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.

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.

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.

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.

"Chris" is a spammer/troll.  He's repeated the same off-topic comment here, word for word.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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!

@ 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.

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

@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.

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?

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.

There were some serious policy failures at CARB, though.  The EV-1s, which were destroyed by GM despite public pleading to sell them, would have been far cheaper had they been designed as PHEV-40's a la the Chevy Volt.  CARBs rules didn't allow any role for PHEVs, so that opportunity was wasted.

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.

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....

I don't think they destroyed the EV1 for any other reason than profit motive.

GM could have profited by selling the EV-1's; they didn't get anything from crushing them.  They could have gained a fair amount of goodwill from sales, and even more from donating them.  GM chose to squander that goodwill and harden attitudes against the company instead.

In retrospect, crushing the EV-1s looks to me like an act of spite.  GM top management hated the EV-1 and the people who supported it (and forced it to be built in the first place), and decided to exercise their power to snub the latter.  The message was "What's good for General Motors is good for America, and don't you forget it.  Buy a Yukon, there's a good consumer."  But as it turned out, GM may have completed its institutional suicide with that act (scrapping its PNGV development was another big error born of Gore-hate).  GM's market capitalization is now roughly equal to Exxon-Mobil's quarterly profits.

I have a long memory.  I will never buy anything with the Sony name on it again, and GM will have to fire its board and top management at the least before I will consider owning one of their products.