Now we're talking! Could they actually be waking up in Washington? I just hope the money doesn't wind up in the hands of USABC. (i.e. funneled off into oblivion). I like the emphasis on manufacturing since that is the key problem with advanced batteries today (price). Now, what are the odds of this getting past?

I know I am repeating myself, but run hybrids on CNG/SNG and you can reduce gasoline consumption immediately, using proven technologies. Advancing other methods is good if they have merit up and above this. We need to get something done NOW...not 10 years from now.

Again, the problem is being defined as one of technology. If we can just have better batteries, cars, fibers,biofuels, etc., we can meet our goals, especially those which are a long ways away. We have had tremendous technological change over the last three decases with no improvement with respect to gasoline burned or gas mileage. Auto companies and consumers keep moving the goal posts-- increasingly absurd levels of performance, bigger trucks, bigger SUVs. This is a treadmill. No amount of money will get us out of this mess.

The main problem is not engineering; it is economics, politics, and cultural attitudes.

This is all directed at the supply side; we need incentives on the demand side. Changes in driving behavior and demand could start bringing down gas consumption tomorrow. But no politician will do the obvious; raise gas taxes until enough changes in driving and purchasing behavior to occur to bring down consumption.

awwhh yeah baby, watch Cobasys sales take off.

Questions:

Is the idea to reduce gasoline from fossil fuel by 20%, or all road vehicle fuel by 20%?

Clearly the road immediately ahead uses lithium ion batteries for short trips (40 miles or less) and renewable fuel (bio-diesel or ethanol or next generation biofuel)for longer trips. Does this legislation pave the way, or does it put pot-holes in the path?

While one year goals are lame, so are 15 or 20 year goals, what we need are 3 year goals, and 7 year goals.

The money to encourage investment in production facilities is a move in the right direction, but without blowing off the NIMBY blockers, the facilities will be located outside the USA. Wait and see.

And funding for this could come from a surcharge above market price for high consumption of fuel. But nothing will be done at least until the next major disruption in supply. Wait and see.

Van,

I wouldn't say a ten year goal with regard to cars is lame. As I read it they aren't saying that in ten years the cars being sold will have 20% better mileage but that in ten years all cars then on the street (which will actually be more cars than now) will consume 20% less total gas than the fewer number of cars on the street do now. That to me implies a pretty quick change in cars being sold and/or fuel infrastructure. Of course as someone pointed out, this could mean a big switch to biofuels rather than better mileage.

I bet those targets turn out ot be rather squishy and malleable... but maybe I'll be surprised.

Brad -

I agree with Cervus on this one, politicians should articulate the targets society wants to set for energy security/environmental reasons. Once the externalities are known, engineers will respond by solving the problem - as long as it's not completely unrealistic.

A 20% fleet average reduction in 10 years is easily doable, especially considering how primitive many of the engines used for trucks and SUVs still are: gasoline instead of diesel, V8 instead of V6, low compression ratios, two valves, OHV cam drive etc. Same with the transmissions.

The technology already exists and all of the Big Three already have it in-house thanks to their European subsidiaries / parent. The Japanese are, if anything, even further ahead. However, as Bob Lutz pointed out, higher MPG means higher prices for the vehicles. Note that his $6000 number referred to 4% annual improvement compounded over 10 years, which adds up to ~40% - this Senate bill is much less draconian).

On the other hand, a government subsidy as large as $2.3 billion to battery developers seems totally inappropriate. First, it favors batteries over all other alternatives. Second, throwing a lot of money - bureaucratic strings firmly attached - at an engineering problem does not necessarily produce results any faster, nor are they always better. Third, it creates yet another avenue for political patronage (read: campaign contributions, corruption risks etc.) based on expensively laundered tax revenue.

They talk about achieving something by 2030 without specifying how much to achieve by 2010.

http://www.iangv.org/content/view/17/35/

Now, there are 6 million CNG (Nat-gas) powered vehicles and its the developing countries which are leading the list.

This is another fast growing area with
3 countries having million + vehicles
9 countries having 100,000 +
24 countries having 10,000 +.

Raf,

A corvette/camaro/trans am engine (V8, 2 valves, OHV - cam in block) is fairly efficient even though it is "low tech" (of course the manufacturing and materials is not low tech). Lighter and smaller than the typical aluminum block & head SOHC V-6.

Auto makers and big oil have invested billions to brainwash people all over the world that big, noisy fuel burners are best.

It won't be easy - maybe impossible - to bring about change.

Lets talk about goals for a sec, we had a goal to end our dependence of foreign oil. Is that still our goal, or have we reached it? Yes it is still our goal, and rather than reach it, our dependence has grown. Now this 10 year goal to reduce gasoline usage by 20% is lame unless we have some bench mark goals at three years out and 7 years out. The mantra of the left, posted above, raise taxes and invest in mass transit and research has been our program . And what was accomplished? We are more dependent, our fuel use is increasing, and hybrid car battery production is based abroad. Talk about springs without water and wandering stars.

Poven to increase gas mileage... that would be a small wooden block to stick under the gas pedal to keep people from stomping so far. I'll sell you one for $100.