Fuel Consumption Down 11%

101% wrong. The distance people travel on a daily basis varies due to several factors. It is NOT a fixed quantity. These factors include:
(a) the financial condition of said person, and how much fuel he/she can afford
(b) the efficiency of the vehicle owned by said person; a more efficient vehicle will lead to more miles travelled, all else being equal as said person can take more leisure trips that are now within budget
(c) the time spent commuting. Even EV's get stuck in traffic. This is probably the most important factor, and will hopefully get better as we make highways and cars smarter. This will lead to longer-distance commutes
(d) Finally, the per-person daily driving is only part of the factor when we are talking about collective fuel usage by the nation as a whole. I clearly said America's population will grow by 90 million in coming decades.

You are confusing diminishing marginal returns with the absolute value of quantity reduction in fuel usage. DMR is the 1st derivative.
You can ALWAYS achieve further gains until the amount of fuel used reaches ZERO. Elementary Econ 101.

You are missing the point of the post. We are talking about reducing the usage of oil-based fuels.
I am not interested (and I don't think anyone is) in improving the efficiency of a LEAF or a Tesla in miles/kwh. These vehicles already use NO oil-based transport fuels.
So, a quick answer to your question is "it depends on what we are measuring".
I could create a car that is 104% efficient, or double your 52%. How you say? How could something be more than 100% efficient? Again, "it depends on what we are measuring".
If the criteria is reducing co2, then you are correct that today's cars turn 26% of the fuel's energy into motive power, so a car that is 52% efficient puts out half the co2 for the same amount of miles. Well what if I have a bio-fuel power plant that captures its carbon, and powers my Tesla Model S? This scenario would be carbon-negative. With this setup, I don't put co2 into the atmosphere, I actually take it out the more I drive! So, by this criteria the car is "104%" (or more) 'efficient' since it is carbon-negative.
But the topic of this post is reduced fuel use, so "100% efficient" in this sense would mean ZERO use of oil-based fuels. That would a full EV. The migration path is clear: ICE->HEV->PHEV->EV

Yes it is a 'fake number', and not a very efficient way of measuring reduced usage of oil-based fuels, which is presumably what we are trying to do. But it does have real-world, measurable meaning - there can be no denying this. So, for example, if a future administration were to set it at "101 mpg", this would have a real and measurable impact on fuel use based on the wording of the statute. Whether or not CAFE is the ideal tool for this is a topic for another post.

You really lost me here. To me, traffic is a bunch of cars clogging the freeway, reducing average vehicle speed for anyone, a.k.a congestion. What is this "other traffic" you talk of? Do you have some alternative definition of traffic you would like to share? Traffic is traffic, it doesn't matter if it is too many human-operated cars all going in the same direction at the same time, or a bunch of driverless cars that suffered a software glitch, or construction, weather, an accident, whatever.

Actually it makes perfect sense. Perhaps not to you, because you are having difficulty conceiving it. I never mentioned anything about paving extra lanes....that's not what 'smart' highways are about. I am adamantly against new lanes, but rather wish to use existing ones more efficiently. When you have driverless cars that can do 101 mph, just a few feet apart in a "platoon", anyone who can do math should immediately know the significance of this. Besides totally eliminating almost all traffic deaths (drunk or otherwise), I could be surfing the web while commuting from San Jose to San Francisco (90 minutes in today's traffic) in just 30 minutes. Obviously, this will lead to people opting to live further from (and cheaper than) the city. Oh, by the way, what is the mpg of a Prius at 101 mph? So, do you now see how this technology could potentially increase fuel use? Read:
Platoon (automobile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robotic Vehicles and Highway Capacity
The increase in highway capacity when using sensors alone is about 43%.
The increase in highway capacity when using both sensors and vehicle to vehicle communication is about 273%.
As Gov't Considers Regulations, Autonomous Car Boosters Show Off Plans - WNYC

Any new roads built would be for incremental demand, not existing demand. So, again that points the way towards potentially more fuel use.

 

Of course not. But a good analysis starts with holding one or more variables constant to show what happens when you change another variable.

In the real world, diminishing marginal returns eventually prevent economical improvements...for example, say you have an ICE car that is 26% efficient...then you improve it to 52%, then you improve it to 70%. At some point you actually may nearly reach a thermodynamic limit (see Carnot efficiency). You can't break the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, you can move to a different technology with 0% oil, such as EVs...that is what I was saying. EVs will have the same , but different types of limits from a power plant standpoint and/or from the stand point of miles per kwh, etc. (But you will still likely use oil to make the cars, mine the lithium for batteries or whatever)

It doesn't take much of an imagination to come up with new traffic...
Let's say that roads are utilized at ~50% of their theoretical capacity during rush hour. We implement self driving cars and the utilization goes up to 99%+ with no new roads lanes, etc. Now add a few more cars and we have new type of traffic congestion. For example, you go to get on the freeway and it takes ~forever because there is a near endless stream of platooned cars with no possible way to merge on...so people driving the furthest distance have an advantage because they got "on" the road before the constant platoon exists. That is a new type of traffic problem.


Mike

 

I recently saw a graph that showed the growth of new car sales over the next few decades. The US had moderate growth, maybe 10% over the next 20 years. Europe about the same. Africa and Asia's numbers explode. The number of cars in the world will almost triple. If I can find the graph, I'll post the link. The point is that someone like me can sit on the sidelines and see how it plays out in countries that will really have a problem.

 

Don't forget the economy and home foreclosures. That made a major difference to miles traveled too. People started to travel less with the economy in the drain. Then many started to live closer to their work after their home was foreclosed.

 

Here is the governments take
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/innovation/issue1/impacts.htm

 

Mike,
I undertand now what you were talking about (and I think we were talking about two different things).
Yes, it is not possible to break the laws of physics or thermodynamics, and in that case you can't get above 100%.
It is also not possible to get above "100% efficient" in terms of oil use.......an EV would be @ 100%, but I
don't think you could ever design a car that gives oil back the more it drives (which would make it ">100%")
In terms of co2, it is possible -as I've shown- to design a car that is "110% efficient" (i.e., carbon-negative)
I think this article is primarily concerned with oil usage, so by that definition "100% efficient" = EV.
And yes, at some point in time adding all the batteries, turbochargers, etc. to an ICE becomes 'not worth it', and it would be best to just skip to an EV.

Yes, this would be a new type of cause of traffic........but it is still just good 'ol congestion.
I believe they are designing the car platoons so that they can split dynamically and open up just enough of a gap to allow seamless merging/exiting cars for entering/exiting the freeway. The key point here is at what point in the journey the car switches from human control to computer control.

 

This is a very good point.
The amount of oil in the world is fixed and finite, and currently we are having trouble producing more than 90 mbpd, even @ $100/bbl

The implications are clear: The US an EU will have to use less so China and India can use more.

So, we shouldn't 'celebrate' an 11% decline here, because it simply means that 11% is being used somewhere else in the world.

Good for U.S. in terms of energy security; not so good for the world's carbon emissions.

 

A quick mental calc suggests that per capita, Americans use 500% *more fossil fuel than the rest of the world. An 11% drop only in car petrol is a drop in the bucket of US excess.

*5% of world population, using 1/4 of annual world fossil fuels

 

It should be remembered that vehicles can easily built to run E85 and M85, currently E100 vehicles are widely available from all major automakers in Brazil.

As we can see from the recent oil price drops, liquid fuel production is not constrained by lack of liquid fuel resources. Compared to 2005, gasoline in the US contains about 5% less oil, as ethanol has been substituted. If the price of oil climbs gradually unconventional oil, biofuels, natural gas, and electricity will be substituted for oil. Corn ethanol is constrained by land use, but if we get to $300/bbl today's technology can substitute algea for gasoline. at today's prices a company is building a natural gas to diesel plant in Louisiana, as the spread of the price between natural gas and oil gets larger, natural gas to gasoline and diesel (gtl) will increase. The problem is it takes time to build infrastructure, not that the resources are not available at today's prices.

China and India will use more no matter what the US does, but it is in the US's national interests to use less.

We should cellebrate progress, and its a misunderstanding of markets to think this is a zero sum game. If the US doesn't cut consumption, and prices rise, more dollars will go chasing this resource outside the country. Since Opec can cause oil shocks it is in our best interest to substitute away from crude.

Again this is assumeing that liquid fuel production in the long run is inelastic, but all of history shows that as prices rise more resources become available.

 

Tell that to the forests that used to cover the world, or the whale population as two obvious examples.

A bit more subtle is a clean environment. Increased demand and higher prices just lead to degradation through exploitation.

 

Yes!
And not importing any oil would help in multiple, obvious ways.

Mike

 

All the tools are there. On price spikes and higher unemployment, vmt are cut back, but as the people get used to the new price or the economy improves vmt increases.

If you look at the graph


you can see a increased vmt from the mid 80s through what looks like 2004. This is shaky with price fluxuations and unemployment levels, but if you compare it to inflation adjusted gas prices the trend prices were falling until 1999 then rising since then, peaking last year.

Inflation adjusted Gasoline Price Chart

Take the information fwiw. More recently trends have reversed, and this may be because of shorter commutes, or generational trends with younger generations doing less recreational driving than the now retiring boomer generation. Rising price definitely get people to buy more efficient vehicles, but the average age of a light vehicle is over 10 years, so the price spike starting in 2004 will likely take anouther few years to work through the system.

Well the policy if vmt decrease and efficiency increases with rising fuel prices is for the government to implement this by taxation (and lowering other taxes). Most transportation engineers believe in the cause/effect, but politicians don't seem to want to put in the policy. Both right leaning publications like forbes and the wall street journal, and left leaning publications advocate this, but democrats and republican congress critters do not.

 

11%! wow.. we're making a difference. I'm sure riding my bike does too..

 

but to sabotage all your efforts, I bought a 4 liter Tacoma Double Cab.. 17mpg! hee haww!

 

Sarcasm... but it has it's purpose to make my wallet bigger..

 

Yes, it's easy (~$200/car) to add E85/M85 capability but how much infrastructure would be needed? Both ethanol and methanol would corrode existing pipelines and tankers, so there's a big obstacle....even if we solve the land & water-use issues with algae or cellulose (still a big IF). Methanol would require several dozen, if not hundreds, of production facilities. To my knowledge, there are no more than a handful of industrial-scale methanol facilities right now. I'm not saying it can't be done........I just think it will take a lot of time & money. (I'll quote you: "The problem is it takes time to build infrastructure, not that the resources are not available at today's prices.")

We need to distinguish between short-term and long term. The recent drop in prices -like most short term trends- has to do with economic/geopolitical indicators - slowdown in China, easing tensions with Iran, Syria, etc.
In the long term, oil production is very much constrained by oil resources. However, I know you used the word 'resource' and not 'oil', so, yes.......in the long run we have elastic production due to substitution to the other types of fuels that you mentioned.

I have no doubt we will substitute fuels as the price of oil climbs........but I am concerned with the question "at what price"?
We know that the economy goes into recession when fuel expenditures exceed 5% of GDP.
Using your $300/bbl figure, America's fuel expenditures would be a depression-inducing 12.7% of GDP!!
(6.75 billion barrels/year x $300/bbl = $2 trillion / $16 trillion economy)
Of course, we need also look at consumption........if every car were twice as efficient as today, then this fuel expenditure would be a more 'reasonable' 6.3% of GDP. But mpg won't double till 2040, when the 2025 54.5 mpg CAFE standards will have worked their way through the fleet.
Bottom line........there is tremendous risk of severe liquid/other fuel price spikes between now and 2040 barring some breakthrough that lets biofuel/H2/EV's compete with <$100 oil. Until then, the best fuel is......efficiency.

You've got to read this:
Oil demand shift: Asia takes over - SmartPlanet
Fascinating.......Chris Nelder is always spot-on. He explains why China/India will actually be able to afford more expensive oil than the U.S. and EU!

Damn straight. I can't wait till the day when Chinese soldiers are getting shot at in the middle east and Indian leaders are bowing down before Saudi monarchs, instead of Americans. I'm all for using 100% American fuels. But.........

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the global oil economy.
I hate to say it, but -heaven help us- the only thing that can save us from Oil shocks (even if we use 100% America fuel) is an act of Congress
Think of it this way: as long as U.S. law allows export of refined fuels, we will forever be competing with China, India and the rest of the world for fuel. That's because if OPEC puts an oil embargo on Asian countries, they will come knocking -bags of U.S. treasuries in hand- to our refineries to buy our gasoline and diesel (or our LNG, ethanol and methanol).
Current U.S. law prohibits export of raw crude, but not refined products.