![]() | Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs? | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: August 21, 2008 | ![]() |
156 comments on Oil Demand Destruction & Brittle Systems
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
156 comments on Oil Demand Destruction & Brittle Systems
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
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.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
—Albert Einstein
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
I thought a lot about reducing truck energy usage. The basic problem is for any real reduction (greater than 10%) of trucking fuel demand, it would take a long time to happen.
The problem is they have already tried a lot of energy reduction. When a 300 gallon tank costs $1200, they think of what they can to reduce that price. Speaking with truck drivers, they don't have options when it comes to reducing fuel use. The best one is driving slower, which will move some of them from 6.5 mpg to 7 mpg. However, it would reduce the amount of freight a trucker could deliver and thus the profit. It is not a very good option for them. Even if it did happen, it would only drop highway truck consumption by ~5% (going from 75 to 55) and less freight would be delivered.
When it comes to replacing trucks with hybrid versions, there are a few problems. Hybrid trucks are really expensive ( 100k or more than a same model diesel ), don't save much fuel (0% highway, 10-20% city) so they are not cost effective. Also, there really aren't many on the market. Full battery electrics are not feasible with todays technology, not an option.
On the flip side, nearly 50% more of us could take a bus/subway or ride a bike to work 3 out of 5 days a week. 10% more of us could telecommute 3 out of 5 days a week. 75% of the SUV's and trucks on the road could be replaced by economy cars (yes I know, this would take a long time, and is unlikely). We could be moved to the 4 day work week. On top of that, there are many (15+ models from major manufactures) PHEV and EV's coming onto the market within the next 5 years (and yes I drove one, they are good commuters).
Bottom line, within 5 Years, I believe that gasoline demand could drop by 25%, easily. However, diesel demand would be struggling to drop by 10%. There are just way more alternative to gasoline than there are to diesel.
Five percent seems way too low for the speed change. Got any actual data?
This article says going from 65 to 75mpg raised fuel consumption
by 27%!
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/us-trucking-ind.html
That's probably true in general. Air resistance increases roughly as the square of speed, and so is 33% higher at 75mph than 65mph.
Wyoming, above, suggested a 20% reduction in consumption from the 30% lower wind resistance at 55mph vs. 65mph, which also seems reasonable, as one would expect non-wind factors to be larger at lower speeds.
Either way, though, there are quite substantial fuel savings to be had from reducing speed a modest amount.