31 comments on The Productivity of Vehicles
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
31 comments on The Productivity of Vehicles
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”
—Henry Ford
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
There's some question in my mind about the averaging though - given the large differences between the different groups of vehicles, are you getting the right numbers for the improvement from the "weighted average"? And is the averaging within a sector even giving the right sort of numbers?
Even if the weighting is by highway miles driven, it still might not give you the right improvement ratio.
For an example, let's say cars get 20 mpg, light trucks 15 mpg, and other trucks 5 mpg. Let's say of every highway mile driven, 40% are cars, 40% light trucks, and 20% heavy trucks. Then, with those percentages you get a "weighted average" mpg of 15 (0.4*20 + 0.4*15 + 0.2*5). However, the actual number of gallons of oil used for one "average" mile is 0.08666 (0.2/5 + 0.4/15 + 0.4/20) giving a true average mpg of 11.5, not 15.
I.e. the real improvement may be much less than you would get from a simple weighted average of sector mpg's.
Also, the numbers for "transportation" energy use in your final graph presumably include air transportation (which has gone up considerably) and railway transportation (which has gone down), which would further shift the numbers to use of more energy per mile traveled. Given that transportation is using a greater fraction of the economy's energy that probably agrees.
The commonly referred to numbers are either - averages across one vendor's vehicles - or averages across models sold in a year.
To really find out who is driving what and how far ... we'd need surveys, which AFAIK we don't have.
I think I've seen more little old cars on the road since gas prices went up. I'm sure that is the case nationally. I'm also sure this shift in usage pattern won't show up in the fleet mpg statistics.
apsmith is right about the weighted average. Just like if you ride a bike uphill for 1 mile at 10 miles per hour, then down the hill for 1 mile at 20 miles per hour, the average is NOT 15 miles per hour, because you spend much more time at 10 mph. The correct weighting is (0.667*10 + 0.333*20)=13.3 mph.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume04/iv01.pdf
Of course in California:
"Beginning January 1, 2005, vehicles 6 or less model-years old will be exempt from the biennial Smog Check inspection requirement. For vehicles with registration renewals due in the 2005 calendar year, this exemption includes model-years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005."
Those guys are going to miss their data.