that gallon of “gas” that you buy today is down about 3.3% on energy content from that gallon you bought in the 60s.
What we have in the U.S. government is a combination of three separate bureaucracies whose "mandates" for passenger vehicles are frequently at odds with each other. EPA pollution-reduction requirements directly conflict with fuel-efficiency standards, and fuel-efficiency standards are effectively at odds with NHTSA vehicle safety standards (since smaller vehicles are less safe, and the additional weight required for safety devices increases fuel consumption).
It's important to remember that none of these Federal agencies are really interested in vehicle safety, fuel efficiency, or air quality. These ever-changing regulations are nothing more than a long-term campaign of "forced absolescence" aimed at propping up the nation's auto industry. If someone invented a car that was rated at 500 mpg, you can be sure some bureaucrat in Washington would find plenty of things "wrong" with it.
Actually it has decreased when you consider how we are diluting the gasoline with ethanol -- which, by the way, is due to increase from 10 percent to 15. Wonder if these geniuses have factored that into their calculations?
Ethanol is a short-chain molecule. Fewer carbon bonds to break equals less energy.
That's exactly right. The Federal government instituted a mandate for train locomotives a few years ago, under which all locomotives on passenger trains, and on freight trains that share tracks with passenger trains, are required to be instrumented with electronic systems that override the train controls when collisions are imminent. It was a nice idea, but it's costing the railroad industry billions of dollars to implement it ... and the locomotive industry has openly acknowledged that it can't produce new equipment and retrofit old equipment fast enough to meet the government-imposed 2016 deadline for compliance.
This is how you get to a situation where laws are mostly ignored -- even by law-abiding people.
To some people, all-electric means infinite MPG. It’s certainly an easy way to get your product line average to 54.5.
Well, as long as they are trying to legislate physics, why don’t they just regulate perpetual motion into existence? Think how much energy could be saved then...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.