Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The Nannies Are On the March...

  1. #1

    The Nannies Are On the March...

    GAO’s answer to Senator John Warner's letter asking about speed and energy efficiency confirms that slowing down saves energy and therefore reduces pollution and consumption of petroleum. Of particular interest is the following from pages 4-5:

    “In general, over the last 2 decades, fuel economy gains resulting from advances in automotive technologies have largely been offset by increases in vehicle weight, performance, and accessory loads. Specifically, vehicles are heavier than in the past, because they are larger and include more technologies. For example, average vehicle weight has increased from 3,220 pounds in 1987 to 4,117 in 2008, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”

    “In addition, trends show that recent vehicles, on average, have bigger, more powerful engines that yield better performance—i.e., acceleration and greater speed—at the expense of fuel economy. For example, according to the same EPA report, average horsepower has increased from 118 to 222 over the same period. Further, increased accessory loads, such as air conditioning and electronics, have also reduced fuel economy. According to EPA, from 1987 through 2004, on a fleetwide basis, technology innovation was utilized exclusively to support market-driven attributes other than fuel economy, such as performance.”

    It is also notable that GAO confirms savings of up to 630,000 barrels per day (3% of 21 million) are likely with just 50% compliance according to their research:

    “In calculating these estimates, DOE assumed, among other things, a compliance rate of 50 percent and that the speed limit would affect 35 percent of on-road (highway) mileage, which means roughly a third of travel is on roads where a decrease in the speed limit would have an effect. DOE’s estimates include savings from on-road heavy duty trucks”.


    The GAO letter confirms these key facts.

    1. Economy drops off rapidly and exponentially for all vehicles at speeds above 35-45 MPH.
    2. Even at just 50% compliance with a national speed limit, on 35% of mileage, the nation will save up to 630,000 barrels per day, possibly much more.
    3. The corresponding reduction in pollution, congestion and traffic deaths remain to be quantified.
    4. Manufacturers have done nothing to improve economy for decades.


    These Idiots actually expect 50% compliance?? They'll be doing great to get 5%. So in what we all know is reality and the real world, we might save about 30,000 barrels a day. What a waste of law enforcement efforts. I just can't believe these people...

  2. #2
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126
    That is a complete fabrication. It is interesting that they did not mention a speed limit for the so-called 50 percent compliance rate. Is it 55, 60 or 65 mph? There is absolutely no evidence to support that, either. When the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, there was NO change in national fleet fuel economy. When it was increased to 65 mph in 1987, fuel economy was still rising due to changes in the vehicle fleet. The NAS estimated that a 65 mph speed limit on rural interstate highways would increase national fuel consumption by 0.18 percent.

    When states were finally allowed to set their own speed limits, national fleet fuel economy remained unchanged and remains so to date. The GAO is full of it, and they know it. I would love the chance to put sand in his brake lines and push him off the nearest mountain in VA.

  3. #3
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,968
    Quote Originally Posted by hwyhawg View Post
    GAO’s answer to Senator John Warner's letter asking about speed and energy efficiency confirms that slowing down saves energy and therefore reduces pollution and consumption of petroleum. Of particular interest is the following from pages 4-5:

    “In general, over the last 2 decades, fuel economy gains resulting from advances in automotive technologies have largely been offset by increases in vehicle weight, performance, and accessory loads. Specifically, vehicles are heavier than in the past, because they are larger and include more technologies. For example, average vehicle weight has increased from 3,220 pounds in 1987 to 4,117 in 2008, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”

    “In addition, trends show that recent vehicles, on average, have bigger, more powerful engines that yield better performance—i.e., acceleration and greater speed—at the expense of fuel economy. For example, according to the same EPA report, average horsepower has increased from 118 to 222 over the same period. Further, increased accessory loads, such as air conditioning and electronics, have also reduced fuel economy. According to EPA, from 1987 through 2004, on a fleetwide basis, technology innovation was utilized exclusively to support market-driven attributes other than fuel economy, such as performance.”

    It is also notable that GAO confirms savings of up to 630,000 barrels per day (3% of 21 million) are likely with just 50% compliance according to their research:

    “In calculating these estimates, DOE assumed, among other things, a compliance rate of 50 percent and that the speed limit would affect 35 percent of on-road (highway) mileage, which means roughly a third of travel is on roads where a decrease in the speed limit would have an effect. DOE’s estimates include savings from on-road heavy duty trucks”.


    The GAO letter confirms these key facts.

    1. Economy drops off rapidly and exponentially for all vehicles at speeds above 35-45 MPH.
    2. Even at just 50% compliance with a national speed limit, on 35% of mileage, the nation will save up to 630,000 barrels per day, possibly much more.
    3. The corresponding reduction in pollution, congestion and traffic deaths remain to be quantified.
    4. Manufacturers have done nothing to improve economy for decades.


    These Idiots actually expect 50% compliance?? They'll be doing great to get 5%. So in what we all know is reality and the real world, we might save about 30,000 barrels a day. What a waste of law enforcement efforts. I just can't believe these people...
    Thank, Hawg....

    These people never quit, eh?

    And, note: They never factor in the economies that come from efficiency (improved traffic flow and reduced travel times, etc.) which are certainly as relevant as some minor uptick in fuel economy - even if we grant the GAO premise.

  4. #4
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126
    The GAO's premise isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Youth on the march!
    By RebelKnightCSA in forum Video clips
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-16-2010, 07:37 AM
  2. This week's death march...
    By Eric in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-13-2010, 03:17 PM
  3. 2A March on DC - info
    By Eric in forum Guns, Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2010, 06:57 AM
  4. Atheism on the march
    By mrblanche in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 199
    Last Post: 09-05-2007, 09:08 AM
  5. Top 20 Best Sellers/March 2007
    By Eric in forum Automotive News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2007, 07:33 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •