According to the New York Times fuel economy standards have been the primary way in which the United States has sought to control greenhouse gas emissions for cars and light trucks, which along with other parts of the transportation sector account for about one-third of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Congress first adopted the standards — known as Cafe standards, for Corporate Fuel Economy Standards — in 1975, in reaction to the disruption of the 1973 oil embargo. For decades, automakers resisted changes in the standards, but joined Mr. Obama for his 2010 announcement that he was ordering the creation of a new national policy that would result in less greenhouse-gas pollution from medium- and heavy-duty trucks for the first time. It would also reduce exhaust from cars and light-duty trucks beyond the requirements he set in motion a year before.
Manufacturers want a single, national standard set over the long term because is easier to meet than the patchwork quilt of regulations imposed in the past. Writing new regulations that will require cars and trucks to have significantly higher fuel economy by 2025 prompted years of fighting among automakers, environmentalists, regulators and consumer groups.
But now that the standards have been proposed, nearly everyone involved in the process is on board with the results, as a public hearing held Tuesday in Detroit showed. More than 90 people who spoke throughout the day asserted that the stricter fuel economy requirements would create jobs, reduce oil consumption, create cleaner air and save drivers money, all while helping automakers increase their profits.
The administration says the higher standards will cause vehicle prices to increase about $2,000 but that owners will save an average of $6,600 over the life of the vehicle by using less fuel. The rules also will create 484,000 jobs and cut oil consumption in the United States by 1.5 million barrels a day by 2030, according to the Go60mpg coalition, an association of environmental advocacy groups that support the proposal.
This MSNBC VIDEO explains a little bit of the matter…http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/30833326#30833326
So how will the automobile industry increase gas mileage? One of the solutions is presented by Hybridcards.com; the company has put the responsibility on the drivers.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers launched an initiative called “EcoDriving” to educate Americans about how to reduce fuel consumption and cut carbon dioxide emissions by changing driving habits.
The “EcoDriving” program describes a set of best practices for driving and maintenance, allowing a typical car owner to increase fuel economy by approximately 15 percent. Driving and operation practices include: utilizing proper braking techniques, driving at optimum speeds, making the best use of synchronized traffic lights, and deciding when it makes sense to use air conditioning. On the maintenance side, the advice tackles issues such as choosing which motor oil to use, as well as understanding the effects of tire pressure.
Now, environmental groups find themselves in the unusual position of lauding the automakers for making fuel economy a priority in virtually all their newest products, from the tiniest subcompact to the heaviest pickup.
Hyundai for example, has created the Blue Driver. Blue Drive is a philosophy that guides our mission to become the world leader in sustainability. From building lighter vehicles to developing more efficient powertrains, to inventing proprietary hybrid technologies, we’re committed to reaching a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2015. That’s five years before the new government mandates kick in. In the future, Blue Drive will expand to include plug-in hybrid vehicles, zero-emission electric vehicles and fuel-cell vehicles that run entirely on hydrogen. Their only emission is water.
Hyundai’s Eco-Technology Research Institute, as stated on their website, is at the forefront of the industry’s environmental movement. Here, our scientists are leading studies and managing our green energy initiatives. They’re developing innovative new technologies that will revolutionize every part of our process. Creating new ways to lower air pollution from exhaust emissions. Inventing more efficient electric-motor systems. And even improving the sustainability of our raw-material sourcing, manufacturing and recycling methods. As the auto industry moves towards a more sustainable future, our Eco-Technology Research Institute will be leading the way.
This is the company’s interactive website to understand a little bit more of the Blue Driver
http://bluedrive.hyundai.com/BlueDrive.html
Chevrolet explains their methods stating that Chevrolet cars are all being designed to save you money while emitting less CO2 into the environment than conventional vehicles. We’re enhancing designs to reduce wind resistance. We’re using lower-mass components to help you save fuel. We’re incorporating new technologies in our internal combustion engines, such as cylinder deactivation or eAssist, to lessen fuel usage. Even our tires are optimized to reduce rolling friction. We combine these technologies to continually improve your fuel efficiency.
Aside from these two companies, the auto industry is working to create more electric, fuel-efficient, and hybrid cars, (of which we’ve seen already) increasing technology in order to make them better and more efficient every year.
REFERENCES:
http://www.hybridcars.com/gas-mileage-factors/ecodriving-real-solution0819.html
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/new-thinking/environment.aspx
http://www.chevrolet.com/culture/category/environmental-projects/
FORCE AND ENERGY, VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION, AND POWER
During this week’s class we conducted an experiment to analyze Force and Energy, Velocity and Acceleration, and Power using our Lego robots, a pulley and 250 grams of weights.
The experiment consisted of 8 trials, of which were divided into two part: one where we had a constant power level (75), which determined the mass for 1-4; and the other a constant mass (0.25kg).
For the first set of trails our group got the following weights: m1 as .17, m2 as .23 m3 as .21 and m4 as .19. The second set of trails were conducted to find the power by using a constant mass of .The power was interesting because while keeping a constant mass the power went up by ten each time, therefore p1 was 50, p2 was 60, p3 was 70, and p4 was 80.
During these trails the mean height was 23 inches. We also had to make sure to record speed (RPM), battery discharge (mV), power, time (seconds), accelerations (RPM/s) and go on to calculate the potential energy and the power used based on the following calculation: Mass*Gravitational field* Height. In other words, it is .25*9.8*.23.
| speed (RPM) | Battery discharge (mV) | Mass (Kg) | Power | Time (s) | Acceleration (RPM/s) | Height (M) | Weight (grams) | Potential Energy (mgh) | |||||||||
| 0 | 4.169158 | 0 | 27 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 53.528 | 0 | 0.077887 | 0.235 | 9.8 | 0.57575 | |||
| 0 | 59.39415 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 2.938 | 0 | 20.21584 | 0.235 | 9.8 | 0.57575 | |||
| 0 | 84.05049 | 0 | 83 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 3.486 | 0 | 24.11087 | 0.235 | 9.8 | 0.57575 | |||
| 0 | 101.0134 | 0 | 42 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 80 | 0 | 1.546 | 0 | 65.33853 | 0.235 | 9.8 | 0.57575 | |||
| 0 | 86.17819 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0.17 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 2.402 | 0 | 35.87768 | 0.235 | 9.8 | 0.39151 | |||
| 0 | 80.25648 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0.19 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 3.873 | 0 | 20.72204 | 0.235 | 9.8 | 0.43757 | |||
| 0 | 80.87578 | 0 | 56 | 0 | 0.21 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 1.865 | 0 | 43.36503 | 0.235 | 9.8 | 0.48363 | |||
| 0 | 83.83961 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 2.469 | 0 | 33.95691 | 0.235 | 9.8 | 0.52969 | |||
The numbers recorded along with the calculations were placed on a table in order to facilitate the creation of graphs on excel. We should end up with 4 graphs:
1. Acceleration vs mass (power level fixed)
2. Acceleration vs power level (mass fixed)
3. Battery discharge vs mass (fixed power level)
4. Power used (mgh/t) vs power level.
Conclusions:
Graph 1:
The power level is constant and as the mass rises the acceleration is smaller. The more energy force the more power is needed.
Graph 2:
The mass is constant and we are looking at acceleration vs. power level. When an object has a constant mass, the power level remains the same. There won’t be change unless we are the ones that change the power. In relation to the acceleration, the more power the more acceleration.
Graph 3:
With a constant power level, we look at the battery discharge VS mass. The more mass, the larger use of battery and the faster it will be drained.
Graph 4:
To find the power used vs. the power level we analyze work/time, the more power the more work and time is used.