CAFE 75 mpg in 2030

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

I truly believe our society -- as a whole -- has lost its collective mind.

That's one of those things that is just depressing to think about. Because it's true.:(

[CamaroSpike23]

i wish we could do like brazil did and switch to another form of fuel. they got lucky and were able to switch to ethanol made from sugar cane.

instead of trying to improve the car past its capable point of improvement to match the fuel source.
improve the fuel source

[TAG UR IT]

^Wasn't there just a thread posted about this sugar cane for a fuel source posted? Think I recall something really good posted about it.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

I truly believe our society -- as a whole -- has lost its collective mind.

You have provided a new addition to my signature once again.

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

^Wasn't there just a thread posted about this sugar cane for a fuel source posted? Think I recall something really good posted about it.

ive made comments about it numerous times on here. ill have to re-read some of the threads.

[Mr. Wyndham]

you know...I was just thinking. (Which is usualy dangerous)

And I thought about E85, and mpg...and wondered how that would fit in to this insane 75 mpg equation.

Well...to burn one gallon of gasoline driving on E85 at say 20mpg (energy potential, etc)...you'd have to travel about 130 miles...............
So does that mean our Camaro (if run on E85) could potentially beat this standard by almost double? Just a thought.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

you know...I was just thinking. (Which is usualy dangerous)

And I thought about E85, and mpg...and wondered how that would fit in to this insane 75 mpg equation.

Well...to burn one gallon of gasoline driving on E85 at say 20mpg (energy potential, etc)...you'd have to travel about 130 miles...............
So does that mean our Camaro (if run on E85) could potentially beat this standard by almost double? Just a thought.

Thats not quite how it workes, but it is -sorta. Under the current rules, CAFE is based on gasoline consumption. They know that cars equiped with E85 won't use it exclusively. But since they do use significantly less gasoline they get a rating of nearly double that of the version which runs on gasoline. So, the an E85 Camaro with a rating of 21 mpg on gasoline, would end up being rated at . . . 40 mpg! This get really fun with the Volt. he he. I think I heard that it will get a 100% bonus because it will run on batteries half the time. that takes it from 50 mpg to 100 mpg. THEN add in flex fuel . . . 190 mpg! Now, that 'electric only bonus' is unverified but I do know that something like that is in the works.

[TAG UR IT]

Couldn't the Volt then potentially be limitless with MPG's?

Technically, you can run it 40 miles w/out gas. Charge it up and do it all over again tomorrow....and the day after, and the day after that.......

[camaro5]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

Couldn't the Volt then potentially be limitless with MPG's?

Technically, you can run it 40 miles w/out gas. Charge it up and do it all over again tomorrow....and the day after, and the day after that.......

This is true.

The only thing I'm not sure of is the increased load of plug-in vehicles on the struggling electrical grid.

And the additional smoke out the power plant smoke stacks burning coal, or more nuclear power plants.

At least we have abundant supplies of coal.

It's hard to measure which way is better if you look at the full process IMO.

[Mindz]

Originally Posted by camaro5

This is true.

The only thing I'm not sure of is the increased load of plug-in vehicles on the struggling electrical grid.

And the additional smoke out the power plant smoke stacks burning coal, or more nuclear power plants.

At least we have abundant supplies of coal.

It's hard to measure which way is better if you look at the full process IMO.

You have hit the nail on the head. Something that I had a very LONG conversation about this with was a few of my family members about 6 months ago.

Ya you don't send emissions into the air, but with all the extra electricity you need to charge it, the nuclear plants send just as dangerous chemicals/substances into the air/ozone.

Picture this analogy (using my horrible skills)

Normal car (100% gasoline) emissions: 50%
Power plant: 50%


Hybrid emissions (50% gas, 50% electric) emissions: 25%
Powerplant emissions: 50% + 25% from running longer to provide more electricity to charge hybrid

Electric Car (100% electricity, charges longer than hybrid) emissions: 0%
Power Plant emissions: 100%

That and the fact that CA has one of, if not the highest electrical consumption AND pricing in the U.S.

I don't have hard numbers but I'd be willing to bet I wouldn't save any money from driving a full electric car as I'd be paying more for the electricity and it would balance out.
Car 50% emissions

[TAG UR IT]

Well, I don't have the slightest idea how the electric companies run their factories. I thought nuclear power was cleaner...is it not?

[Mindz]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

Well, I don't have the slightest idea how the electric companies run their factories. I thought nuclear power was cleaner...is it not?

Nuclear is cleaner but a lot more expensive, and creates radiation (hurt local environment, plants, wildlife, people with 3 arms).

Coal is cheaper but produces a ton of dangerous chemicals.

One of the local nuclear plants just got back up and running this past week after a 7 year long cooling down/repair/maintenance period. The other unit of the plant is scheduled to go through the same treatment starting within the next 6 months. That's only 2 nuclear cores for the whole SF peninsula and out close to Sacramento. If that's the average than there's maybe 10 Nuclear plants for all of CA?

CA power plants had to buy power from other companies/states in order to fill the demand for elecrticity in CA a few years ago.

[TAG UR IT]

Yeah...I remember the electricity 'crisis' Cali was having a while back. Coal might be a bit more abundant, but if nuclear can be run safely, why not just do it? I realize it might be more expensive, but can't you get more power from nuclear than from coal driven?

[Mindz]

The cost is exponentially higher. With the national debt increasing in trillions, do you think they can afford to build new nuclear power plants? They cost hundreds of millions of dollars I believe. I just know that you can produce more power with coal for the same price.

hypothetical numbers

10 billion dollars =

5 coal plants = 5 TeraWatts per plant per day

or

2 Nuclear plants = 10 TeraWatts per plant per day



25 > 20 for the same price.