Senate passes 35MPG minimum by 2020

The senate passed an updated energy bill yesterday.

The bill calls for the first major increase by Congress in required automobile fuel efficiency in 32 years, something the auto companies have fought for two decades.

The car companies will have to achieve an industry wide average 35 mile per gallon for cars, small trucks and SUVs over the next 13 years, an increase of 10 mpg over what the entire fleet averages today.

And it would boost use of ethanol to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a nearly sixfold increase, and impose an array of new requirements to promote efficiency in appliances, lighting and buildings.
Read Article

DaHarder - 12/15/2007 12:08:13 PM

+5 Boost

Let's hope that this brings 'horsepower wars' and senselessly over-sized vehicle manufacturing into perspective.

Intelligent/innovative engineering will be the key to successfully achieving future fuel efficiency goals, which is the direction we should have been traveling all along.

Let The Fuel Efficiency Wars Begin!

CLK63BlackSeries - 12/15/2007 1:08:08 PM

+1 Boost

oh BS, horsepower wars will never end! not as long as WE are here...

DaHarder - 12/15/2007 2:27:24 PM

+5 Boost

I don't think that they should 'end' entirely (nor is that what I posted), they just need to be 'brought into perspective'.

There'd be very little need for 250 - 300hp in your family hauling CamCordAltiBu if manufacturers would simply endeavor to make these vehicles lighter and more space efficient.

There is a substitute for Cubic-Inches/Horsepower, and it called Intelligent Engineering.

finalheaven - 12/15/2007 5:21:32 PM

+1 Boost

I agree in that HP will not matter as much soon. I think I see a parallel in the computing industry. Everyone bought their CPUs/Processors based on Mhz. Now that's not the case. People are buying more energy efficient cheaps while AMD and INTEL battles it out using watts and not Mhz or Ghz.

But then again everyone still benchmarks each chip to get the relative HP feel out of it. But most companies, businesses, and people are now willing to sacrifice a few Mhz in computing power for less watts.

ThierryHenry14 - 12/15/2007 2:08:53 PM

+2 Boost

Its a shame because if the companies with big performers can't make the 35mpg, they won't sell it here in the US. simple.

acd6 - 12/16/2007 1:50:21 PM

+1 Boost

It's a good point. But i would imagine that the bill was also created to reduce overall fuel consumption, as well as lowered emissions.

c36amg - 12/15/2007 3:42:13 PM

+2 Boost

ya then only bicycles will achieve that... goodbye to cars

toolatetorace - 12/15/2007 3:55:11 PM

0 Boost

and don't forget Toyota;s most recent cash cow , the monsterously monsterous SUV's and the Tundra

bluedart - 12/15/2007 9:31:19 PM

+1 Boost

look at the bright side, that would help cut down the number of elderly drivers

BMW995 - 12/15/2007 3:58:20 PM

-1 Boost

What a horrible mistake!
The govt. acts and as usual makes the wrong decision that will cost the American public a bundle. Auto prices will soar and auto companies will make many models that the public will not want or buy.
The Govt. has no courage..what they should have done to save energy is to raise the gasoline tax. That way auto companies will automatically adjust to changes in buyers taste in cars and the excess $$$s that would have gone to Saudi Arabia will stay in this country to be used as the govt. sees fit (they would probably foul that up too, though).
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are complete idiots and should be impeached.

S4cabriofoxone - 12/15/2007 4:38:41 PM

+1 Boost

Eh, just wait for the Dems to come in. It will work itself out in due time.

Monk - 12/15/2007 5:22:51 PM

0 Boost

This was the Senate, not the Bush administration. Does Bush have power to veto this or not?
I don't like many of the Democrats in power right now. They kept saying they would fix things, but right now they have nothing in order. I am a conservative, but would vote for the best person that could be in office. Reid and Pelosi are annoying. H. Clinton gets most of her fame from B. Clinton. Obama is pretty good I think. Huckabee seems to be the best of the Republicans.

finalheaven - 12/15/2007 5:24:37 PM

+2 Boost

Uh... you think the democrats are the blame here? Republicans went to war for Oil, Bush and the republican crew cannot lose face and increase oil prices. They will stop it all costs. Democrats wanted higher oil prices and better fuel mileage LONG LONG time ago. The auto industry loves Republicans. Hell funny how Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger drives a hummer. heh

Monk - 12/15/2007 5:25:21 PM

+3 Boost

ALSO: NO MORE ETHANOL HYPE! It is a ridiculous fuel that as "demand" grow for corn, will increase food and fuel prices. I could say another hundred bad things about this, but just ask Rupert - I think he can recite everything
With a energy quotient lower than gasoline, yet being more expensive, ethanol IS NOT THE WAY.
hydrogen, biodiesel (food waste oil), or diesel are the way to go

finalheaven - 12/15/2007 5:27:19 PM

+2 Boost

About Ethanol i can't agree more.

Monk - 12/15/2007 5:30:33 PM

+1 Boost

well, I was mean the republicans' greed screwed the party up and started the Iraq war, which is draining America of prosperity. But then again, the Democrats haven't done much either.

finalheaven - 12/15/2007 5:41:09 PM

+1 Boost

yea, but democrats can't be blamed 'yet' since mostly republicans have been in power in the last 8 years. although im not naive and i know that if a democrat becomes president for the next 8 years, they'll be on the receiving ends of criticisms.

but for now its the republicans! =P

Rupert - 12/15/2007 8:07:55 PM

+1 Boost

Ethanol BOOOOOOO!!!!!

I like how suddenly I am the resident expert on ethanol...but it really makes no sense.

Worse MPG (???), raises food prices across the world, leading to poverty and famine in poorer nations who can't afford the food, encourages rainforest destruction (save Brazil and Indonesia!!)...and corn-based ethanol is way less efficient than sugar cane ethanol...what argument is there for ethanol, except reducing America's dependence on foreign oil??

holmstar - 12/17/2007 12:46:04 AM

+2 Boost

The dems really don't have as much power right now as everyone seems to think. They only have a slight majority, so they cannot override a veto. In other words, the bush administration still has ultimate control of everything that is currently passed into law.

bluedart - 12/15/2007 9:27:41 PM

-1 Boost

so, what's next? they are gonna pass a law that requires all the new houses to be energy efficient too? and when are they gonna stop? we are just a step closer to a new form of socialism.

holmstar - 12/17/2007 12:51:53 AM

+3 Boost

If we ever have a real energy crisis, something like 0.50/kwh for electricity, then we will see a huge voluntary increase in energy efficiency. This is not that unlikely given that our electricity consumption is rising faster than the construction of new power plants.

bambamsd - 12/15/2007 10:44:28 PM

+2 Boost

I have to agree with Rupert on Ethanol. I will NOT put Ethanol in my car!!! I got terrible gas mileage compared to just regular gas and vowed I will never do it again. I kind of feel like a traitor to the area that I live in. I'm from South Dakota and ethanol is big business here. The farmers are making money and I feel bad that I won't be helping them out and building a business that will help my state. I have an '06 Honda Civic and Ethanol just sucks in my car. I'm big into getting the best mileage that I can and Ethanol doesn't do it for me.

tiradan - 12/16/2007 12:20:43 AM

+2 Boost

Autospies Fanboy feuds over cars = annoying
Autospies Fanboy feuds over politics = ++anoyying

holmstar - 12/17/2007 12:57:18 AM

+1 Boost

It is a political article. Expect political comments.