Unrealistic Gas-Mileage Ratings Widen Gap With...

EPA predicting 75mpg rule by 2030

 
10 1,539 views Apr 14, 2008
Follow Viknesh

EPA predicting 75mpg rule by 2030

EPA predicting 75mpg rule by 2030

Carmakers already concerned about tough new 35mpg fuel economy standards set to roll in by 2020 now have something else to worry about with the announcement today by an EPA official that passenger cars and light trucks may have to average 75mpg by 2030. The latest statement follows a previous announcement from the scientific community that world oil usage could rise to 120 million barrels a day by the same 2030 cutoff date - up from 85 million barrels at current levels.

Speaking at the SAE International World Congress today, the U.S.’ director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Margo Oge, said a 75mpg target is necessary to meet a widely backed scientific-community proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 80% by 2050.

"There are a lot of strategies you need to consider - both engines and fuels," she explained during an interview with The Detroit News. "Carmakers need to be thinking of those investments for the long term basis," beyond the current 35mpg CAFE energy bill.

America’s transportation sector accounts for two thirds of U.S. oil use and a third of its greenhouse gas emissions, so any improvements in fuel economy standards will have a major effect on the country’s dependence on oil and pollution levels.

As for the current 35mpg standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to release its proposal for 2010-2015 interim fuel economy increases as soon as next week.



Posted in:
 
Contribute
Send us a tip Comment Contact the editor
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (10)

  1. By Gus Posted: 4/14/2008 10:24pm PDT

    75 as an average seems really high, but by then who knows what kind of tech they'll come up with.
    I'm almost 100% sure that by then they will have quick-charging batteries, which would solve all of these problems in one fell stroke.
    I know, there are those of you who say that electric power just shifts the problem, and then Chris will set you straight.
    I for one would buy an electric Mustang GT tomorrow if it had a 300 mile range, and the equivalent acceleration, a certain mass and safety, and a battery that charged at a high-voltage filling station outlet in the same time, or even twice the time of a fuel fillup.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. By Wizards Lore Posted: 4/14/2008 10:45pm PDT

    Meh - by 2030 i predict we will be travelling via Teleportation ala Star trek or at the least tubes ala Futurama so who needs fossil fuels...hahaha
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. By ink Master Posted: 4/14/2008 10:45pm PDT

    "I know, there are those of you who say that electric power just shifts the problem"

    Well atleast you can produce electricity from solar/wind/hydro etc --- can't really convert sunlight to petroleum :)

    But yeah, I definitely agree w/ Gus, if I could buy an electric car w/ 200-300 mile range I'd be the first in line to buy one... however the current vehicles which get 30-40 miles per charge are useless to 90% of the people...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. By chris Posted: 4/15/2008 7:49am PDT

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA YES!!! my plan to overtake the thought patterns of the entire world is WORKING!!! gus is already my minion of good word!

    yeah I really think that 35 mpg by 2020 is a bit of a push, mostly because of the turnaround time on the technologies needed for this, but 2030 at 75mpg,... all I've got to say is... you'd better put that in writing now. after the auto industry goes for 35 mpg by 2020, 75 by 2030 is nothing.

    gus, you know me all too well. by 2030 i'd expect most commuter vehicles to be electric battery type, and only large sedans to have an ICE for "long travel recharge". full-on-frame pickups for the public will almost certainly be obsolete. people who need to "haul" will have crossovers and el-camino types, and again, crossover is just a fancy way of saying a hatchback variant of a midsized or full sized sedan.

    the kind of quick charge that you're talking about,.. is something that I dont expect to see very quickly. you're putting energy into the battery. the battery takes 8 hours of driving to discharge but you're going to charge it in 1 or 2 minutes? batteries have an internal resistance, meaning that when electricity flows through them (the purpose of the battery), they heat up. when you charge a battery, the process still takes place. who knows... we may still have liquid cooling systems on our future cars, but for the batter instead of the engine block.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. By Savedsol Posted: 4/15/2008 10:07am PDT

    No more rotary engines that's for sure. :(
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. By chris Posted: 4/15/2008 11:42am PDT

    rotary blows. it was a great idea that mazda just never let die. No torque what so ever, and with forced induction, the high revs are useless now.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. By Delby Posted: 4/15/2008 2:15pm PDT

    Ive Notice Lots of chris comments and he seems to be on point with what he says i do agree that once the tech progresses the EPA standards are reachable its just a matter of time before the auto industry gets it together. And when alternative sources for electricity such as Solar,Wind and Hydro become the standard of the big economies there will be no need to worry about there will be an end to people that say "electric power just shifts the problem”
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. By chris Posted: 4/15/2008 2:46pm PDT

    delby; great point too. we're at an interesting point where the battery tech is actually getting to the point where this is realizable. machining in our production facilities is more accurate than ever, and it is possible to make a very complex engine, and make it durable. the cost of gasoline also warrants higher initial investment in the vehicle itself.

    when it comes to electrical sources, it must be stated that the "green" power alternatives aren't that great. solar is about 20% efficient. I think the latest estimate was that all of texas would have to be paved in solar power to power the entire nation. you're actually better off reflecting a large area of sunlight into a small focused beam used to boil water (then the steam turns a turbine like in almost every other power plant). check it out: Solar heliostatic power. Wind is good so long as you can find "good wind" ie: constant, or at least constantly blowing wind. gear boxes can address the speed. hydro is the big "green" power but you get a really big problem with displacing wild life, loss of land mass, and many other issues that are giving hydro a really bad name.

    if you want a good list of green tech, think: geothermal, wind currents, and tidal flows. tidal power could become a huge thing considering such a huge percentage of the earths population lives within 100 miles of coastal areas. tidal "winds" are like normal wind but if you've ever tried to walk through a wading pool, you'll understand just how much kinetic energy can be extracted from water as opposed to air.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. By mlhm5 Posted: 4/15/2008 3:12pm PDT

    Wow! If you take a look over the past 10 years in engine development, you will not find Detroit out there with anything today that isn't the same as they had in 1998, except for licensed technology.

    I see Ford is going to employ some diesel technology on a gasoline engine using direct injection and sequential turbochargers, but that's nothing more than a 3 year old Mazda engine with a few upgrades and really not a step forward and GM Volt may be vaporware or it might not. Too early to call it.

    Good thing we can depend on Toyota, Honda, MB, Audi and VW for advances in engine technology.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  10. By Wizards Lore Posted: 4/15/2008 6:56pm PDT

    "the kind of quick charge that you’re talking about,.. is something that I dont expect to see very quickly. you’re putting energy into the battery. the battery takes 8 hours of driving to discharge but you’re going to charge it in 1 or 2 minutes? batteries have an internal resistance, meaning that when electricity flows through them (the purpose of the battery), they heat up. when you charge a battery, the process still takes place. who knows… we may still have liquid cooling systems on our future cars, but for the batter instead of the engine block."

    sorry for the long quote...but i was thinking, is there a plausable way for the heat (see energy) generated by the batteries as they charge to be able to be harnessed? just a thought mind, seeing as Chris is the one with the finger on the button on this topic.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Connect with Facebook

Motor Authority. Now with your friends.

Discover stories your friends read.
Share stories more easily.
You control what you share.
Learn more

Research New Cars

Go!


More from High Gear Media

 
 
MotorAuthority
  • Follow Us
  • Twiiter
  • Facebook
 
 
© 2011 MotorAuthority. All Rights Reserved. MotorAuthority is published by High Gear Media. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC. Send us feedback.