Dear drivers: It's called cruise control

Having jaunted up to Dallas-Fort Worth and now back for Thanksgiving, I find myself more frustrated than ever at the number of drivers that do not use cruise control. I get frustrated by the ones than drive 1-2mph faster than me, then 1-2 mph slower, forcing me to up my cruise 1-2 mph to pass them and stay past them. (This ignores those, whether out of Texas macho, or more generic macho, who then insist on passing me back again.)

On freeways outside of urban areas, left-lane lopers are the only species of bad driver, I think, that frustrates me more. And, if you need to have THAT phrase explained to you, you need to have your license revoked.

Back to the non-cruise users.

First, you're disrupting traffic flow. (You can step on your gas pedal to pass more quickly, whether on a freeway or a two-lane road, then go back to cruise control speed after completing your pass, you know.)

Second, using cruise control is probably the third most effective gas mileage enhancer a driver can do, after proper tire inflation and no jackrabbit starts/stops. Given modern engines, it surely ranks ahead of tune-ups, which aren't regularly needed anymore.

Cruise control technology continually improves. Even 15 years ago, automakers had reduced a lot of the "hunting" that cruise controls do with automatics, and how readily they do or do not downshift. Today, with more and more new cars coming with five-speed automatics, if and when they do downshift, it's more smoothly than ever before.

So, let's get with the program, folks.

Cash for clunkers 5 – NOT a real gas saver

Reuters estimates cash for clunkers sales will reduce US gas usage by … just one-twentieth of one percent, though more sales may increase that to a whopping one-quarter percengt.

The San Francisco Chronicle notes that the EPA requirements on the newly-purchased models, if run higher, would likely have increased efficiency.

at the expense of formerly Big Three sales in the program.

Now, the program may get Americans to think more about fuel efficiency, but it’s unlikely. On the other hand, the efforts of Andrew J. Hall, arguably the king of oil commodities future speculators, may do that.

So, instead of that, why doesn’t Obama push for the legislation to put bozos like him out of business and replace his “skimming” with an increased gas tax?

The race to 100mpg

Wired has the lowdown on the Progressive Automotive X-Prize. The winner has to have a car that delivers 100mpg or its electric equivalent, be capable of mass production of 10,000 units at reasonable cost, and be capable of that production by 2014.

Why we need a $1-gallon fuel tax increase

ABC offers the worries that plummeting fuel prices could mean a return to 1980s cheap gas and 1980s cheap gas mentalities.

That $1 a gallon, sensibly phased in over five years, would keep Americans of 15-minute mindsets from rushing back to SUVs when the recession lightens.

It would also keep the floor higher for alt-fuels (and, hopefully, alt-fuels besides the ethanol ABC touts in the story).

More on those first two points at HybridCars.

It would fund a massive road-and-bridge repair project.

That, then, would help the economy, right now.

I'll have a newspaper column about this later this week.

New driving psychology – gallons per mile

Duke University researchers say people would be more fuel-economy conscious if we all, from automakers on down, talked in terms of “gallons per mile” rather than the current “miles per gallon.”

“The reality that few people appreciate is that improving fuel efficiency from 10 to 20mpg is actually a more significant saving than improving from 25mpg to 50mpg for the same distance of driving,” said Richard Larrick.

The story adds that the research findings suggests people who use two different cars equally will always save more on fuel by improving the least efficient car.

And, thus and unwittingly, the state of Texas is onto something. Its program to give owners of old, polluting oil-burners vouchers to get newer, less-polluting cars will also help the gas consumption in the state a fair amount.

Semis could be 10 percent more efficient

Without semi hybrid drives or anything else high-tech.

The answer? Better aerodynamics.



Semis themselves have gotten more aerodynamic over the years, first, as the old (and hot and noisy, I would guess) cabover designs were abandoned. Then, the long-nose semis got sleeker, got better wind cowlings, etc.

But, nothing was done about the trailers. And, that big, square-lined box has got plenty of room for improvement. Take a look:

Court tells NHTSA to come up with real CAFE standards for light trucks and SUVs

And start over:

A federal appeals court on Thursday threw out federal fuel economy standards for many sport-utility vehicles, minivans and pickup trucks.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the standards, which were to go into effect next year, didn't properly assess the risk to the environment and failed to include heavier SUVs and trucks, among several other deficiencies the court found.

The decision resulted from a lawsuit filed by 11 states and environmental groups that argued federal regulators ignored the effects of carbon dioxide emissions when calculating fuel economy standards for light trucks.

The new mileage standards, announced in March 2006, required an increase in the average fuel economy for all passenger trucks sold in the United States from 22.2 miles per gallon to 23.5 miles per gallon by 2010.

Filed last year, the suit sought to force the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recalculate its mileage standards from scratch, with carbon dioxide emissions taken into account as a major factor in the agency's analysis.

Hmm. Too bad we can’t talk Nancy Pelosi to court to get new long-term CAFE standards before the full House for a vote.

Given the SCOTUS ruling earlier this year that the government, specifically the EPA, has the statutory power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, this ruling certainly should stand up should the NHTSA be knot-headed enough to appeal it.

Why is Pelosi blocking new auto CAFE standards?

Apparently, we need to blame the Speaker and not John Dingell. Gregg Easterbrook, who while too conservative in some ways for me, has some decent insights on environmental issues, says that’s not the only thing wrong with Nancy Pelosi’s green credentials:

Raising mileage standards for vehicles and enacting a carbon trading system for electric power generation are two highly desirable actions Congress can take right now, without doing economic harm, to cut greenhouse emissions, improve national security by reducing U.S. reliance on Persian Gulf oil and push Detroit automakers to become more competitive so they stay in business. But instead of taking badly needed action, the House of Representatives last week spent $89,000 of taxpayers' money to purchase 30,000 tons' worth of "carbon offsets" for its antiquated coal-burning powerhouse. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared the U.S. Capitol will be green by 2008, but this sounds to me like political yammer.

First, according to estimates by resource economists, carbon offsets need to cost $20 to $25 per ton in order to generate a significant profit incentive for innovators, and thus inspire technical breakthroughs that will stave off artificial global warming. If the Capitol paid only $3 per ton, it wasn't buying much. More important, if you really believe artificial global warming is a huge menace to society, you don't just buy offsets and continue using your antiquated coal-fired powerhouse -- because, after all, the offsets only prevent emissions from rising, doing nothing to reduce emissions. If you really believe artificial global warming is a menace, you buy offsets and cut your own carbon output, thus reducing emissions. This is the big fault with Al Gore's patting himself on the back for buying offsets: He has not reduced his carbon footprint. If he believed his own speeches, he'd both buy the offsets and cut back his carbon-intensive jet-set lifestyle.

Pelosi's talk of a "green" U.S. Capitol is especially phony when she refuses to allow the House of Representatives to vote on proposals to increase fuel-economy standards for vehicles. Higher mpg standards -- the average fuel economy of new cars, trucks and SUVs has not risen since 1988 -- are a million times more important to preventing artificial global warming than symbolic actions such as those being taken at the Capitol. Stricter mileage rules would not only reduce U.S. payments to Persian Gulf dictatorships but also make a significant dent in greenhouse gases because greenhouse emissions are proportional to fossil fuel burned. Yet while Pelosi announces lofty promises about a renewable Capitol, she won't schedule a vote on the strict new mileage standards backed by figures as diverse as President Bush and Barack Obama.

Easterbrook is an equal-opportunity excoriator on politicos from both parties, though.

What of other political leaders? George W. Bush has proposed an international conference to negotiate nonbinding future goals for greenhouse gas reduction — exactly the empty gesture his father proposed in 1992! As Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post shows, all contenders for the presidency have embraced climate proposals that seem bold and sweeping. But read closely: None would have teeth until long after the bold politicians making the sweeping proposals leave office. Hillary Clinton, for instance, wants bold, sweeping action against greenhouse gases by 2030, when she would have been out of office for at least 14 years. John Edwards, whom TMQ likes because he emphasizes the forgotten issue of poverty, wants bold, bold, really bold action by 2050, when he will be 97 years old. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pulling this fast one, too. His bold, bold California climate plan has gotten him fawning press but does not require any action until after Schwarzenegger is out of office.

This is a complaint I’ve had for a long time. And, if you think I have this complaint about global warming, I have it in spades about Peak Oil.