58 MPG by 2032

[CloverKnollFarms]

When I drive our 2016 CRV, I obtain about 35mpg. When the wife drives, it's around 30mpg. The difference is 10mph. The car is far more efficient at low speed than high. I love leaving my last trip MPG on the screen for her to see when she gets in to drive

 

[prairiegirl]

58 MPG​

Seeking to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the B i d e n administration has issued a proposal directing automakers to raise the fuel economy of their vehicles to a fleet-wide average of 58 miles per gallon by 2032. The proposed rules by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would be applicable starting in model year 2027, while new fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans would rise 10% annually. The NHTSA also said it would try to align regulations with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed vehicle emissions reductions. Many U.S. automakers are already in the middle of electrifying their fleets, but any changes could impact the plans of Ford (F), General Motors (GM) and Stellantis (STLA)

and he does not care that most of the electricity is also made out of fuel.
Imagine if we all would have to drive around on solar energy. In the daytime only, of course.

 

[WinterDeere]

Do anyone out there want to go back ware a standard passenger car only got 15mpg?

My 2016 sedan averages 12.8 mpg. I pray there's never a day when I really need to worry about the cost of fuel.

 

[WinterDeere]

and he does not care that most of the electricity is also made out of fuel.

I've seen this stated a few times, and it really shows a lack of understanding on two fronts:

1. Where our electricity actually comes from in 2023
2. Efficiency of a power plant + transmission system + BEV versus that of an ICE.

First point, the largest part of our electrical power came from coal until about 2015, when it crossed over with natural gas. Coal has been on a continuous and almost linear tumble down over the last several decades, in fact we've cut it by more than half in the last 10 years alone. Gas is on the rise, thanks to low cost (shale / fracking), and renewables have been on an almost equal rise.

Even without any acceleration from the continuous research and development that is happening today on renewables, you can see that they and nat.gas will be our dominant sources for the future. More realistically, we know that natural gas will plateau, and renewables will continue to rise. Coal is as much as dead, and oil never really contributed (see "other").

Second point, legacy ICE's are about 25% efficient, meaning 75% of the fuel they burned went to heat with 25% contributing to motive power. In recent years, many cars (not mine) have pushed this up to 40%, but that is where we have plateaued with the gasoline engine. With the average car on US roads today being 11.5 years old, our national fleet efficiency is somewhere between these two numbers, perhaps 30 - 35% net.

Meanwhile, the newer combined-cycle natural gas power plants built today operate around 60% net efficiency. Even the older simple cycle plants ran above 40% net efficiency. When combined with nuclear and renewables (both 100% carbon efficient), the mix of power charging your BEV is achieved at a net efficiency likely double that of your ICE's own fuel consumption.

So, yes... some electricity "comes from fuel", as you rather simply put it. But when considering the fuel sources and efficiencies involved, the statement really loses its meaning. Wind is fuel, uranium is fuel... and nearly zero of your electricity comes from oil.

 

[Ridersupfarm]

They had better get busy in California then because with their "renewable" push they have a long track record of rolling brownouts and blackouts. They are a case study on how not to transition to "renewables".

 

[WinterDeere]

They had better get busy in California then because with their "renewable" push they have a long track record of rolling brownouts and blackouts. They are a case study on how not to transition to "renewables".

I believe California's history of energy woes has everything to do with market manipulation (Enron) and transmission, and nearly nothing to do with the actual sources of power generation. It's a horribly mis-managed state on every front, but I think your blame is misplaced, here.

 

[Ridersupfarm]

I disagree. However, you can blame one form of mismanagement over another. The fact remains Ca has done a horrible job ensuring a safe, reliable energy supply for their residents and it's only getting worse. They have made similar mistakes with water management and wild fire control.

 

[WinterDeere]

I disagree.

You can disagree, but facts are hard things. Can you show that any majority of their troubles come from power generation, and not power distribution?

 

[dodge man]

Keep in mind the physics of speed. The energy in a moving vehicle is based on the square of your speed. That means you double your speed the energy is 4 times greater. I’m not talking about mpg but how this relates to braking and the force of an accident.

Wind resistance is also based roughly on the square of your speed. It seems like it might actually be the cube of your speed is the energy you’re using but you get there quicker so more like the square of your speed. Double your speed, the wind resistance is 4 times greater. Most vehicles get their best fuel mileage at about 45 mph.

 

[Ridersupfarm]

You can disagree, but facts are hard things. Can you show that any majority of their troubles come from power generation, and not power distribution?

Well, can you show why, with all the time they have had, they haven't fixed their distribution problems by now? The state is so badly mismanaged that it's no surprise they can't make a smooth transition to renewables without making a mess of things. If they can't manage water, wildfires and crime how are they going to handle something as infinately more complex as energy transition?