« Toyota to Continue Providing Residential Fuel Cell Cogen Systems | Main | AC Transit Orders 8 Bus Fuel Cell Systems, Options 13 More »
MIT Study Concludes US LDV Fleet Can Reduce Fuel Consumption by 2035 to Pre-2000 Levels
9 May 2008
 |
| Reducing demand growth (sales and Vehicle Kilometers Traveled, VKT) makes the task of reducing fuel consumption easier. ERFC = Emphasis on Reducing Fuel Consumption. Click to enlarge. |
An MIT study on projected fuel use by the US light-duty vehicle fleet concludes that, at constant performance and increased cost, a 30-50% reduction in fleet fuel consumption and a 25-40% reduction in fleet fuel use is feasible by 2035—i.e., to pre-2000 levels. Achieving this, however, will require focusing advancing technology on reducing fuel consumption rather than size or power, as well as likely requiring reduction in growth demand for vehicles and they distance they travel.
The study also concludes that there are a greater number of vehicle and fuel alternatives to displace petroleum use than to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
For example, plug-in hybrids could, over the longer term, have a large impact on reducing petroleum use, but GHG reductions similar to plug-ins can be achieved by gasoline hybrids at a lower cost. Therefore, policies that selectively promote plug-in hybrids will certainly help to reduce petroleum consumption, but won’t be cost effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Similarly, policy incentives that promote development of domestic liquid fuels such as coal-to-liquids may well reduce dependence on petroleum, but the resulting increase in greenhouse gas emissions will largely negate any decrease in GHG emissions from low carbon biomass-to-liquids. Policy efforts, therefore, should be focused on measures that improve both energy security and carbon emissions at the same time.
—“Evaluating the Impact of Advanced Vehicle and Fuel Technologies in US Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet”
John B. Heywood, the Sun Jae Professor of Mechanical Engineering and director of MIT’s Sloan Automotive Laboratory; Anup Bandivadekar, who until recently was a postdoctoral associate in the MIT Energy Initiative and is now an analyst at the International Council on Clean Transportation; and others developed the models for the study, which is the basis of Dr. Bandivadekar’s PhD thesis.
The magnitude of the changes required to achieve these reductions is daunting, especially as current trends all run counter to those changes.
—Anup Bandivadekar
The researchers compared fuel use for three different scenarios that would meet projected demand for light-duty vehicles between now and 2035. For each, they assumed that half of all technology improvements would be used directly to increase fuel economy—i.e, emphasis on reducing fuel consumption (ERFC).
In the first scenario, by 2035 the advanced technologies considered in the study—turbocharged gasoline, diesels, gasoline hybrids and plug-in hybrids—have gained fractions of the US market, but over a third of all cars sold are still conventional gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles. In the second, battery development stalls, hybrids remain expensive, but turbocharged gasoline and diesel vehicles do well, taking over 75% of the market by 2035. The third scenario assumes that hybrids and plug-in hybrids succeed and by 2035 they make up 55% of the market.
 |
| Results of the hybrid-strong scenario. Click to enlarge. |
The hybrid-strong scenario gives the largest cut in fuel use. Further, if combined with 100% ERFC, fuel use in 2035 is almost 40% lower than it would be if no action were taken.
The also found that shifting the emphasis on reducing fuel consumption from 50% to 100% in mainstream ICE gasoline vehicles alone can produce fuel use reductions equivalent to about 80% market penetration of advanced vehicle technologies.
Other conclusions from the study include:
Due to slow rates of fleet turnover, fuel consumption of mainstream technology vehicles will determine the near-term level of fuel use and GHG emissions. In the near-term, the highest volume vehicles will be gasoline ICE vehicles, and efforts to reduce their fuel consumption will yield a greater result in terms of reducing fuel use and GHG emissions.
Delaying reductions in fuel consumption not only pushes the problem out in time, but the growth during the delay increases the absolute amount of fuel use and emissions that must be reduced afterward. Small changes made sooner can result in larger benefits than more aggressive actions taken later.
The uncertainty in consumer demand combined with the high initial cost for diesels and hybrids coupled with strong competition from mainstream gasoline vehicles are likely to slow market penetration rates of the alternative drive systems to a modest rate before 2025.
If our goal is to achieve deep, long-term reductions in fuel use and emissions we should do all these things—increase the ERFC, improve today’s engines, increase the market penetration rate of advanced propulsion technologies and find ways to reduce the rate of growth in demand. With that combination we can get very deep cuts by 2035. To make those things happen, we need strong, long-term policies and we need to adopt them now because the longer we wait the higher the starting point is and the more difficult the task.
—Anup Bandivadekar
Funding came from the Martin Family Society Fellowship for Sustainability, the Ford-MIT Alliance, Concawe, Eni S.p.A., Shell Hydrogen and Environmental Defense.
Resources
Bandivadekar, Anup P. Evaluating the Impact of Advanced Vehicle and Fuel Technologies in US Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet. PhD thesis, MIT Engineering Systems Division. February 2008.
May 9, 2008 in Diesel, Engines, Fuel Efficiency, Hybrids, Plug-ins, Policy | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/28927838
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MIT Study Concludes US LDV Fleet Can Reduce Fuel Consumption by 2035 to Pre-2000 Levels:
Comments
It looks like he began his PhD thesis paper before the new fuel economy standards were pushed through Congress (since he published it in Feb 2008). I wonder how the results turn out taking into account the restrictions on fuel economy and the market trends (in new vehicle purchases) due to higher gasoline & oil prices.
Posted by: Patrick | May 9, 2008 9:20:00 AM
If we only have just so many batteries to go around, I might favor 10 times more HEVs to PHEVs or EVs. This could be the choice that we have to make. Would you rather have 10 million HEVs or 1 million PHEVs or 200,000 EVs? Probably some mix of all those and others, but the supply of advanced batteries will not be infinite.
Posted by: SJC | May 9, 2008 9:43:07 AM
I'd rather just own one vehicle...can't afford the monthly payments on 10 million (or even 200,000). Insurance & parking for that many would be tough as well.
;)
Posted by: Patrick | May 9, 2008 9:55:43 AM
SJC,
The supply may not be infinite, but if we do not have enough advanced batteries to fill demand by 2035, we are in trouble. I can't imagine that being the case. It may be true in 2012 or even 2015, but not 2035.
Posted by: JMartin | May 9, 2008 9:56:03 AM
The you was a collective you. Too many people think only of themselves and not others. This might be the root of many of our problems.
Posted by: SJC | May 9, 2008 10:47:25 AM
You have to get from here to 2035. We do not go dormant and then suddenly in 2035 we all buy EVs. As far as GHG and fuel availability, it is what we do between now and 2035 and beyond that will make a difference. The trade offs made in using scarce resources is an important factor.
Posted by: SJC | May 9, 2008 10:51:55 AM
Yet another incredibly stupid study. Absolutely amazing. Gas prices are increasing, that will drive the market to high efficiency, low fuel consumption vehicles, accelerating the turnover of the fleet.
By 2012, PHEV's will be available, such as Prius and the Volt, and they will sell out no matter how many they make.
Gas is projected to be $6.00 or more dollars per gallon by then.
Battery development will not stall, we have a trend and that trend says we will have higher power, lower cost safe Lithium Ion batteries in the future. But right now, GM is testing two different batteries, either one of which meets the performance and cost requirements to make PHEV's cost effective over foreign oil burners by 2012.
Posted by: | May 9, 2008 10:54:55 AM
I would worry more about the availability of low cost fuel than low cost batteries in 2035. China (and India ?) will supply us with all the low cost battery packs we want to buy, even before 2015.
Improved lithium battery packs requirement and manufacturing will be progressive, but with very high demand in the next few (5-7) years, the availability of some types, sizes may be a problem. However, by 2015, with a few dozens new mass production factories, all demands (and more) will be met. The world should have to problem to produce 50+ million packs per year.
How many millions will be produced in North America? That's a very good question. We may be importing batteries & motors instead of oil, unless we put much more resourses into the future electrified economy.
Posted by: Harvey D | May 9, 2008 11:39:45 AM
Massachusetts Institute of Obvious Conclusions
Posted by: Tom Street | May 9, 2008 3:43:43 PM
"By 2012,...
...Gas is projected to be $6.00 or more dollars per gallon by then"
I would bet with you that, in 2012, one gallon of gasoline will be MUCH MORE expensive than USD$ 6.-
Posted by: Jorge | May 9, 2008 5:17:24 PM
This study is extremely conservative in its assumptions, and they seem to have no clue about the limitations of the oil industry in the 25 coming years.
It is very clear that the fast increase of oil price will speed up the technological transition as well as the reduction in size of cars but also the intensity of their use as well as their efficienxy improvment. Also teh emergence of alternative ultra-efficient vehicle like Aptera or Venture Car can be a game changer if the price of gaz increase to more than 6$US
Posted by: treehugger | May 9, 2008 7:14:18 PM
Biofuels will make so many advances in the next 5 years that in 10 years we may look back and wonder what all the fuss was. We will still make advances in EVs and fuel cells because those make so much sense if done right, but we will not have to go to war for oil or be held hostage by some oil producing countries.
Posted by: SJC | May 9, 2008 7:39:46 PM
"The magnitude of the changes required to achieve these reductions is daunting, especially as current trends all run counter to those changes."
—Anup Bandivadekar
All one has to do is look at the right hand column of this page to refute this statement. That graph showing California's declining gas consumption in the past year, to near 2001 levels. Does he really think it will take 25 more years to move that curve back one year?
Posted by: steve | May 9, 2008 8:02:38 PM
Steve
Good points, As I said this study being extremely conservative turn to be just wrong. The problem of this study is that they try to predict the future while ignoring the motivations of the future, people will not use more efficient vehicles if they have no motivation to do so, in turn global warming, oil peaking can motivate people to change their attitude and then radical change will hapen. It sounds very clear that peaking of oil or production plateau will hapen somewhere between now and 2020 at the very last, and it will spur tremendous changes (not all desirable or palatable by the way) yes the future will be a mix of more efficient ICE, HEV, PHEV, lighter, more streamlined, Biofuel, Synthetic fuels, more public transportation, shrinking of the urban sprawl, more bicycle as well (and we might find that it is as good as driving) all together this could cut oil dependence drastically.
Posted by: treehugger | May 9, 2008 11:14:31 PM
Never underestimate the ability of people to pay for fuel.
Treehugger suggests $6 gas as an apocalypse but we have fuel at $7 - $9 for the last couple of years and life hasn't stopped.
We just buy smaller, more efficient cars - 50% diesel.
No Apteras, just Renault Clios or Citroen C1s or Honda Jazzs (Fit in the US).
And more people use public transport or walk (!) or cycle.
People in cities have many options, people in outlying areas, less so, but for them diesel should be OK.
Medium sized diesel cars such as Renault Megane / Ford Focus can get > 50 MPG US. This should handle $6 (or $10) gas / gallon for the people of Montana very nicely.
Posted by: mahonj | May 9, 2008 11:40:38 PM
mahoni
Forget the diesel in US it won't happen, when you refine a barrel you produce 20% of diesel an 40 % of gazoline, diesel fuel is already in short supply, if US turn to diesel than prices will skyrocket garantee.
Where I don't know where the threshold of tolerance or pain is in term of price of gas, 6, 7 or even 10$ ? don't forget that in US people drice more for obvious reason of excessive urban sprawl, and their car are bigger so in that sense they are more sensitive to the price of gas, and they have no alternative like public transportation
Posted by: treehugger | May 10, 2008 12:21:54 AM
Most people can't change their house, but they could change their cars.
All they have to do is downsize.
All the high tech possibilities are or will be there, (HEV, PHev, EV etc) but smaller cars can do it more cheaply.
Ford and GM already have efficient cars in Europe (even the petrol ones). And the Japs are there already.
6$ gas might not stop society, but it might stop 3 ton SUVs as commuter vehicles.
Posted by: mahonj | May 10, 2008 12:34:59 AM
The “crisis” we face today was known about over 25 years ago.
In that time no one did much to avert it.
Indeed, 'big-oil' plans to take advantage of the coming shortages for their own profit. We will change because we must.
No matter who it is that leads the change, our path forward is already set. There is only one. We MUST change to electric battery powered cars, and make our electricity from renewable environmentally sustainable sources. We could have switched to electric cars and home rooftop wind and solar generating systems. No one produced these for a mass market. Now we see these products being made by India and China. As they scale up production to meet their own domestic markets, they can ship enough to meet western demand as a sideline.
The new products will be made, but not by the west, no, they will be imported at high cost, and the world will have a pair of new countries as world leaders.
Future generations will study the fall of the Roman Empire and the collapse of the American Economy, because these will have the same root causes, ... no exports except for military conquests, reliance on religion rather than science, and a home population who expected a free ride and became hated by the rest of the world.
Those who fail to learn from the past are destined to repeat the mistakes.
Posted by: | May 10, 2008 12:47:56 AM
Don't count on peak oil for LOWERING of the global fuel consumption ! It will certainly lower the percentage of oil used as transportation fuel, but we still see a yearly INCREASE in crude production, although the demand increases faster. No mather what the price is, every drop of it is burned ! And because of the high price, many crude sources that used to be uneconomical, are becomming lucrative today (tar sands, deep-sea oil, coal-to-oil, ...) Moreover, these oil-sources are often even more polluting than the traditional oil.
If the price increases even further, it will be because of even higher demand. If the price decreases, it will be because of lower demand or higher production, but still, every drop will be burned.
The drama is that with high current oil prices, many facilities are being built, that make 'historically uneconomical oil' available. Once the huge investments are made, the oil wil be produced, even if the price of crude would drop below its economical threshold (because the huge initial investment is already paid for).
The good thing about actual high oilprice is that technological innovations in alternatives are being made now. The bad thing is that the investments into more fossil fuel exploitation is being made on an even much higher scale.
Once we will have an alternative for fossil fuel, there will need to be political intervention to forbid fossil fuel use. (A very high carbon tax could do the job).
In the mean time, higher oil price is both a sign of ever increasing oil consumption and an enormous economical incentive for investment in even more fossil energy production.
Posted by: Alain | May 10, 2008 4:12:07 AM
"No matter who it is that leads the change, our path forward is already set. There is only one. We MUST change to electric battery powered cars"
i have to disagree with this. whether you like it or not, our economy is built on petroleum. and i'm not just talking about john and jane smith going to the supermarket, i'm thinking about millions of class 8's running 24/7 to deliver your consumer lifestyle to your door. batteries can't even make a small car go 40 miles, with long recharge times as well. how are they going to move a peterbilt semi hauling 53' of concrete?
people neglect the fact that we already have a huge infrastructure established for fuel delivery, refinery, etc. our problem is that we are not efficiently using the resources we have. instead of trying to "ditch" a technology that will be with us at least another half-century, we should focus on improving it. sure BEV's will play a part in that, but it is not an imperative, all-or-nothing gas vs. electric choice.
i'm not trying to put you down, just keeping things in perspective.
Posted by: marc | May 10, 2008 6:07:56 AM
Realistically it will be liquid fuels for quite some time. If gasoline in the U.S. does hit $8 per gallon, the dollar will have suffered a blow, Saudi Arabia, Russia and others will be rolling in it and our economy will take a hit.
It is ironic when Bush said that he would do nothing on the environment because it would harm the economy. It will turn out that the high price of oil harms the economy much more. All those green jobs would actually help the economy, but not the economy for the oil guys.
That is the way Bush is, the does not tell you the whole story. When he says it would be bad for the economy, he means the economy of the oil companies. That is why he can lie with a straight face. To him he is telling the truth, you just misunderstand him by not asking the right questions. He would dodge the answers to those questions anyway, but to him that is not lying. It is pathologic.
Posted by: SJC | May 10, 2008 6:32:23 AM
Marc your absolutely right. Let's walk before we run. If we can cut consumption by up to 50% with current (and upcoming) technology, that would be a huge impact. We need transition technology right now, this is not going to be a switch we can throw.
Posted by: steve | May 10, 2008 7:19:57 AM
Diesel passenger cars will have no discernable impact on diesel prices here in the U.S.
Unlike Europe, we penalize, instead of subsidize, the price of diesel fuel.
Commercial use dominates the diesel market here.
There are very few new "clean enough" diesel passenger vehicles actually shipping this year (they will sell out, but at hefty premiums over sticker)
Posted by: Bill | May 10, 2008 7:32:56 AM
I had a really good comment on this, but typepad blocked it yet again. I give up on this place. Until we get a decent typepad and a spammer/flammer blocker password system...it is useless.
Posted by: SJC | May 10, 2008 7:49:54 AM
marc:
You may be both right (for heavy duty trucks and intercity buses) and wrong (for most other vehicles) about the use of liquid fuel for an extended period.
Of course large intercity trucks and buses will use ICE diesel for decades to come. However, operators will find many ways to use much less liquid fuel when it hits $10+/gal. Those vehicles will be better designed, will use smaller, more efficient, super-turbocharged engines and better biofuels. Some level of hybridization, use of trains for very long hauls; cargo collection and end deliveries with electric vehicles (UPS style) etc
Cars, VUS, light trucks, delivery vehicles, city cabs & buses will mostly be electrified within 15-25 years. A few will still be older hybrids, many will be PHEVs but the majority will be lightweight BEVs. All those vehicles will use very little liquid fuel a produce almost no GHG.
Many more will use high speed inter-city and suburban electric trains instead of planes and personnal vehicles.
Posted by: Harvey D | May 10, 2008 8:10:57 AM
This is a very conservative study.
But it doesn't project forward far enough. The automobiles being added to the fleet produced in 2030 will not be reflected in fuel consumption statistics before 2036 so that downward trend will continue to accelerate.
The fear is not that the gasoline price will not increase but that it will collapse post 2015, which is just when we predicted it would do so.
Post 2015, the nationalized Oil companies controlled by sheiks/commissars will be under pressure to sell their oil at any price, as demand starts to decline.
The Oil Sheiks and Oil Commissars have one thing in common, they are supporting a cartel and monopolistic pricing that bears no reflection the cost of production to the low cost providers. In addition, they are all politicians with a long range view of only surviving tomorrow, and that's it. They will lead a price war decline that will bankrupt a lot of secondary oil recovery schemes with higher prices, such as CTL and bio fuels, as they try to get a last few dollars.
My hope is that the automakers will have committed to a fleet of alternative fueled vehicles by then, that will make it unrealistic to switch back.
But as long as the political demagogues with their punishment taxes, and anti-growth actions, including pouring money down eco-rat holes, are not in charge, that probably won't happen.
Posted by: stas peterson | May 10, 2008 9:36:50 AM
Quoth marc:
i have to disagree with this. whether you like it or not, our economy is built on petroleum.marc, you don't get it. Petroleum production is decreasing. Our economy was once built on wood and water, then on coal; oil is just one more phase that's coming to an end.
i'm thinking about millions of class 8's running 24/7 to deliver your consumer lifestyle to your door.Put it on rails except for the "last mile". Containerized cargo. Entire trains of semi-trailers. Even trucks that jump on and off rails. Electrify the rail system and all this stuff stops using petroleum.
batteries can't even make a small car go 40 miles, with long recharge times as well.40 miles isn't a problem, and hasn't been for decades (the EV-1 got 90 miles on lead-acid batteries). The Tesla is now getting ~225 miles; if it was re-powered with A123Systems cells it wouldn't have as much range, but it would be able to recharge in 10 minutes.
how are they going to move a peterbilt semi hauling 53' of concrete?If you can drive a city bus 97 miles on zinc-air, you can haul concrete from the plant or rail head to the job site. Note that this was achieved 7 years ago, and we've been sitting on our hands.
people neglect the fact that we already have a huge infrastructure established for fuel delivery, refinery, etc. our problem is that we are not efficiently using the resources we have.Others (cough) ignore the fact that we have a huge infrastructure for electricity which is nearly petroleum-free and underutilized much of the day. Most of our prospects for new energy sources yield electricity, not liquids.
If we're going to enjoy all that transport that we've come to expect, we're going to have to power it with the energy sources we'll have available. That means 80% or more of it will be electric.
"Stasly" is delusional, as usual. The whole point of liquid biofuels is that they are compatible with petroleum-based systems; as long as they exist, so will demand for petroleum. A "flex-fuel" fleet can always switch back; a PHEV fleet isn't going to want to, and an EV fleet will close the door on the oil sheikhs and barons.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 10, 2008 10:11:53 AM
I hope that all the green-minded people out there have already become Vegetarian. Because what could be more hypocritical than preaching about CO2 emissions, global warming, developing-nations-to-blame etc., while chomping down on a hamburger !
The huge herds of beef cattle emit CO2 on the same scales as the automobiles in the world.
So, by becoming vegetarian, you no longer support the evil beef industry, their ruthless factory farming methods, and the huge amounts of CO2 emitted by the beef cattle. And while you're going off beef, why not go all the way, do the humane thing and become Vegetarian ?
Moreover, the amount of CO2 emitted per person (i.e. the per-capita-CO2 emissions) in the US, Canada and Australia are about 25 times as high as the per-capita CO2 emissions in India and the developing countries. So, for the US to not sign the Kyoto Protocol, and instead blame India and China for global warming is nothing short off criminal behaviour. It's a case of the fox guarding the hen-house.
Posted by: Chris | May 10, 2008 10:17:14 AM
Chris you are right
Cattle emit as much green haous gas than car but it is methane not CO2, and it is true that eating a lot of read meat contribute much more to global warming than eating vegi with some chicken and fish. If you eat read meat and drive a SUV you are really a global warming man.
Stan Peterson is still talking from another planet where everybody is republican and the all system is nuclearized, and he naively think that this will happen on planet hearth by 2015. I think there is not yet specialized psychatric treatment for that type of mental disease but luckily it is not contagious.
The analogy of the american empire and the roman empire is not that straight, we are not threaten by barbarian ata our frontiers, it is true that the fact that america is drifting from science to religion is concerning, but I am not sure it will last very long, I am pretty sure we will see student getting back to sciences studies instead of business very soon. Also keep in mind that in the looming global energy crisis that is coming america has much more resources (coal, renewables, land to grow biofuel) that any other country and for a relatively low population density, plus american are extremely energy wasteful so cutting in their habit will save a LOT.
Also the growth of China and india would be slowed down drastically in case of an energy crisis, I firmally think that the energy supply problem is becoming a nightmare for chinese government and will only get worse anad worse, already all their railway system is clogged by coal and still they don't have enouhgh, they started to import coal massively which has driven the price of coal up recently.
Posted by: treehugger | May 10, 2008 11:12:05 AM
"Chris" is a spammer/troll. He's repeated the same off-topic comment here, word for word.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 10, 2008 11:53:57 AM
With regards to the relative greenhouse benefits of PHEVs compared with HEVs, one suspects they are making the assumption that the greenhouse intensity of the electricity grid won't change over time.
If so, that's an extremely silly assumption.
Posted by: Robert Merkel | May 10, 2008 9:02:30 PM
Engineer-Poet: ( From your comments, I'm guessing that you are neither an engineer or a poet), what value have you **added** to the discussion? And how is a discussion of per-capita CO2 emissions off-topic, when we are talking about global warming ? Again, I'm guessing that you are no engineer. And Poet ? ---nah ! Spammer and Troll don't even rhyme.
Posted by: | May 11, 2008 8:02:31 AM
This is a discussion about the US LDV fleet, not GHGs in general. If you can't stay on topic you have no business objecting to fingers pointed your way, let alone getting hypocritically self-righteous.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 11, 2008 8:53:45 AM
Despite the urge to define everything in terms of limited availability, Lithium is the 33rd most abundant element in the Earth's crust,and is is not in any way limited.
It is true that not much is actually mined. That is because there has been little demand for it. With increased demand, the Lithium supplies will become much more plentiful.
Please distinguish between true rarity such as for heavy metals like the Lanthanide rare earths, and fairly common elements that are plentiful but have never been mined in large quantity, for lack of need heretofor.
Posted by: stas peterson | May 12, 2008 9:52:28 AM
"I firmally think that the energy supply problem is becoming a nightmare for chinese government and will only get worse anad worse"
Now the world's biggest polluter, oppressor of people, censor of internet, tv, radio, and exploiter of workers. Economic miracle or totalitarian debacle? Free Tibet!
Posted by: freetibet | May 12, 2008 10:22:56 AM
@ Chris,
If you are truly concerned about bovine methane, than surely you are as concerned by other herbivore generated methane. If the domesticated bovines are eliminated, will the Buffalo return? If they did, don't they vent methane too?
Are you really suggesting we kill all the methane-generating animals in the Serengeti, as well? What's the difference between a cos and Zebras, Gnus, and Impala? Nothing. Obviously these animals also generate methane, so logically you would want to kill them off too.
Its unnecessary. If you haven't looked lately, methane, (CH4), levels in the atmosphere are declining, so methane is "in control" even to the pseudo-scientists of the religious eco-movement.
Posted by: stas peterson | May 12, 2008 11:16:28 AM
A European truck gets roughly 8 mpg with a cargo of 25 tons. Therefore 200 mpg per ton cargo.
Assuming one gallon of diesel costs 10$.
If one eats half a ton of food per year and this food travels 1000 miles on average and is transported by an inefficient truck (vs. ship or train) this will cost $25 fuel per year.
So, $25 dollar for fuel (basic food transportation) and $25'000 for rent by 2020?
and it is true that eating a lot of read meat contribute much more to global warming than eating vegi with some chicken and fish.
A read meat lover on average also has a shorter life span and therefore may or may not reduce global warming to some extent.
Now the world's biggest polluter,
Who knows. Interesting though: China has 65.4% of all solar thermal heaters, while the US has only 1.7%. Unlike the Americans, the Chinese might not need to burn any oil or gas to get a hot shower.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/REN21_GSR2007_Prepub_web.pdf
Posted by: globi | May 12, 2008 11:30:03 AM
@treehugger,
I find that you and i are in funadmental agreement on most issues. Apparently you do not and feel it necessary to use unwarranted attacks. I hardly think that the rise in clean electricity generation from 20% to 35% nuclear by 2015-2020, is going "all nuclear".
I will accept and welcome the reduced pollution. Conversely I could say that apparently you would rather breathe filth, but I won't use that kind of argument as you do. You and I both want clean air and water.
But we will need base load capacity to generate electricity to power our battery electric vehicles that will be a rising share of the LDV fleet.
Unfortunately, for solar power advocates, LDV recharging will mostly occur at night; when the sun doesn't shine.
I welcome all the "renewables" that you are able to build, even as you reject the LWR nuclear option, but it won't be as much as one-two percent of total need, despite what the California eco-true-believers mandate.
They mandated massive quantities of electric cars in 1996 too, and eventually had to yield to reality. The technology just could not be created on the arbitrary schedules the bureaucrats and lawyerly politicians mandated.
The world doesn't work that way.
Breakthroughs happen on their own schedules. Technology evolves on its own schedule too, but unlike bereakthroughs, that is somewhat subject to forcing efforts.
Fifteen years later the technology is about to arrive within another half decade, finally.
All the recent California 20% renewable mandates did, is to stop virtually all electric power construction in California. There is an effective moratorium on Nuclear and Coal fired power plants, and no Gas to power NG plants either. Attempts to build importing facilities for LNG have been vetoed. The eco-crazed are busy trying to tear down hydro dams, not build more of them. So that is out too. And makes intermittent solar even more useless, as the pumped hydro power proposals are inconceivable, to shift power production to demand schedules.
You can get away with that by turning to imports, for a while. But you are living on borrowed time. You cannot do so, when the exporters have little surplus to sell, as is now the case, and unlike other exporters, can't export, until internal needs are met, by their own state laws, regardless of price.
So rising prices won't help either, despite attractive prices offered by coerced California utilities, egged on by truly desperate politicians, suddenly confronted with the fruits of their ridiculous demagoguery.
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_californias_environmentalism.html
Enjoy the rolling blackouts that the eco-crazies are bringing to California. Its time for the self-satisfied, to see and appreciate reality. And how the Third world really lives.
When, not if, that happens, just like the past Gray Davis episode, the myopic will find themselves tossed out on their ears, and in a bipartisan moment, that includes the Republican "Da Terminator" too.
Stupidity is where you find it and, Stupidity is its own reward.
Posted by: stas peterson | May 12, 2008 12:23:47 PM
but it won't be as much as one-two percent of total need, despite what the California eco-true-believers mandate.
I don't know about California, but Bavaria already generates over 2% of its electricity needs with photovoltaics alone, despite the fact that there is much less sun in Bavaria than in California. (We're talking Bavaria 2007 not 2020).
And of course: As opposed to landlocked, foggy Bavaria, California could also harness wave power, geothermal, solar thermal, much more wind power, much more biomass and more efficiency.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
But then again the Bavarians are hardworking people and the Californians just buy houses from each other or something?
Posted by: globi | May 12, 2008 1:48:00 PM
Quoth the Stanster:
They mandated massive quantities of electric cars in 1996 too, and eventually had to yield to reality.A half-truth at best. Reality is that a lot more could have been done then, and can be done now.
- The auto companies stonewalled.
- The vehicles that were built were massively popular and had long waiting lists.
- Those vehicles which were sold to the public (e.g. RAV4-EV) are selling for high prices.
Breakthroughs happen on their own schedules.Profit potential has a strong influence, by directing effort. Had CARB promoted PHEVs, the volume of automotive traction batteries would have put large amounts of R&D into them around a decade earlier. Technologies like reticulated vitreous carbon lead-acid were around even then; we'd probably be seeing Firefly-powered cars today had CARB taken the other branch in the road.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 12, 2008 3:47:07 PM
I think the EV mandate didn't work because it was expensive and the manufacturers lost money. Capitalism is pretty simple - if it makes money, people will do it. Corporations are run by people too. Conspiracy theories are great because they give people something to rant/vent against. The current oil runup is a perfect example - otherwise reasonable people think it is some vast conspiracy. Like a million traders internationally got together (chat room perhaps) and decided to raise the price of oil to $125 a barrel. Never mind that in order to do that, they would all be risking billions of dollars.
So yeah - GM destroy the EV1 because they wanted people to be dependent on oil. The decision makers went to play golf with the leaders of Exxon/Mobil (or even better - they are all the same single person) and plotted the best way to make a trillion dollars over the next 20-50 years. Cue the evil laughter - we will sell everyone 15 mpg vehicles and then raise oil to $125 a barrel. That will get us to 1 trillion faster than electric vehicles.
I don't work for GM. I think they make horrible decisions. But I don't think they destroyed the EV1 for anyother reason than profit motive. And it was short term profit motive not some halfbaked idea that electric cars would need less servicing and they would lose money long term.
Wait - what was this thread about? Oh yeah - eat less red meat. No that wasn't it. MIT thinks more efficient cars are a good way to decrease fuel use - better than hybrids because of volume. Fair enough. If everyone bought a Yaris instead of a Yukon we would be fine. Smart guys....
Posted by: 300TTto545 | May 13, 2008 2:24:08 AM
