Obama said he will make it happen with the Big 3. Not going into the politics here, but trying to get others opinion as to if this is even possible. 1. Big 3 are complaining about getting 35 mpg fleet average... 2. Big 3 are saying that it will cost $6k more each car for better mpg (like 35 mpg) 3. So Big 3 are going to make their 150 mpg Hybrid $100k+ per car? How in the world will the Big 3 do anything so "forward looking" in 6 years? Is it even possible? :attention: I don't see the science of petrol cars getting 150 mpg (with today's ICE-hybrid technologies) unless it is one of those E85 scam. Or like CalCars using only Electricity with a plugin and say it is 150 mpg capable (ie. Drive 120 mile with electricity and 30 on one gallon petrol).
Why is the bolded not valid? As long as the vehicle can go 150 miles using one gallon of gas that seems valid to me. As for the Big 3, do you mean Ford, GM and Crysler? If so, I would say it is possible, but I don't believe they will be able to do it. Considering that you can get about 150mpg on short trips (under 10 miles??) right now, I don't see much of an issue improving that over the next 6 years.
If you consider this as valid, you will have to accept the E85 test parameters too. Since it is using only 15% of petrol, the other 85% ethanol is not petrol and should not count. Just the same as electricity does not count. If you want ethanol to count, you will have to count electricity as well. There is no hair splitting here. At least not with science, since energy is energy.... regardless if it is electro or liquid fuel. But in politics, you can label it anything you want as long as it is for/against what you believe in. [hence... the E85 scam.]
Those 3 have been fighting CAFE standards forever instead of embracing them and finding ways to improve. The technology is there and if they don't pull their heads out, then the Asians will run further ahead.
I feel the big 3 are to greedy, and they can't do it. I'm so fed up with American auto makers, they can just go belly up.
Aha, I see the reasoning. The EPA actually has a 'gas mileage equivalency' which takes into account the energy use regardless of source. Something like this may give the best results. While I agree that ethanol is a loose-loose proposition, electricity is a net gain in efficiency. So include the energy cost of the alternative fuel (corn, sugar, electricity, etc) and I would see that as a true scientific measurement.
Ok, lets count it... the most optimistic studies show that ethanol only provides 34% more energy than goes into producing it - and some studies show that the energy cost of ethanol is greater than the energy output. I won't pretend to know what the actual, real life percentage is - every one of those studies is biased in one way or another. Additionally, about half the energy cost of ethanol is oil! So, you have a choice... use a plug in hybrid that gets amazing gas mileage (and depending on your routine may hardly ever use gasoline) and can derive it's energy from renewable sources (i say can, not does - i know much of the country doesn't use renewable energy production), or use E85 so you still use 15% gasoline directly, and another 42.5% indirectly... Oh wait, even if all of our corn was used for E85 production, we would only be able to supply about 5% of our automotive power needs. And i haven't even got into the misguided logic in burning our food supply (both directly and indirectly as most livestock is fed on corn) just to get to work every morning... Imagine one year of bad harvests... What do we do with the corn we do manage to get? Burn it, or eat it?
