48 comments on Recent VMT and Fuel Economy Trends
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
48 comments on Recent VMT and Fuel Economy Trends
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.
“Considering the many productive uses of petroleum, burning it for fuel is like burning a Picasso for heat.”
—Big Oil Executive
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 this is a very important concern, and it goes beyond vehicle mileage to energy efficiency generally. The world has been awash in liquidity lately, but that state of affairs appears to be unlikely to continue. It isn't just the Fed that one has to watch (see for instance The Nightmare Carry Trade Scenario). I would argue that credit tightening is both inevitable and imminent, and that it is likely to have a very significant effect on the availability of resources for funding efficiency improvements on all fronts.
US consumers are over-stretched and any further tightening could easily push them over the edge, particularly in relation to housing. Altering structural inefficiency is an expensive business. People who are underwater on their mortgage and struggling with credit card debt are unlikely to be buying more efficient vehicles, even if the fuel consumption of their current vehicle is crippling them. The same argument would apply to replacing inefficient appliances or installing improvement such as solar domestic hot water. Rather than increasing efficiency, people are likely to be forced to keep using their current vehicles and other energy-consuming items, but to use them less as energy prices rise relative to other costs.
This graph suggests that rapid changes in fuel efficiecny can occur during a time of economic stagflation as this is exactly what happened in the 70' & 80's. Granted the lifespan of a car is longer today so the impact will not be seen as quickly but if there are several models on the market today that get 40+ mpg, why couldn't there be a gradual shift over 10 to 15 years from our (U.S.) current efficiency of 22 mpg to 30 or 40 mpg? Actually I hope we abandon the car as the centerpiece of our transportation infrastructure and choose mass transit and local communities as a response to peak oil but I fear Americans will try to keep the suburban "lifestyle" as long as possible.
Indeed, the question becomes how quickly could a turnover occur. Certainly not as fast as it was in the 70's and 80's as cars are on the road longer but you've put forth the argument several times that if decline rates are modest say 2 to 3% society might be able to absorb that. Could we not improve fleet efficiency by 2 or 3% a year as gas guzzlers are slowly retired in favor of more efficient vehicles?
I would want to see the context of the remark by Peter Tertzakian.
For example, if a sizable percent of the fleet were converted to a non hybrid Diesel model, example of what is currently available in Europe below...
http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/printer_319.shtml
Would that not have an effect on fuel consumption in a big way?
Several posters here in the debates about bio-fuels have also pointed out that bio Diesel has much better energy return on energy invested than ethanol, but is only held up by the fact that most Americans do not like Diesel cars AT ALL. But, if fuel prices continue to climb, a 70 mile per gallon small "suburb saver" begins to make sense. With a hybrid electric drive or some version of hydrualic hybrid, this could be theoretically raised to around 100 miles per gallon, and with plug hybrid as batteries improve, the sky becomes the limit.
Would a person be willing to accept this kind of solution if the other choice is to abandon a quarter million dollar or more investment in the suburbs, their friends and social network, schools lifestyle, etc., and flee to a cave or shed in the country?
oh yeah.
The suburbs ain't going anywhere soon.....
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
We'd need to make every new car a high efficiency model (be it hybrid or something else), and we'd have to enforce retirement of older guzzlers.
Is that going to happen?
Transportation is only 2/3 of US Oil Consumption. Private auto use is about 9 million of 21 nillion barrels/day.
Cutting 9 million in half would be a good first step. BUT IT WOULD NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM
-4.5 out of 21 is (round #s) just a 21% reduction in US oil use. If, as seems likely to me, the US will be forced by economics to take a higher than average reduction in world wide oil use. this might be equal to a global -14% reduction in world oil production. Perhaps 5 years past peak ?
A graph of US oil use by demand type.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Dem_image_US_co ns_sector.htm