Daily Kos

View Story | 223 comments

  •  Oh, it CAN be done (none / 0)

    If you have the stomach for it.

    Bring back the 55MPH speed limit
    That would be an immediate 10-15% savings.

    Require that all companies with more than 100 employees have at least 15% telecommuters
    There's another 10%.

    You could do other things: high tarrif on truck shipments, subsidize E85 fuel, etc.

    Of course, I think what Jerome is calling for (and what I would want as well) is something a little less drastic: gradual improvements in fuel efficiency, public transportation, and conservation all adding up to a 20% drop over the next 15 years.

    •  55 MPH (none / 0)

      May or may not make the difference you think.

      Since Katrina, I've had my car set to show its real-time mileage.  It gets better mileage at 70MPH than it does at 55 MPH.  I can't even begin to guess how the physics for that works, but it's been consistently better at the 70 MPH from mountains to seacoast and back. And no, it's not an automatic, so it's not downshifting when it gets down to 55, or anything weird like that.

      By paying attention to the real-time mileage, I've increased the average mileage of my car from 25 MPG to 27.4 MPG - in a 1997 Volvo shaped like a brick.  Not bad.  It's not the bio-diesel hybrid I dream of, but by sticking with an existing car and improving my mileage, I'm probably doing more good than if I were to buy a newly manufactured hybrid.  I'm not sure where the energy-cost break-even would be for buying a new car (when you include all the energy used to manufacture and transport it) vs keeping my old car, but if I can keep messing around to improve the mileage, it may be a long way out.

      I do know, though, that I'm going to stick to that magical 70 MPH on the highway that seems to give the most distance per dollar as long as I have this car.  

      Of course, your mileage may vary... ;-)

      •  Why do you think that is accurate? (none / 0)

        If you are in the same gear, your statement is ludicrous.  So since it flies in the face of Newtonian physics, look for error in your measurement system.  Drag on any car is greatly increased since it is proportional to velocity squared.

        drag is proportional to velocity squared, and:

        55 x 55 = 3,025

        70 x 70 = 4,900

        So you claim "Better" fuel mileage with 62% more drag?  Unbelievable.

        Look to your driving habits, accelerator on and off, braking, the wind direction, temperature, etc. to explain the difference IF your on-board computer is working properly.

        Then if you really want to save gas, buy a Prius. My computer shows 61.1 mpg for the last 150 miles, and it checks out pretty closely when I record the gas at each fill up.

        •  Like I said (none / 0)

           can't even guess at the physics, but perhaps there's something other than wind drag involved?  For example, maybe the air/fuel ratio is better or something at 70 than 55, or maybe the 187,000 mi catalytic converter is doing weird things.  I really, don't know, but, UM, the fact that I need to fill up the tank less seems to give credence to the improved mileage my car claims to have since I've started experimenting.

          How much energy does the manufacture and transport of a new Prius use vs the extra gas I'm using at an average 27.4 MPG instead of 50ish that a Prius might provide (I live in the mountains and word has it that hybrids don't do as well here, so perhaps 45 is closer)?  This isn't snark, it's a serious question.

          What's the energy use break-even point if I cause the manufacture of a whole new car instead of using the car I already have more efficiently?  If I'm even going to consider shelling out mucho dinero for a new car, I need to know whether that switch is actually going to do what it's supposed to do.

View Story | 223 comments