29 comments on Why Oil Intensity Changed in the US Economy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
29 comments on Why Oil Intensity Changed in the US Economy
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
- Thanksgiving Open Campfire Thread
- How Relocalization Worked
- How to Set Up and Run a Bicycle Repair Company
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
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 - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
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
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- 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.
“Where ideas are concerned, America can be counted on to do one of two things: take a good idea and run it completely into the ground, or take a bad idea and run it completely into the ground.”
—George Carlin
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
IMO, that's also not what Greenspan was saying. He didn't say anything about using energy more efficiently; he was narrowly addressing the impact on growth and inflation. That's a far simpler point that is the issue of how hard it would be to further reduce the economy's ovetrall oil intensity.
"And since we seem to have been remarkably resistant to behavioral changes, presumably we'd pretty much have to find the transportation part in increased vehicle fuel efficiency, or else economic contraction if we can't get efficient fast enough. I don't think that's going to be easier at all."
If our choices are reduced miles (via contraction) or reduced miles per gallon, then yes, it will definitely be hard to get an additional significant improvement. But we're not limited to those two choices, as we have non-petroleum fuel sources: Ethanol, biodiesel, and electricity generated 95% by coal, hydro, nuclear, etc. Those are very small contributors to our transportation needs today, but that will very likely change in just a few years.
The jump to electric vehicles will be especially notable, since they completely shift marginal (meaning per-mile) transportation energy demand from oil to non-oil sources. I think that with Mitsubishi selling a Colt EV in 2010, as they claim, we'll see people jump very quickly from gasoline vehicles to electric cars, at least for their commuting and around-town vehicle(s) in >1 car households.
In general, I think we're headed for a much more diversified energy infrastructure, right down to the consumer level, with a mix of gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and all-electric vehicles in the field for a long time.
Please don't think I'm arguing with you, Stuart. I think you're doing a great job with these analyses, and you're providing a much needed service to the readers of this site. Even though I think it's VERY important that we use statistics to understand our past and present situation, I think we also have to be careful about how we use that information to extrapolate into the future. The real world has a very nasty habit of not following even the most logically and meticulously constructed, and best researched plans. (And I have the scars, both metaphorical and literal, to prove it!)
You're allowed to argue with me Lou ;-)
I generally agree with EP about the plugin hybrid being the path of least resistance. I think the only limitation is the fleet turnover rate is not that high, new model turnover rate is not that high, and I think they'll get lower, not higher, in a serious oil shock or post-peak type scenario (when the economy goes is to hell is exactly the time people do not choose to buy a new car. Instead they lose their job and stay home more). So I don't think we can do much better than about 4% annual reduction in oil usage that way. We managed an average 3.2% annual improvement in car fuel economy from 1979 to 1991.
My preliminary analysis shows that it's possible to build a small electric vehicle (tandem two-seater, Cd=0.3) with a range of 100 miles or more. Cost should be relatively low; the batteries would cost less than $1000. If government offered low-interest loans for the purchase of such vehicles and allowed insurance and licensing to be free if combined with an existing non-electric vehicle that would never be used at the same time, people would not have to spend a great deal of money or use any fuel to get to work. People would be able to afford to take such jobs, and the reduction in oil expenditures might pay for the subsidy.
Something to think about.
We may not want to wait. Encouraging these things now might make a huge amount of sense.