Senator Introduces Gasoline Conservation Bill; Study of 60 mph Limit
17 July 2008
US Senator John Warner (R-VA) introduced S. 3266, the “Immediate Steps to Conserve Gasoline Act.” This binding legislation calls on both the federal government and Congress to conserve gasoline by lowering their usage 3% for one year. The bill also asks the Energy Information Administration to study the effects of imposing a national speed limit of 60 miles per hour.
Warner recently requested that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study the imposition of the 55 mph speed limit in the US in 1974 to determine whether the administration and Congress should take similar action now. (Earlier post.)
The 3% reduction is the same amount by which federal agencies were required to reduce their energy usage in buildings and at facilities in the “Energy Independent and Security Act of 2007,” (EISA 2007).
Who are we kidding. The quickest way to conservation is hybridization of all vehicles, commercial and passenger. Congress needs to pass legislative policy that subsidizes the manufacture and purchase of all forms of Hybrid Vehicles.
Don't get me wrong. I am also for drilling domestically, but what is the point if we don't have the refining capacity to make it into fuel. Instead, we have to drill it, then ship it off to be refined, and then ship it back. How does that save any money?
Posted by: GetReal | 17 July 2008 at 10:39 AM
How hard can it be to reduce fuel use by 3% (the first time).
Slow up, accelerate less aggressively, pump your tyres - all this is well known.
In buildings, switch to CFLs where possible, turn off lights, replace desktop computers with laptops, turn down (up) air conditioning etc.
Just make people measure what they are doing (even at plant level) and then they can start (or continue reducing it).
The 60mph speed limit would be the easiest way to save fuel, but it would make a lot of people very angry with the govt.
Posted by: mahonj | 17 July 2008 at 10:43 AM
A week ago, it was 55mph! This is the most idiotic suggestion I have heard of. Warner is old enough that he should remember the fiasco the last time this was tried. It resulted in a nation of law breakers in that everyone broke the speed limit "law" and thus found out that almost all laws are breakable with (mostly) impunity.
It would be far better to raise taxes (and tax by percentage of price instead of by the gallon) to achieve the same purpose. He should also support plug-in vehicles, wind, solar, and other forms of energy other than oil.
Posted by: Joe in MD | 17 July 2008 at 11:27 AM
Slow down! it does save gas. I am driving a small toyota pickup truck that averages 24 mpg hwy. Despite such gimmicks as fuel treatment etc ... mpg did not increase. I started to slow down and maintain a constant 60 mph. Now I am getting 29 mpg consistently. A 20% improvement ... yoo hoo!
Posted by: howard | 17 July 2008 at 11:55 AM
----"Who are we kidding. The quickest way to conservation is hybridization of all vehicles, commercial and passenger."-------
Never happen. Too expensive, and even if you COULD get every single person and vehicle to replace every single vehicle they have, there is not the manufacturing or parts availability to build them.
-----"Don't get me wrong. I am also for drilling domestically, but what is the point if we don't have the refining capacity to make it into fuel. Instead, we have to drill it, then ship it off to be refined, and then ship it back. How does that save any money?"-------
We can build 4-6 of the largest biofuel facilities for the cost of 1 offshore drilling rig, which only has a 1 out of 5 chance of striking a usable oil pool. Biofuel facilitites could be up and running producing fuel long before an offshore rig is even ready to put to sea and start drilling. There is no quesion about what you will get when you build biofuel facilities, you know what you put in, you know what you get out---we've been doing it for hundreds of years.
PetroSun is making biodiesel right now from saltwater algae in Rio Hondo TX. Biodiesel can either be mixed directly in any proportion with petroleum diesel, or used as is as B-100 in any diesel engine, no modification required.
Ethanol can be mixed in any proportion with petroleum gasoline. 10% Ethanol has been in use for the last 15 years or so in high pollution areas to reduce pollution. Any petroleum gasoline engine can run on a blend of up to E-30 with no modification, many European countries E-20 is all you can buy. With Flex Fuel vehicles you can use either petroleum gasoline or E-85(85% ethanol) in any combination--just fill up with whatever is available. Flex Fuel vehicles cost no more than conventional vehicles, are rolling off the assembly lines right now, and have been in use for about 20 years---the modifications are minor and would require little or no retooling or parts shortages to convert to all Flex Fuel production. Brazil runs their entire energy needs on E-85. If Brazil can do it, so can we.
Using B-100 replaces the need for imported crude oil(taking into account production, transportation, and refining costs) at the rate of one gallon of B-100 replaces the need for 2.3 gallons of crude.
Ethanol can be made from any kind of plant substance, including wood, and was being manufactured from wood waste from logging and millwork as far back as the 1890's in both Germany and the United States.
Biofuels are non-greenhouse gas producing when used, and produce no sulphur emissions, and very low in other emissions. Biofuels are cheap and easy to produce from raw materials that are abundant, and renewable. They can be made entirely in the US by US workers using technology that can be made entirely in the US.
We need to get rid of all the tax subsidies and special favors, tax write offs, and give aways to the oil industry, and let the price of oil reflect the true cost to produce it.
We need to invest our time and resources in producing biofuels that we can produce as much as we need on a continueig basis forever. Take the tax write offs and special favors away and let the price of oil rise to $10 per gallon. Biofuels are already cheaper than petroleum(current price of crude oil is about $3.50/gallon before refining---current price of ethanol is about $2.60/gallon, no refining required).
Biomethane can be produced from any kind of biologic waste, even sewage and garbage. Biomethane can be used with petroleum natural gas in any proportion mix. It is chemically the same(methane)as the main ingredient in petroluem NG but does not contain pollution causing contaminants.
Biofuels fit entirely into the current infrastructure, do anything that petroleum does and can do it better, reduce pollution, cause no greenhouse gas emissions, require no addition refining(unlike petroleum), are cheap to produce and are renewable and sustainable. Replace petroleum with biofuels and we will be reversing economic damage caused by importing expensive oil, and we'll be able to get rid of a lot of expensive government environmental hazard beauracracy. Biofuels are safer to use than petroleum, and are natural products that will biodegrade or evaporate without environmental damage in the event of spills, fires or other accidents.
Posted by: Wetdog | 17 July 2008 at 03:28 PM
----"Who are we kidding. The quickest way to conservation is hybridization of all vehicles, commercial and passenger."-------
Quickest way? of course not; how idiotic. It’s just your way. Hybridization is good, 60 mph max is also good.
-----"Don't get me wrong. I am also for drilling domestically, but what is the point if we don't have the refining capacity to make it into fuel. Instead, we have to drill it, then ship it off to be refined, and then ship it back. How does that save any money?"-------
Shipping it around is no big deal. Besides we can build more refining capacity, we do it all the time. Not by building more refineries but by expanding those we have (expansion is harder for the anarchists to block)
--” It would be far better to raise taxes (and tax by percentage of price instead of by the gallon) to achieve the same purpose. He should also support plug-in vehicles, wind, solar, and other forms of energy other than oil. ---
The key word here is “Also”. “Far better” is debatable.
The energy crisis is BIG. We need conservation (including 60 mph), drilling, solar, CTL, corn ethanol. wind, conservation, cellulosic ethanol, nuclear, algae ethanol, shale oil, tidal, geothermal, and more conservation.
Doing ONLY one thing is almost identical to doing nothing.
We need it all. That way, if many of the approaches are at least partially effective, the energy crises might be cured in 10 years and the “peak”, due in ~5 years is blunted.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 17 July 2008 at 04:55 PM
What's the point of lowered speed limits if already the majority of people on the road today already exceed the given speed limits on highways?
Given the fact that highway speeds limits, are in fact, maximum speed limits (you should never exceed them) simply enforcing the existing speed limits would likely meet requirements.
It would be better to spend the money on educating drivers that it is in fact legal to drive below the posted maximum speeds and lowering your speed to 60mph will save you fuel. While they are doing it, also educate drivers that slower traffic should stay right. Both for safety, but also because then traffic that does need to move faster for whatever reason is able to smoothly pass instead of having to repeatedly slow and accelerate which wastes more fuel than maintaining a constant speed.
Posted by: Dave | 17 July 2008 at 05:15 PM
----"Shipping it around is no big deal. Besides we can build more refining capacity, we do it all the time. Not by building more refineries but by expanding those we have (expansion is harder for the anarchists to block)"------
Shipping oil around IS a big deal, it is inefficient and adds to the cost. You have to keep producing more to get less. We are already shipping oil half way around the world just to get it here. That is because oil in not distributed geographically equally. AND as pointed out, it STILL needs to be refined after it gets here. Biofuels can be made from any kind of plant material at all. No refining needed. It can be made anywhere in the country from something. It can even be made at sea. It would be much more efficient and cheaper to produce biofuels close to the source of use---many smaller plants would be much more efficient that fewer large plants. Many smaller plants would also be preferable from an economic,marketing and jobs viewpoint. And the mix of raw materials used in local markets would make a market that would be highly resistant to problems caused by local or regional disasters----say hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts etc. Many local plants using a variety sources would be able to pick up the slack and maintain production without interuption much more easily than relying on a few large scale sources.
Drilling for more oil is just a complete waste of time and resources. Oil is what got us into this swamp full of alligators in the first place, time to get out of the swamp.
Time to switch to biodiesel and ethanol.
I do favor drilling for more natural gas. It is clean and a good replacement for coal. And we can mix biomethane with natural gas in any proportion to cut down on fossil fuel use in the future. The main ingredient of natural gas and biomethane are the same thing----and we need to be treating sewage anyway. We might as well capture and use the methane when we do. With NG faclities we can do that in any mix we want according to availability. No modification needed.
-----"Doing ONLY one thing is almost identical to doing nothing.
We need it all. That way, if many of the approaches are at least partially effective, the energy crises might be cured in 10 years and the “peak”, due in ~5 years is blunted."---------
I agree. I'd point out that biodiesel and ethanol have been around for over 100 years, internal combustion engines were first developed to run on them, that was all they had. They do anything petroleum does and do it better.
Wind and solar energy have been used for longer than man has been recording history. They have always been effective and reliable and are even more so today. Many countries are generating up to 40-50% of their energy with wind. Solar power once installed can last virtually forever. And the best thing is, once set up---you never spend another penny for fuel, even if you use it 100 years or more. Livng in Europe, I saw many windmills, still milling grain and still pumping water 300 and 400 years after they were built.
Conservation, doing more using less, is something we can always work toward. And should.
Posted by: | 17 July 2008 at 06:09 PM
What a joke!
This idiotic idea is only good for the idoits who drive SUV's and trucks when they don't need them.
But even then 100% enforcement will probably waste more fuel than the savings.
The only way is higher GAS TAX! A speed limit does not encorage buying more efficient cars. Longer trips? Buy a bigger more comfortable car!
What we need is much better streamlining to make MPG less sensitive to speed.
Posted by: | 17 July 2008 at 06:32 PM
--------"What a joke!
This idiotic idea is only good for the idoits who drive SUV's and trucks when they don't need them."---------------
This is the nice part about a democracy and a free market system. We'll let people read them, and then they can decide for themselves which is the idiotic idea and which isn't.
I'm reasonably sure however, that there won't be a large number of people who are interested in raising taxes.
Posted by: | 17 July 2008 at 08:19 PM
Why can't they just incentivize hybrids to a large degree and slap a gas guzzler tax on anyone who owns a truck or SUV without a commercial reason to do so?
It really seems to me that this is more of a what-vehicle-people-drive type of issue rather than a speed thing. All lowering the speed limit does is attempt to make it look like you're doing something when you're not. I agree with beefing up enforcement of the current speed limits over lowering them.
Posted by: Elliot | 18 July 2008 at 08:08 AM
The quickest, best, & most economical way to conserve is: while accelerating towards 80MPH, slow your acceleration & stop accelerating at 60MPH. No fancy new technology is needed.
'Slow down, ya move too fast. Ya got to make the morning last'. Lots of people here aren't groovy.
Feather footers of three of the best MPG non-Hybrid cars get 48, 44, & 45 MPG, 10 to 13 MPG OVER the EPA highway MPG ratings. One person AVERAGES 48MPG. These people are NOT going 80 MPH...but they aren't going as slow as 50MPH either. Recently, I averaged 42MPG while going over 1400, 3000, 4000, & 5500 foot mountain passes, to 101 degree E. Washington & to Mt. Rainier. One run was 45MPG. Yes, I wasn't going 80MPH, but I was not holding anyone up, except the speedlimit violators.
Lets face it. The people here complaining about a 60MPH speed limit are the ones going 80+MPH on the freeways...even when the speed limit may be 70MPH. You see these people on the freeways trying to bully people out of the way by tailgating...even flashing lights. You can read their messages on the internet as they self-righteously demand 'their right' to exceed speedlimits. They are also posting to demand that speedlimits NOT be lowered. Yes, these people have adrenaline highs as they push 80+MPH & they will pay the ticket so they can continue their 80+MPH lifestyle rush.
I suspect these people don't have the lovely terrain of my Washington state to travel thru 'as I make the morning last'.
Posted by: litesong | 18 July 2008 at 08:38 AM