Yesterday Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood unveiled the new required fuel economy stickers for cars and trucks.
Beginning with cars and trucks from model year 2013, fuel costs and comparisons of environmental impact to other vehicles will be displayed on the decals, which were developed by the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The labels must be affixed to all new vehicles, including those that run on gasoline, diesel, electricity or a mix. Authorities ditched a proposal to use letter grades after intense opposition from automakers.
"Reducing our consumption and demand for oil is the best way to reduce upward pressure on fuel prices," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said. "The old cars have become outdated. A new generation of cars requires a new generation of fuel economy labels."
The new decals will display a plethora of details. The estimated annual fuel cost is there. So are the standard miles-per-gallon figures for city and highway driving.
New features, however, include the amount of fuel or electricity the vehicle will need to go 100 miles, as well as the expected savings or cost of fuel over the next five years compared with the average new vehicle.
Drivers will also be able to see how vehicles stack up against others in smog, tailpipe emissions and fuel economy on a 1-to-10 scale. The miles-per-gallon range for same-class vehicles is included, as is the highest fuel economy among all vehicles, including electrics.
Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicle decals will also show driving range and charging times, as well as a figure for miles-per-gallon equivalent.
I think this is great! The only funny part of this story is that Ray arrived to the unveiling in his new 12mpg Chevy Suburban LX.
(http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/05/suburb.jpg)
There's an old saying in sales. . . "Eat your own dog food!"
Funny you should bring this up. Just yesterday . . . (http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110524/FACILITIES03/105240304/1030/FACILITIES03)
QuotePresident Obama has ordered agencies to cut fuel use by buying more alternative-fuel vehicles and, in some cases, reduce the size of their fleets.
Obama issued the memo Tuesday as the General Services Administration announced plans to spend $4.3 million to purchase 116 electric vehicles. GSA will rent the cars —101 Chevrolet Volts, 10 Nissan Leafs and five Think City EVs — to 20 federal agencies in five cities across the country. Charging stations to power the cars will be installed in those cities — Washington, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Detroit.
The new electric cars will save a total of $116,000 annually in fuel costs, according to GSA administrator Martha Johnson.
The federal fleet has more than 662,000 cars, according to data released by GSA in March. About 10,759 are hybrid vehicles, while 158,300 run on a mixture of gasoline and ethanol.
In his memo, Obama ordered all fleet purchases starting in 2015 to be alternative-fuel vehicles. The goal is part of a plan to cut oil imports by one-third over 10 years and make the federal government a leader in developing alternative energy. He also called on agencies to publicly list within six months vehicles they possess that are larger than a midsize sedan or do not meet alternative.
Agencies have nine months to set targets for their optimum fleet size and to post those online. Law enforcement vehicles are exempt from the requirements.
The memo directs GSA to work with agencies to help issue guidance for alternative fuel vehicles for law enforcement.
Is that story acurate? Spending $4.3 Million to buy 116 Electric cars to save a total of $116,000 annual fuel costs? if the cost of filling a car is $50 twice a month the total is more like $603,000 per year.
Presumably they'd be buying new vehicles anyway, so it's more a matter of making GSA buy not-straight-gasoline-only cars. It'll be a good real world test, but somehow I doubt the results will be published so we can all see how the Volt and LEAF compare on cost to run.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2011, 08:30:01 AM
I think this is great! The only funny part of this story is that Ray arrived to the unveiling in his new 12mpg Chevy Suburban LX.
There's an old saying in sales. . . "Eat your own dog food!"
15 city/21 highway
It's right on the sticker.
Quote from: Townsend on May 26, 2011, 09:22:43 AM
15 city/21 highway
It's right on the sticker.
LOL! I have an Equinox that advertises 17/24. I get around 15/21
My Yukon advertised 15 and got about 11.
I've always added a few gallons to the advertised MPG.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2011, 09:28:11 AM
LOL! I have an Equinox that advertises 17/24. I get around 15/21
My Yukon advertised 15 and got about 11.
I've always added a few gallons to the advertised MPG.
Lead footing is never recommended.
Quote from: Townsend on May 26, 2011, 09:29:26 AM
Lead footing is never recommended.
Tulsa driving. . .have to keep swerving to miss the holes.
Quote from: carltonplace on May 26, 2011, 09:15:23 AM
Is that story acurate? Spending $4.3 Million to buy 116 Electric cars to save a total of $116,000 annual fuel costs? if the cost of filling a car is $50 twice a month the total is more like $603,000 per year.
Those numbers seem really skewed unless that's all the savings after electrical costs.
While I do applaud the government for trying to lead by example, $116K per year savings while buying cars averaging nearly $40K a copy doesn't seem very thrifty to me. Seems like they could purchase gas-powered econoboxes which get 30-35 MPG and come up with better savings at a lower acquisition cost.
After a couple of years of excuses as to why I can't ride to work, I finally commuted to work today on my mountain bike. I left my truck at work so if I do need to get out during the day or if the weather goes to Hell in the afternoon. Time to get serious about training for the Leadville Trail 100 anyhow, so I will be getting a lot more miles on the mountain bike. Can't beat the gas mileage on it either!
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2011, 09:41:16 AM
Tulsa driving. . .have to keep swerving to miss the holes.
I don't know how the hell you can get worse gas mileage than the ridiculously conservative EPA estimates. I drive like a bat out of hell, but I still get better than the EPA estimate in every car I've driven and kept track of mileage..I did once drive a guy's Suburban from Prescott to Yuma, it may have gotten less than the EPA estimate, it was full when I got it and not empty when I arrived, so I didn't get a chance to check. It's unlikely, though, given that Yuma is downhill from Prescott. You'd be surprised at what a big difference that makes..
Conan, gas prices are only going to increase, barring sudden new refining capacity and a major new discovery of cheap to extract oil, so the economics should improve over the lifetime of the vehicles.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2011, 10:01:02 AM
I don't know how the hell you can get worse gas mileage than the ridiculously conservative EPA estimates. I drive like a bat out of hell, but I still get better than the EPA estimate in every car I've driven and kept track of mileage..I did once drive a guy's Suburban from Prescott to Yuma, it may have gotten less than the EPA estimate, it was full when I got it and not empty when I arrived, so I didn't get a chance to check. It's unlikely, though, given that Yuma is downhill from Prescott. You'd be surprised at what a big difference that makes..
Conan, gas prices are only going to increase, barring sudden new refining capacity and a major new discovery of cheap to extract oil, so the economics should improve over the lifetime of the vehicles.
As they would with gas powered vehicles. Unfortunately there's no simple magic bullet which makes great economic sense in lowering our demand on foreign oil. Acquisition cost is still pretty high for hybrid and electric cars.
You seem to be one of the few who can beat the numbers. My truck has always been at least 3 below in the city and on the highway. Only place I ever seem to beat them is up in the mountains where you use less gas due to the altitude. I'm usually right on the numbers or a mile or two short on my Sonata. There again, I've got a bike rack on the back which creates some drag, so without that, I might be on or slightly above the estimates on every tank. 25/34 I believe is what EPA claims.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2011, 10:06:57 AM
You seem to be one of the few who can beat the numbers.
It probably helps that I have yet to locate the brake pedal...
The good thing is that a mandate like that on the Fed level will inevitably drive down green tech costs for the rest of us. That's always been the good news about our government size (I know, ha ha): the gov is a big enough buyer of just about everything that it can change market dynamics simply by its purchasing power.
Quote from: we vs us on May 26, 2011, 11:05:49 AM
The good thing is that a mandate like that on the Fed level will inevitably drive down green tech costs for the rest of us. That's always been the good news about our government size (I know, ha ha): the gov is a big enough buyer of just about everything that it can change market dynamics simply by its purchasing power.
Certainly it starts to improve the economy of scale. 116 cars won't make much of a difference, but it's a start in the right direction if one believes that electric cars are really that practical. I'm still curious why there's not more coming on the hydrogen fuel cell front.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2011, 11:14:47 AM
I'm still curious why there's not more coming on the hydrogen fuel cell front.
Last I looked, the fuel cells degrade rather quickly. Something about the membranes, but I don't recall specifics. Also, there's not really a great source of carbon-free hydrogen. Presently we get most of it from natural gas. Electrolysis would be fine if we had more nuclear, wind, and solar, but it would probably be more efficient to just charge a battery from a wall plug than it would be to make hydrogen and then use a fuel cell to make electricity by burning it.
The oil and gas companies love it, though, because hydrogen keeps them in the loop.
Hydrogen is a joke.....
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2011, 09:55:11 AM
Seems like they could purchase gas-powered econoboxes which get 30-35 MPG and come up with better savings at a lower acquisition cost.
It's not about the cost. It's about developing alternate forms of energy.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2011, 11:38:37 AM
Last I looked, the fuel cells degrade rather quickly. Something about the membranes, but I don't recall specifics. Also, there's not really a great source of carbon-free hydrogen. Presently we get most of it from natural gas. Electrolysis would be fine if we had more nuclear, wind, and solar, but it would probably be more efficient to just charge a battery from a wall plug than it would be to make hydrogen and then use a fuel cell to make electricity by burning it.
The oil and gas companies love it, though, because hydrogen keeps them in the loop.
I don't see the Leaf or Volt being much of a success without being swappable cell vehicles.
The most efficient method would be to establish a standard fuel cell/battery, and then offer it as an exchange at gas stations (much like Blue Rhino with propane tanks). When your car is running low you just swing into QT and pick up a new cell (or multiple cells depending on your vehicle).
That way as the cells degrade they can be monitored and replaced by whatever company gets that contract. I've already anticipated that this is the way the market will go and have been researching the companies gearing up to offer ribbon cells, chemical cells, and battery cells on an exchange basis.
Another advantage of this is due to the speed at which the energy cell market is moving. As the technology changes it can be incorporated into the existing standard cell format without making the existing vehicles obsolete.
I also anticipate that most of the companies that will offer this service will be your current energy companies (Exxon, BP) simply changing the format of the energy they already sell. Electric vehicles simply offer a lower cost, more efficient, and centralized delivery method for fossil fuels.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2011, 11:38:37 AM
Last I looked, the fuel cells degrade rather quickly. Something about the membranes, but I don't recall specifics. Also, there's not really a great source of carbon-free hydrogen. Presently we get most of it from natural gas. Electrolysis would be fine if we had more nuclear, wind, and solar, but it would probably be more efficient to just charge a battery from a wall plug than it would be to make hydrogen and then use a fuel cell to make electricity by burning it.
The oil and gas companies love it, though, because hydrogen keeps them in the loop.
...and there are no Government subsidies or incentives for hydrogen vehicles like there are for electric, NG and other alternate fuel autos (and few fueling options).
Quote from: carltonplace on May 26, 2011, 01:04:29 PM
...and there are no Government subsidies or incentives for hydrogen vehicles like there are for electric, NG and other alternate fuel autos (and few fueling options).
Basically the government picking the winners & losers.
More reading on the issue:
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/
In Norway, they are splitting hydrogen gas and oxygen from water using hydro-electric power, so it's basically a zero emission process as well as using 100% renewable energy for the process.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2011, 12:46:22 PM
I don't see the Leaf or Volt being much of a success without being swappable cell vehicles.
The most efficient method would be to establish a standard fuel cell/battery, and then offer it as an exchange at gas stations (much like Blue Rhino with propane tanks). When your car is running low you just swing into QT and pick up a new cell (or multiple cells depending on your vehicle).
That's one way to do it. Thankfully, battery technology is advancing rapidly, at least in the rate of charge department. I was reading about a new chemistry a few months back that can take an 80% charge in a minute or two. The big problem there is transmitting that amount of power at once across the grid. It might take a couple hundred amps at 480 volts to charge in that time.
Lots of factories draw that much, but think of what it'll take to bring that capability to every gas station in the country. It's certainly more efficient than hydrogen electrolysis, though.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2011, 01:33:50 PM
In Norway, they are splitting hydrogen gas and oxygen from water using hydro-electric power, so it's basically a zero emission process as well as using 100% renewable energy for the process.
Try to build a new dam/reservoir in this country.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2011, 01:33:50 PM
Basically the government picking the winners & losers.
Like corn based ethanol.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 26, 2011, 06:44:52 PM
Try to build a new dam/reservoir in this country.
The feds built one just outside Durango within the last couple of years. In Arkansas, a at least two that I know of have been built in the last 15. I think the one in Durango has a secondary hydroelectric use, even.
RA, ethanol is great, but it is indeed ridiculous how corn is subsidized and then corn-based ethanol is subsidized further. Sugar beets and switchgrass both make great ethanol feedstocks.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2011, 07:05:14 PM
RA, ethanol is great, but it is indeed ridiculous how corn is subsidized and then corn-based ethanol is subsidized further. Sugar beets and switchgrass both make great ethanol feedstocks.
I believe Brazil is using sugar cane based ethanol with a positive energy balance. Ethanol has some transportation and corrosion problems. Any alternative to gasoline will need to be forced on the system much as no-lead was in the 70s. No one will buy a car using only alternate fuel if there are no fueling stations. No fueling stations will be available if no one needs the alternate fuel. The transition will need to take time depending on whether the new fuel is at all compatible with the old fuel. Only the rich will be able to immediately buy an new alternate fuel car. The little guy would be hoofing it for quite a while if the transition is quick and incompatible. Most older cars ran OK on no-lead. One of the biggest problems was cars with high compression ratios that needed high octane gas. The early no-lead was only regular grade, and maybe a little less than that. About that time the octane numbers became the average of research and motor method and added to the confusion.
You'd be surprised at how many CNG and electric charging stations have popped up. They're by no means universal, but they're around in their strongholds. ONG has several public CNG fueling stations here in Oklahoma. LPG is pretty common in some other countries. In the Dominican Republic, it seems like there are almost as many LPG stations as there are gasoline stations, probably because it's an easy/cheap conversion for a lot of cars.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2011, 07:23:43 PM
You'd be surprised at how many CNG and electric charging stations have popped up. They're by no means universal, but they're around in their strongholds. ONG has several public CNG fueling stations here in Oklahoma. LPG is pretty common in some other countries. In the Dominican Republic, it seems like there are almost as many LPG stations as there are gasoline stations, probably because it's an easy/cheap conversion for a lot of cars.
Would you start a trip to either coast without first researching fuel availability for CNG? I wouldn't. I would jump in my gasoline fueled car and be reasonably assured that fuel would not be a problem, other than expensive.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 26, 2011, 07:30:52 PM
Would you start a trip to either coast without first researching fuel availability for CNG? I wouldn't. I would jump in my gasoline fueled car and be reasonably assured that fuel would not be a problem, other than expensive.
There are plenty of stretches of desolate highways out west where you won't find fuel for well over 200 miles, so some planning is necessary even in a gasoline car. My point wasn't that CNG is as widely available as gasoline, it's that it's nearing the point where it's practical for any use, not just around town.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2011, 07:37:33 PM
There are plenty of stretches of desolate highways out west where you won't find fuel for well over 200 miles, so some planning is necessary even in a gasoline car.
I do remember being disappointed that there was no gas station at a dot on the map between Las Vegas and Indian Springs on US 95 in 1983. Fortunately, I had enough gas to get to Indian Springs and there was an open gas station. I wasn't sure I was going to get there and I didn't think I had enough gas to get back to Vegas. That dot isn't even on the map now. The trip from Vegas to Minden (near Carson City) had a whole lot of nothing. 40 miles between towns and 20 miles between intersections to nowhere. The next time I did that trip, I made sure I filled up in Vegas.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 26, 2011, 06:44:52 PM
Try to build a new dam/reservoir in this country.
There's plenty of hydropower as it is now. A dedicated wind farm could do just the same thing for a zero emission output.
Hell it's all based on reducing CO2 emissions for which the science is at best shaky that it's causing global warming.
I heard an anecdote the other day that Daniel Patrick Moynihan approached President Nixon in 1970 about global warming claiming New York and LA would be underwater in 30 years and the ice caps would be gone. Let's see that's been 41 years ago and last I checked any climate changes have been minimal and LA and NYC are still quite well above water.
Yes Conan, it turns out the ocean absorbs a lot more carbon dioxide than was previously thought. It's not a free lunch, though, it's messing up the chemistry and killing off fish, among other things. When I say previously, I mean "in the 70s."
And 20 years from now there will be more "previous" thought when the oceans have risen all of a whopping .1"
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2011, 04:03:24 PM
And 20 years from now there will be more "previous" thought when the oceans have risen all of a whopping .1"
So the Greenland meltwater, it is miraculously disappearing?
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2011, 04:10:08 PM
So the Greenland meltwater, it is miraculously disappearing?
The sound of scientists wiggling:
"Our results lead us to conclude that a future ice sheet collapse,
that might happen in Antarctica or Greenland, would have climatic consequences, but the exact impact needs to be evaluated in each case."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110155.htm
All based on models which are built on hypothesis.
Melting and accumulation goes in cycles. Always has.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2011, 04:21:26 PM
The sound of scientists wiggling:
"Our results lead us to conclude that a future ice sheet collapse, that might happen in Antarctica or Greenland, would have climatic consequences, but the exact impact needs to be evaluated in each case we will need millions of dollars of grant money to explore this further."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110155.htm
All based on models which are built on hypothesis.
FIFY
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2011, 04:21:26 PM
Melting and accumulation goes in cycles. Always has.
Common wisdom is usually neither common nor wise. The fact of the matter is that we have these nifty satellites that can measure the amount of ice in various locations around the world (more neat things funded by the government!). There is less deposition than melt on Greenland, and has been for years.
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2011, 04:58:11 PM
Common wisdom is usually neither common nor wise. The fact of the matter is that we have these nifty satellites that can measure the amount of ice in various locations around the world (more neat things funded by the government!). There is less deposition than melt on Greenland, and has been for years.
And if history repeats itself, it will begin to accumulate at a higher rate than it melts.
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2011, 04:58:11 PM
Common wisdom is usually neither common nor wise. The fact of the matter is that we have these nifty satellites that can measure the amount of ice in various locations around the world (more neat things funded by the government!). There is less deposition than melt on Greenland, and has been for years.
I believe a reasonable argument could be made that the common knowledge is now that mankind is causing global warming. That would make the concept of global warming being caused by mankind unwise.
;D
This DEW Line site in Greenland was abandoned in 1988, and there was 30 feet of clearence under it.
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/dewline.jpg)
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/dew2.jpg)
So, yeah, Greenland is melting.
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 29, 2011, 08:20:26 PM
So, yeah, Greenland is melting.
Similarly, there was a lot of snow in Colorado last winter, so there is no drought in Texas..
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2011, 04:10:08 PM
So the Greenland meltwater, it is miraculously disappearing?
No, it's just moving to Dbacks DEW station.
Some day this planet will shrug us off like insects and none of our deeds will be remembered by her.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_E3aT2431XpA/TT8ELwPyiqI/AAAAAAAAIFs/ERF55L8FV54/s400/DebbieDownerRachaelDratch.jpg)
We certainly enjoy feeling important!