<Discussion Thread for CNBC's America's Oil Crisis The Oil Drum Portugal getting a hand on Venezuela's energy riches>

47 comments on Let's Discuss: H.R. 6107, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Will Stewart on May 22, 2008 - 8:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

I'll support this just as soon as CAFE is set to 80mpg by 2020. Why 80 mpg? This is the mileage GM, Ford, and Chrysler were achieving in 2001 before they asked the Bush Administration to kill the program because they were making too much money selling SUVs.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on May 22, 2008 - 8:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I couldn't agree more...but I thought this whole piece of legislation was worth discussing...

Realpolitik. It's fun!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on May 22, 2008 - 10:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The program I was referring to was the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle (PNGV), where the Big 3 and the US entered into a public-private partnership to bring 80 mpg family cars to production in the 2005 timeframe. The Clinton Administration chose this path instead of raising CAFE, wanting to work with Detroit instead of just regulating it. Of course, the Big 3 worked against America's energy security by having the program killed by their funded Presidential appointee.

And then the Big 3 complained last year during Energy Policy deliberations that they couldn't possibly raise their vehicle fleet mpg average up to 40 mpg in 12 years. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/auto_industry_s.html

But then they couldn't explain how Toyota could be in the 6th year of producing a 50 mpg family car. And how 300 mpg 2-seaters like the Aptera will be coming out in 2010.

But additional lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute helped sway just enough Senators to threaten a filibuster against a 40 mpg CAFE.

You're absolutely right, of course, to bring this to everyone's attention for discussion. Much as I like Rep. Bartlett's attention to Peak Oil, I can say that there are mitigations that are far and away more effective than opening up ANWR, which should be held out as the last possible step after all others have been put into place.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geek7 on May 22, 2008 - 11:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

ANWR is an environmental preserve for sensitive arctic ecosystem. Since we are not making much progress on limiting CO2 emissions, the ANWR land will not be arctic in a few years. I think we should not drill there until it is no longer an arctic ecosystem. It will only be a few years delay in getting the oil.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BillJames on May 23, 2008 - 10:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I spent 3 years as an Arctic Light Infantryman, a lot of the time near the Alaska pipeline. It is possible to tap ANWR without damage. It is a much better alternative to oil sands.

But drilling in ANWR should be tied to allowing privately financed transportation networks that can achieve 5X CAFE; exceed efficiencies of 5 times current CAFE Standards or about 100 miles per gallon.

Here is a draft resolution provided to John Darnell in Congressman Bartlett's office and Bill Richard in Congressman Oberstar's office.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pianoguy1 on May 23, 2008 - 12:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

In a great example of the law of unintended consequences, the PNGV was one of Toyota's major motivations to develop the Prius. They were convinced that, unless they acted immediately, they'd be left behind when Detroit introduced its line of fuel-efficient vehicles.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
HARM on May 22, 2008 - 8:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Links please? I don't doubt that the Big 3 could be doing *much* better, but 80 mpg is above even the best foreign hybrid & subcompact models today.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on May 22, 2008 - 8:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2000/03/35335
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_1_180/ai_59035635

GM, along with Ford Motor Company and Daimler Chrysler Corporation, have been participating in the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), a multimillion dollar research and development effort sponsored by the federal government. This year marks the target for the Partnership's first set of goals: concept models of family sized cars achieving up to 80 miles to a gallon of gas.

And google "PNGV 80 mpg GM Ford Chrysler" to find many dozens of other links.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
HARM on May 22, 2008 - 9:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Long Time Gone on May 22, 2008 - 10:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

There was an outstanding series written about the rise and fall of the PNGV (SuperCar) by Sam Roe and the Chigaco Tribune. It is a quite long and detailed piece which explores in depth the project from start to sad end. Warning, if you don't already have dim view of The Big Three Automakers and US Gov't., you might adopt one after reading what went down on this farce.

It is a quite interesting read. The Chicago Prius Group has it archived in .pdf form on the bottom of the page at

http://www.chicagopriusgroup.com/links/resources.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FiniteQuantity on May 23, 2008 - 2:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

When you start off with "get 80 miles per gallon from a family sized car" isn't it kind of obvious that they don't expect to achieve anything? No wonder it was killed. Little superlight 2 seat 3 cylinder hybrid cars don't get close to 80 miles per gallon.

But it does sound plausible that they would start with that premise since "family sized car" is the one car that Detroit can sell versus Japanese competition. Or maybe that should be that Detroit sells them, Japan doesn't.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
brianf on May 23, 2008 - 10:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If the US increased mileage efficiency to to 80 MPG we would probably use about a 2/3 less oil. (These are rough numbers) If China and India increased their car ownership from 1 or 2 percent to just thirty percent we'd still be in the same boat--as that would increase the car fleet by roughly 650 million. The 2/3 gain would get burned by China and India. Add in oil production declines. And what is going to happen faster? Oil depletion, China/India car growth, or American adoption of 80 MPH cars?

Electrification is the only long term way of getting around.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
enemy of state on May 23, 2008 - 4:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Certainly any oil conservation we do will be "used up" by the developing world. That is NO reason not to do it anyway. The big damage that is being done to our economy via the imbalance of payments is hurting us severely. But you are correct that electrification looks to be the obvious route to take.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Odysseus on May 23, 2008 - 1:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The VW Polo with latest diesel BlueTech engine gets 72mpg. It is for sale now in Europe. Look for it coming to the USA soon... More info here:

http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/02/01/report-volkswagen-polo-coming-to-un...

Now imagine if you couple this engine with a hybrid regenerative system and over 100mpg seems very achievable. If fuel prices double I bet you could jam together VW and Toyota components to get it to market much faster.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FMagyar on May 22, 2008 - 8:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Right, that and when they at least mention the word conservation and bring back the 55mph speed limit.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

47 comments on Let's Discuss: H.R. 6107, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version