<Monday night open thread The Oil Drum Responses to Salon & an open thread>

183 comments on Some reprieve in Jan VMT

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BioDiesel on March 28, 2006 - 12:44am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
How much has fuel economy affected the numbers?
I sure see a lot more 40+ mpg cars on the road than last year.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on March 28, 2006 - 3:36am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Good question.  I added a (slightly rough) analysis of that question to the post.  Looks like there's no sign whatsoever of improving fuel economy through the end of last year, at least.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Halfin on March 31, 2006 - 4:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A late addition to this thread: Lou Grinzo has the latest figures on gasoline consumption from January:

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/blog_entry_archive/2006/03/2006x03x29_5.html

It says that U.S. January gasoline consumption dropped 0.6% from a year ago. In conjuntion with Stuart's report that miles travelled was up 3.8% from a year ago, that points to about a 4.4% increase in MPG, which would be substantial.

Of course all these figures have a fair amount of uncertainty, and given Stuart's analysis showing no trend in increasing MPG throughout 2005, this sudden increase in January is rather suspicious. It will be very interesting to see if it carries on into February.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BioDiesel on April 1, 2006 - 4:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well if I'm reading the chart correctly, this makes sense.

IN SS's MPG chart, it appears MPG is up almost 1 MPG, which would equal close to 4.4%.

Am I reading it right?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on March 28, 2006 - 2:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"A lot more" may still be statistically insignificant.

Personally I suspect that only the last summer SUV blowout sale may have very well compensated or even exceeded the effect of small cars number increase. IMO the shift is picking up but quite slowly. Here in Atlanta I see much more (and almost new) SUVs, minivans and old inefficient cars for sale than last year, and they seem to be sitting around for months.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
porsena on March 28, 2006 - 3:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
New vehicle sales are down year-over-year for 2006 through mid-March, but the percentage decline in all three light truck segments of the US market - SUVs, pickups, and vans - is in the double digits.

Is this a significant response to the post-Katrina fuel prices?  Probably.  Light truck sales have recently been about half the market for passenger vehicles.  

The US scrappage rate of cars and trucks combined was at the historic low of 4.5% but the scrappage rate for the light truck segment was only 4.1%.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
porsena on March 28, 2006 - 3:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Sorry - scrappage rates are for 2005.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on March 28, 2006 - 4:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The low scrappage rates are interesting.  It certainly makes it hard to argue that people will respond to peak oil by increasing vehicle turnover - seems more likely that vehicle turnover will continue to decrease.  Thus we will be stuck with the effects of the current inefficient fleet for a long time.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Glenn on March 28, 2006 - 4:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Sure, assuming the roads stay intact...

Full Article behind this

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
porsena on March 28, 2006 - 5:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's hard to say, with the bulk of the price increases coming in the last half of the year.  I'd like to see the scrappage rates in another year.

I've been a lifelong car guy, so TOD is a bit painful for me.  From what I've read recently, a stigma is developing in urban settings, and only among some people, against the use of large SUVs and pickups by those who don't need them for work.  This, combined with the fuel penalty of SUV use, suggests that light trucks will be driven less in situations where there is a choice of a more fuel-efficient vehicle.  I can't find a reference at the moment, but the fuel penalty of using an average light truck in place of an average car is about 42%.  Using the light truck adds an extra 2 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over a distance of 16,000 miles.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JLA on March 28, 2006 - 6:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
See Figure 3.3 on page 14 of this .pdf for a graph on automobile survival rates. Eyeballing this graph, we can expect about half of all 1990 model year vehicles to still be on the road in 2007.  The sad irony is that the people driving older vehicles will tend to lack the means to purchase more efficient vehicles, but will feel the crunch of higher fuel prices most acutely.    
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

183 comments on Some reprieve in Jan VMT

Comments can no longer be added to this story.