« Delhi Government to Offer 30% Subsidy for EVs | Main | Turbine Truck Engines Secures $5 Million in Funding »
Survey: Rising Gas Prices Trigger Changes in US Driver Behavior; Consideration for Buying More Fuel-Efficient Vehicles as Primary Reponse Low
7 June 2008
A new telephone survey of 1,000 Americans, conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs on behalf of Access America Travel Insurance and Assistance, has found that 67% have already changed their driving habits because of gas price increases.
Among those who have changed their driving, the median gas price at which they did so was $3.20 per gallon, a level that was reached back in March. As the price at the pump continues to rise, more and more Americans will be changing their driving habits, according to the survey:
At $3.00 per gallon, 35% of Americans had changed their habits;
At $4.00 per gallon—a reality in many parts of the US already—74% will change; and
By $5.00 per gallon, 85% of all Americans will have changed their driving habits.
About 9% say they will never change their driving habits, regardless of the how high the price climbs.
Those who have already changed their driving habits are particularly prevalent among adults with a household income of less than $50,000 per year (73%), parents of children under 18 (72%), those living in the South (72%) and those saying the country is headed on the wrong track (71%).
In an effort to save on gas, Americans first tend to reduce non-essential driving. More than a quarter (26%) say that cutting back on travel or recreational driving is the first substantial change they made or will make due to rising gas prices.
One in five (21%) say the first thing they did or will do is to consolidate or reduce errands (21%). Fewer Americans first look to alternate forms of transportation such as carpooling (7%), walking or biking when possible (6%), or using public transportation more often (4%). Only 3% say that the first thing they did or will do is buy a more fuel-economic car or a hybrid.
Proportions of Americans who first cut back on recreational driving as a response to higher gas prices vary little across age and income groups. However, those aged 55 and older are more likely than younger adults aged 18-54 to mention consolidating or reducing errands (30% vs. 18%). Southerners (12%) and those aged 18-34 (10%) are more likely than others to mention carpooling. Those making less than $25,000 (9%) and Northeasterners (7%) are more likely than others to cite using public transportation as their first response to higher gas prices.
The Ipsos poll was conducted 30 May – 2 June. For the survey, a nationally representative sample of 1,000 randomly-selected adults aged 18 and over residing in the US interviewed by telephone via Ipsos’ US Telephone Express omnibus. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate within ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would have been had the entire adult population in the US been polled. The margin of error will be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population. These data were weighted to ensure the sample’s regional and age/gender composition reflects that of the actual US population according to data from the US Census Bureau.
Resources
June 7, 2008 in Market Background | Permalink | Comments (76) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/29864436
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Survey: Rising Gas Prices Trigger Changes in US Driver Behavior; Consideration for Buying More Fuel-Efficient Vehicles as Primary Reponse Low:
Comments
It seems that some form of awakening is taking place. That is very good news. Wonder what it will be like when gas reaches $8+/gal.
A well known Canadian Oil expert (who has been right many times before) predicts:
1) Oil at $225/barrel by 2011/12.
2) gas at $2.25 CAN/liter
or about $8.80 USD/gal. by 2011/12.
3) major changes in North American car industry.
4) the huge worldwide success for the very low cost Tata Nano (and copies) will increase global fuel consumption.
5) third world fuel consumption increase will more than absorb all reductions from the industrialized nations.
6) agro-fuel production will continue to put pressure on food price.
7) Increased oil & NG export will drive the Canadian dollar at $1.05 USD by end of 2008 and higher by 2010/11.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 7, 2008 6:58:33 AM
It should be obvious that we need to make electric cars and get our power from renewable non-poluting sources like wind.
Posted by: | Jun 7, 2008 7:16:30 AM
Asking whether buying a fuel-efficient car is one's first response isn't very useful. What would be useful is knowing how what respondents will do when they next purchase a vehicle. Buying an efficient car would get a lot more than 3%
Posted by: factory rat | Jun 7, 2008 7:29:20 AM
I always find these sorts of polls a bit fishy, because people are not good at predicting their own behavoir. Sure, it's easy to say that "If gas hits $X a gallon I'll do Y" but the proof is in the pudding. Will people really drive less, drive slower (saving gas), carpool, etc or will they just say that they're going to, but never do it. Or do it for a short amount of time until they get used to $4/gal gas and then return to their old habits.
So far the trends are encouraging that people are using less gas and not finding it to be the terrible hardship they imagined it might. We've seen demand drop and nobody is walking 20 miles uphill both ways to work. Scooter shops and distributers are sold out of stock and have waiting lists for their vehicles. I see more bikes around and less SUVs these days, and sales of large vehicles are dropping as those in the market for a new car push fuel economy to the forefront.
Posted by: David Grener | Jun 7, 2008 7:42:06 AM
In Ireland, diesel is e1.41 / litre or $8.37 / US gallon, gasoline is e1.31 / L, or $7.80 / US gallon.
Prices are up about 20% since the start of the year.
Life goes on.
People buy diesel or smaller gasoline cars.
Almost no-one has cars with > 3L capacity.
There are quite a few SUVs, but mostly diesel and mostly 2-3L capacity.
As people react to even higher prices, they will just buy smaller and more efficient cars.
Mostly diesel, petrol for people with lower mileage.
Not electric (not available) not hybrid (too expensive over here).
For reference, the Honda Jazz (Fit) is mostly sold with a 1.3L engine. The most common Toyota Yaris has a 1.0L (manual transmission) engine.
No-one dies as a result.
If you have a car that gets 50 mpg, you don't care so much how much fuel costs.
Posted by: mahonj | Jun 7, 2008 7:54:17 AM
One thing to consider about third world demand is that many of these countries subsidize fuel. Oil has recently risen so much that India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and a few others have been forced to reduce those subsidies, raising the price of gasoline significantly. How does that affect global demand going forward? What would happen if China were to do the same?
Posted by: Cervus | Jun 7, 2008 8:11:12 AM
unfortuntely behavioral changes cannot come very quickly, because of structural factors related to our modern economy. many people moved further away from major cities in the 80's-90's, with suburban growth fueled (no pun intended) by cheap oil. with the combination of larger vehicles, longer commutes and now a sour housing market, many people are trapped. while i cannot say that i agree with their choices in the first place, i certainly do not think that government should intervene and "help them out". these people NEED to suffer from high gas prices to teach them that their inappropriate and selfish actions have consequences.
i say let the market sort this problem out. as gas gets more expensive people will struggle to sell their bloated cars and bloated mcmansions and change their lifestyles to reflect new realities...as long as our government (whether repub or democrat, they all seem like a bunch of big-govt commies nowadays) does not intervene with more "bailouts" or subsidies.
Posted by: marc | Jun 7, 2008 8:17:55 AM
This survey doesn't seem to fit with reality. The most obvious adjustment many people have made is to switch to the most fuel efficient car within a multi-car family. Junior's old 4-cylinder Japanese sedan is being driven instead of the SUV. Here in San Diego, it is rare to see a Hummer on the road anymore. In its place are lots of old Toyotas, Saturns, VWs and small pick-up trucks.
Secondly, new car purchases are heavily weighted to smaller, 4-cylinder transportation.
Posted by: rbenjamin | Jun 7, 2008 8:28:41 AM
"Southerners (12%) and those aged 18-34 (10%) are more likely than others to mention carpooling."
This reflects:
a) fact that these towns and cities have grown via development that depends on cars for personal transport and the lack of a dense AND rapid mass transit network in many of these communities.
b) car pooling is at times faster than other forms of mass transit. You often know the other people (friends, neighbors, coworkers), and thus has a certain atmosphere to it. Its less private/solitary than a car w/1 occupant, but not as crowded as a bus or train. Its also flexible in the way taxis and vans are, but a bit less expensive.
"About 9% say they will never change their driving habits, regardless of the how high the price climbs."
caveat:
I was one of the surveyed, and since I live in NYC, the above statement is true, because I take the subway most of the time, is true for me. Thus there might be a margin of error, though the magnitude depends on if the Northeast (esp cities well endowed with mass transit) was overrepresented.
Posted by: allen_xl_z | Jun 7, 2008 8:48:20 AM
Before you get too happy in europe remember america will be buying less of your stuff and less of chinas stuff wich will start to dampen the entire world econ even more. Its realy gona be fun when the market fairyland fun fest fractures in a big old FOOOM...
Fram what I have heard from my friends in the know we are definetlt looking at a massive bank crash on top of a car crash and housing crash and retail crash and and and...
Posted by: wintermane | Jun 7, 2008 8:55:23 AM
Hi factory rat...Kind of agree with you...
But the survey seemed slanted toward getting people's first response to rising gas prices, which I did find interesting. The extreme lack of interest in public transportation as a first response except in v. low economic situations was a testament to America's lack of proper public transit.
Posted by: litesong | Jun 7, 2008 9:43:43 AM
"Southerners (12%) and those aged 18-34 (10%) are more likely than others to mention carpooling."I can believe it
Posted by: DS | Jun 7, 2008 9:56:59 AM
The study points to the willingness to lower demand but the barriers are 1) sunk cost of existing private vehicles and 2) lack of attractive transport options.
So, a serious policy would push 3 ways to lower consumption:
1. lower commercial vehicle fuel consumption by driving change there, where the replacement rate can be accelerated more readily by accelerating depreciation, etc.
2. drive retrofit options, such as mild hybrid retrofits, wherever possible. Think of Pickup and Urban Commercial Vehicle categories, where high cost reduction is likely and the larger engine compartments make retrofit relatively easy. This avoids the sunk- cost-of-existing-vehicle problem. It also pairs with new purchase to, in effect, turn over the existing fleet more readily.
3. expand public transit options whereever possible.
Posted by: dollared | Jun 7, 2008 10:19:40 AM
Quoting from HarveyD, who I'm guessing is quoting Jeff Rubin, Chief Speculator^H^H^H^H^H Economist, CIBC World Markets.
"4) the huge worldwide success for the very low cost Tata Nano (and copies) will increase global fuel consumption."
The current world-wide car population is something like 600 million vehicles. If we doubled that to 1.2 billion , and then made them all 2.5x more fuel efficient, and assumed they retained their current driving behaviors ...
(Note: Tata Nano is about 2.5x more FE than a normal North American car, but it is hardly its equal in terms of range and performance. This FE ratio also extends to the Prius:normal car and so forth. And when running the numbers, recall that PHEV's and other techniques that will convert the fuel problem into a more tractable electrical one, are on the horizon.)
"5) third world fuel consumption increase will more than absorb all reductions from the industrialized nations."
I guess this will happen ... if these countries are populated by idiots. Which is unlikely. A more reasonable outcome is this: places like India and China will tolerate the Nano and similar for a bit, but then realize that is an economic dead-end completely explored by the United States and Canada, and will move even more rapidly to electrification than we are.
And even if they ended up sucking it all up anyways, who cares? Let them pay high prices.
Posted by: | Jun 7, 2008 10:54:34 AM
Marc:
these people NEED to suffer from high gas prices to teach them that their inappropriate and selfish actions have consequences
Marc, I hope you don’t mean what you say here. This is classic effete green reactionism. Everybody makes mistakes. Remember that we are all connected and what hurts one will hurt all: …No man is an island… . These people can loss their jobs, their houses, their families …. Have some compassion. At least donate some can food at the food bank.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 7, 2008 11:38:28 AM
"US Energy Secretary Bodman Calls for Cuts in Global Fuel Subsidies". I agree, this would be a good thing. But does Bodman want to follow that to its logical conclusion and raise US tax rates in line with Europe?
Posted by: JN2 | Jun 7, 2008 11:50:09 AM
Some are predicting the next big crash in the economy will occur in the credit card sector because people are using them to defer the higher prices of fuel and food, etc. Let us hope that the next President and Congress can at least set the stage to move us off our current fossil fuel economy and onto the only thing that makes sense, solar and electric drive transportation.
Posted by: Lad | Jun 7, 2008 12:31:49 PM
Axil...Stuff your 'effete green reactionism'.
For 35+years I drove 35, 50, 53 & 75mpg vehicles because I knew it would come to this. Gas wasters caused all the suffering including air pollution over the years that killed a lot of people.
Gas wasters didn't make mistakes. They had the money to waste & just didn't care what future they caused. I saved my sympathy for people who couldn't buy food thru the years & don't need your accusing pointed finger stuck in my face.
Posted by: litesong | Jun 7, 2008 12:59:55 PM
Litesong and Marc,
I'm with you on this and I don't think yours is an effete green reaction.
People behave in certain ways because they see either a reward for their actions or a cost to not acting. At $2 a gallon the reward is driving a nice big car that insulates you from the unwashed and living in a 4000ft2 mcmansion in the burbs built by cheap illegal labor. That is not a mistake - it is a conscious choice.
When I tell work colleagues I think $10 gas is long term a good thing they say "yes because you have kids and so you care about global warming." Actually I neither know nor care whether climate change is real - I do care that in 20 years time my 401K might be worthless and I might be huddled in a compound with a gun trying to protect my family and myself from bandits when we start to run out of affordable food.
Excess consumption is not a mistake - it is what humans do when not penalized economically or socially for it. The next 20 years will, I hope, usher in widespread behavioural change.
Posted by: Davva | Jun 7, 2008 1:49:03 PM
Ok, first off, the housing bubble crashed because of market manipulation. Ask anyone who knows anything about sub-prime loans. People deferring the high cost of gasoline and food defaulting on their credit cards will be absorbed with 21 plus APRs on the rest of us.
Secondly, the electrification of the North American transport sector has begun in earnest, already. Hybrid municipal buses, electric dock trucks, the Tesla Roadster, the Chevy Volt, the Toyota Prius...
Thirdly, subsidy of petroleum in developing Asia is a dead man walking. It simply is unsustainable. IRAN cut its subsidies.
Crisis and opportunity are often the same thing. North America is poised to drop off of the oil wagon.
Posted by: The Scoot | Jun 7, 2008 2:40:48 PM
Can't happen fast enough for me, Scoot.
One major difference between this energy crisis and past ones is the Internet. We have alternative means to get our shopping done, to socialize, and to commute to work. I was talking to someone yesterday whose business is to set up VPNs and routers for virtual networks. He's doing all kinds of business these days. And we're also reading about 4-day work weeks (10 hours a day) becoming more common.
We've barely begun to adapt to this.
Posted by: Cervus | Jun 7, 2008 4:39:02 PM
axil-
i mean exactly what i say. it's insulting to me that you would say i should sympathize for someone who spent $40k on a giant suv that they most often used alone, $500k on a house 3 or 4 times the size they needed, and then comes crying when they realize it's all unsustainable, begging for handouts and a soft landing.
i use public transit or bike whenever possible. my wife and i live in a 720 square foot house. i try to minimize my impact when possible and take RESPONSIBILITY for my actions. and i reserve my sympathy for people who deserve it, like the families of our troops who died or were wounded getting oil for the same selfish people you defend.
and scoot-
good call. however, electrification is sorely lacking in places where it would have the greatest impact - namely, at truck stops and ports! how many truckers leave their class 8 running all night to power a tv, ac, etc? this is some of the real "low-hanging fruit".
however, most people who talk up vehicle electrification (and i don't know your situation) have very little knowledge of the utility industry. ask any EE who specializes in T&D and they will tell you what a dire state the electricity grid is in WRT future growth notwithstanding a huge load from EV's. we are going to need multi-trillion dollar upgrades in T&D infrastructure in our lifetimes to handle these upgrades, and we are not making that investment now. something to think about before a million chevy volts hit the road.
Posted by: marc | Jun 7, 2008 5:14:43 PM
Hi Marc...If we learn our efficiency lessons, EVs have a good chance to be supported by good grids. First, electric motors are 3 times more efficient than ICEs. That's a big, big plus. I can take my electric bike & get to the next town on pennies. Efficiently built electric cars can do the same with marginally more pennies of electricity. My Northwest, many areas in Canada, in Europe, & around the world run well on renewable electric energy sources. Let the rest of the PUDs around the world learn.
Things are looking good. Our society just has to get the wasters out of its system.
Posted by: litesong | Jun 7, 2008 5:50:03 PM
Arabs are slowly killing their cash cow. With these prices it's just a matter of years before electric cars will become mainstream and what will all those petro-countries sell then?
Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie | Jun 7, 2008 6:12:21 PM
Fellow GCC members, I have obviously walked into a buzz saw. It won’t happen again. Sometimes my compassion overwhelms my common sense.
I must admit to feeling glee when I see a BMW or a mega van broken down on the side of the road. I guess that is a common human felling; class hatred that is. Everyone is afflicted, no matter where they stand on the human latter.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 7, 2008 6:56:07 PM
litesong-
you are correct that we can support the loads if we are more efficient with our electricity usage. the big question is that if..
also v2g, if used effectively, can help with load leveling especially during peak demand. it would actually be more beneficial for the grid to get a localized, distributed power network than the centralized large-scale generation system we have now (grid stability is enhanced. also, this would serve to minimize the effect of disruption when a large centralized source goes offline).
where i do think government spending and subsidies would really help is with thin-film solar research for the ultimate bev or self-powering generator! if you want to avoid the classic big-government overreach, let the projects be funneled through DOD. nobody needs power more desperately than FOB's and our troops in combat zones. roof-mounted thin-film systems powering motorized humvees or solar-powered generators would be a huge help, and would absorb some of the "early-adopter premiums" found with new technologies.
this is esepcially relevant since currently, our military does not have the option of "changing driver behavior" or "buying more fuel-efficient vehicles" as this survey gets at.
Posted by: marc | Jun 7, 2008 7:13:07 PM
I try to keep my CO2 footprint as small as a mayfly on the smooth waters of a clear mountain lake. It’s not that I can’t afford it; it’s just the right thing to do.
I have taken up hypermileing. My 78, 16oo cc, manual transmission, no frills Honda accord gets 83 mpg. To save weight, I pulled out all but the driver’s seat, the floor rugs, the head liner, the spare tire; tools, upholstery, and anything that is not absolutely require to make the car run. I keep my bike in the car in case of a problem so I can ride home in an emergency. My model and idol is Wayne Gerdes . He regularly gets over 100 mpg. I am not as good as he is but I am making progress. Hypermileing requires practice, hard work, concentration and is dangerous. It’s not that I can’t afford the gas; it’s just the right thing to do.
I have been using fire wood for a long time. I go into the bush and cut it myself. There always are cuts and burses, aches and pains. I carry the wood out of the bush a little at a time on my back to save gas. It’s not that I can’t afford the heating oil; it’s just that I want to save it for those old people on fixed incomes because it the right thing to do.
I ride a bike everywhere I can no matter the weather; 100 degree heat, rain, sub frigid cold with gale force winds. Even when Mister Johnson freezes, I stop to defrost, and in a few minutes I bike on. Sometimes I fall; I’m bruised from eyebrow to little toe. I recover in a few days and bike on.
I guess I’m like you fellows on GCC, but a bit more ardent. I figure if you’re going to do something you should pull out all the stops. Get as green as you can be.
Posted by: Head Case | Jun 7, 2008 8:02:01 PM
HTML error correction
Posted by: Head Case | Jun 7, 2008 8:13:13 PM
Try Again
Posted by: Head Case | Jun 7, 2008 8:20:37 PM
If they were to have surveyed me, I bet it would not ask if I already drove as efficiently as possible yet I would answer "I have not changed and will not ever change my driving habits."
I guess I'm just weird in that I have always bragged about my mpg as much as other "gearheads" brag about their 1/4 mile times (even when gasoline was less than $1.50 per gallon).
Posted by: Patrick | Jun 7, 2008 10:21:31 PM
Axil, I think you still don't get it. It's not about "class hatred". It's about the unfairness of asking responsible people to pay for the selfish choices of irresponsible people. If you want to define "the selfish irresponsible people" as a "class", well, then, ok. I don't like 'em much.
Posted by: George | Jun 7, 2008 11:24:54 PM
Folks? I think that Axil was joking about the "effete green reactionism." Read the last sentence of his first article:
"Have some compassion. At least donate some can food at the food bank."
Am I the only one who hears Eric Idle saying, "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" when reading this?
Posted by: John L. | Jun 8, 2008 3:08:36 AM
LiveFreeorDie,
Arabs in invest in thin-film PV production:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9954708-54.html
Marc,
Thin-film is basically developed (of course efficiency can still be improved, but its high enoug to power an electric car with the roof area available on ones home). But what's currently missing is the thin-film production capacity. But this will change:
http://www.oerlikon.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=OERLIKON_EN_overview_solar
Electricity consumption during daytime is 3 times higher than at night. PV reduces the load on the grid.
If I wanted to live free, I would produce my heat and electricity needs on my roof.
Posted by: | Jun 8, 2008 6:39:53 AM
John L
John, you are a very perceptive guy. Any author likes to have his words analyzed. I feel the way James Joyce would have felt when his works are analyzed in English lit 101. You get an A. It’s been a hoot. Thanks GCC contributors for a good laugh. Please forgive me, but I couldn’t resist.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 8, 2008 9:45:33 AM
We need more class warfare. Is that what we're saying here?
People who judge others based on where they live and what they drive is a very, very shallow person. Until you know the individual circumstances, how can you be the judge? Furthermore, I refuse to use the label "environmental wacko" to piegon hole people," but going over the top to shame others to a certain way of thinking only creates resentment. Lead by example and education-not sarcism.
I've cut my transportation fuel consumption by 40%, using the same vehicles. I have lowered my thermostat in winter to 65 degrees and upped my air conditioning to 78 deegrees, long before the current energy crisis. But I refuse to judge others for doing differently. I just simply tell them how much money I've saved. Works every time, and many have used my example to cut their energy bills.
I'm 72 years old and don't intend riding a bycycle in the dead of winter, in rain storms, or when it's 90 in the shade. So please don't judge me if I happen to pass you and your bycicle on the highway in my 1993 Ford Ranger.
Hypermileing to the extreme is not only dangerous to the driver (and occupants) but also to others on the road. Read up on it and educate yourself.
And finally, we are at least four decades away from freeing ourselves of fossil fuels, if ever. It's the way of the world so get use to it.
Posted by: shigley | Jun 8, 2008 10:09:27 AM
I don’t know who deservers the title "St.Mother Terisa of the Gaian nouveaux religion" (Attribution: Stan Peterson) more; shigley or Head Case. I think it’s got to be Head Case. The pain, suffering, and danger that Head Case endures deserves the Medal of Honor of environmentalism. Did you get the significance of a “frozen Mr. Johnson”? And those whole body bruises, Wow! That’s way beyond the call. And he does it “because it’s right.”
Here again, I can’t resist. (-:
I am ready to receive my penance. If you fell you must, then weigh in!
Posted by: Axil | Jun 8, 2008 11:21:25 AM
Electrical energy cost and peak loads can be greatly reduced very cheaply with the use of very low cost ($39 ea.), high reliability, programmable, 4KW, 220 VAC e-thermostats to:
1) turn OFF your hot water heater during peak load hours and turn it back ON during off-peak hours.
2) turn ON your PHEVs and BEVs chargers during off-peak hours only.
3) to recharge heat energy storage heaters during off-peaks hours only. Use the accumulated/stored heat the house the rest of the day or as required. Use as many of those heat storage heaters + programmable e-thermostats as required. They can easily replace existing standard baseboard heaters.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 8, 2008 12:51:45 PM
HarveyD:
Smart metering already exists, but it is currently undergoing a rapid evolution.
See an example as follows:
http://www.energetics.com/MADRI/toolbox/pdfs/background/primer.pdf
I would like to see a standard world wide hack proof smart meter communication protocol defined that controls non critical equipment and appliances down the power lines. Some of those appliances you have listed in your post. For example, once your micro processor controlled hot water heater is programmed (A standard default i_d_i_o_t proof program could be initially loaded from the factory), it can follow a low cost energy consumption program(an upgrade to energy star). The same is true for your plug in vehicle. A button could turn the program off/on at the option of the user. I think this could be a valuable feature of “the smart grid” to load balance distributed alternative electric production. This is another thing we can put into our dream bag.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 8, 2008 1:40:20 PM
austin energy has a thermostat that they incorporate into many apts, etc. that will cycle AC loads during peak demand. they claim it's seamless, but when it's 100 degrees in the middle of the summer, you turn on your ac and it doesn't go on, you know something is wrong.
people will go out of their ways to disable or remove these thermostats. and i can't say i blame them.
when it's 100 degrees i could care less about excessive energy consumption. i want some coolness.
oh and head case, stop being an ass. people are just trying to show that they minimize their impact, to contrast with those out there who live to the new american motto bigger is better.
Posted by: | Jun 8, 2008 2:53:48 PM
We have a rare consensus.
Posted by: Axil Is a Tool | Jun 8, 2008 3:28:54 PM
Headcase - your name is very appropriate ; )
Good for you that you have a personal situation that allows you to make the choices you do - however, relying on a few motivated "extremists" (I do not mean this in a derogatory sense) will not solve the problem. I have a newborn child and there's no way I can ride a bike with him everywhere or go scouring woods (2+ miles from my house) for fuel. I'm sure many other posters feel the same.
It's sad that the political system over here is such that there is no incentive for progressive policies like an escalating fuel tax that, if implemented and the funds directed to sponsoring private innovation, could have given the US a far smoother ride in the years ahead as well as a strong competitive position vs China, etc
Posted by: Davva | Jun 8, 2008 4:38:44 PM
Despite the denials from the petro-profiteers rapidly turning us into debt slaves, it's clear most of the world will need to live with less diesel and gasoline.
Maybe automakers should be "persuaded" to make gasoline/methanol/ethanol flex-fuel systems - or at least produce fuel system designs that could be easily retrofitted into flex-fuel.
Methanol (from natural gas, coal or biomass) can be produced much more cheaply than gasoline today (and I mean methanol's lower cost per unit of heat energy compared to gasoline - I know methanol's low energy density is somewhat inconvenient). Unfortunately, methanol may be too toxic (whether ingested, breathed, or absorbed through the skin), especially during this age of terrorism. We need a serious evaluation of likely environmental methanol toxicity before adopting methanol as a competitor to gasoline. Maybe methanol would cause no more injury to our population than gasoline contamination does today - but anything new today is subject to crippling lawsuits. Frankly, it baffles me why big oil importers like the US - and especially developing China - have not formed conclusions about methanol as an alternative to gasoline.
Posted by: Jay Dee | Jun 8, 2008 4:38:57 PM
Methanol's bulk production methods use syngas (CO and hydrogen), catalysts, moderate pressures (10-20 atm), and high temperatures (e.g., 850C). Ethanol is far less toxic than methanol, but ethanol is more difficult to make. In particular, the C-C bond of ethanol is hard to make using syngas (CO and hydrogen), but it can be done using much higher pressures and appropriate catalysts. However, such thermochemical processes for ethanol aren't very selective, meaning thermochemical ethanol synthesis also produces a spectrum of alcohols (such as methanol and butanol) and other hydrocarbons. And although ethanol is an intermediate compound for Fischer-Tropsch processes to make synthetic oil (used by WW2 Germany and South Africa), such synthetic oil (though arguably a better fuel stock than ethanol) is still very expensive to produce.
But almost all ethanol is produced biologically today (by fermentation), and quite selectively too. Corn ethanol has a poor return on energy invested, while sugarcane ethanol is much better, and so-called cellulosic ethanol (from switchgrass or algae for examples) is unproven after decades of development. But BRI and Coskata are start-ups developing novel bacteria that can convert syngas into ethanol. Again it baffles me why governments around the world aren't massively investigating the feasibility of such bacterial synthesis of ethanol from syngas.
Posted by: Jay Dee | Jun 8, 2008 4:46:04 PM
I think it's time for the public to start demanding real answers (instead of the current petro-propaganda) about how we're going to get adequate future fuel supplies. In particular, we should demand ASAP hard, open facts about how to synthesize increasing amounts of fuel instead of accepting boundless BS from self-interested promoters about all the mythical oil we'll somehow find somewhere "out there" if only we drill enough, build enough refineries, and occupy enough countries. For Chrissake, the peak year of world-wide oil discovery was way back in 1964, and world-wide discovery has been essentially downhill since. Transportation is too important to allow it to be controlled by all our profiteering petro-liars. It's time the public is allowed to know about all the feasible options for fuel synthesis.
Posted by: Jay Dee | Jun 8, 2008 4:48:06 PM
Quoth marc:
ask any EE who specializes in T&D and they will tell you what a dire state the electricity grid is in WRT future growth notwithstanding a huge load from EV's.It's my understanding that most of these EV's are going to be charging in the off-peak hours and not contributing to growth of peak demand.
we are going to need multi-trillion dollar upgrades in T&D infrastructure in our lifetimes to handle these upgradesThe US grid handles under 1 TW at peak demand. Are you saying that the upgrades are going to cost several dollars per peak watt? At 10¢/kWh the entire system only grosses about $400 billion/year. If you can increase that 20% by increasing off-peak generation you've got a huge new revenue source to pay for it.
I can see the US needing as much new HVDC mileage as the Interstate system, perhaps 50,000 miles @ $600k/mile totalling $30 billion. I can see lots of service work on existing lines: replacing transformers and towers at end of life, upgrading conductors and SCADA systems, going to networked meters with DSM capabilities everywhere. Is there even $1 trillion in those parts? The really expensive stuff seems to be real estate, and rights of way don't get old and fail.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 8, 2008 5:23:27 PM
I know my posts about fuel synthesis have been long-winded, so congratulations on anybody who read them.
However, the upcoming elections are a critical turning point (just like the 2000 elections turned out to be).
The issues concerning fuel synthesis I raised above are complex for the average voter.
But we’re better off if voters and especially policymakers are well-informed that fuel synthesis is an option with many advantages (but possible hazards too).
After the elections, fuel synthesis may not be an option. Fuel synthesis may become a necessity, and we’ll need to do it right.
Posted by: Jay Dee | Jun 8, 2008 5:54:31 PM
"quoth" engineer-poet (who is neither)
"It's my understanding that most of these EV's are going to be charging in the off-peak hours and not contributing to growth of peak demand."
a ridiculous proposition. do people fill up their gas tanks at night?
from the other guy
"we are going to need multi-trillion dollar upgrades in T&D infrastructure in our lifetimes to handle these upgrades"
where's the proof??
Posted by: | Jun 8, 2008 6:15:07 PM
Jay: elections have no effect on the big players behind politicians. Any PM or President or Head of State is soon schooled in the things they can and cannot do (just ask Jimmy Carter.) Forget the election - it is a cheap entertainment product for foreign consumption. As to the subject of this article:
"The number of Americans traveling 50 or more miles from home this holiday weekend will decrease by 0.9% to 37.87 million." CNN
What's the big whoop here? And "bigger is better" is not new. It's been a part of American life since the annexation of Texas in 1845.
Posted by: bleakhouse | Jun 8, 2008 6:19:48 PM
Hmm, Head Case burning wood. Is that, like...creating CO2? Sorry, Head Case, but I couldn't resist. And I do apologize for my semi-rant but I hate being preached to. My wife has done enough of that to last a lifetime... such as it is.
Axil, I didn't mean to sound like I was falling on my sword, but I'm a simple man and tend to logically do what I can to cut my expenses. If that helps make my carbon footprint a little smaller, then so be it. And, hell, I don't have any place to go anyway.
Posted by: shigley | Jun 8, 2008 8:05:51 PM
Bleakhouse sayeth:
> Jay: elections have no effect on the big players behind politicians. Any PM or President or Head of State is soon schooled in the things they can and cannot do (just ask Jimmy Carter.) Forget the election - it is a cheap entertainment product for foreign consumption.
And so sayeth the dinosaurs when they whistled past their boneyards…
Even Exxon’s executives are under massive attacks by their stockholders to diversify to alternatives or else get sacked…
That’s because even Exxon’s reserves are rapidly depleting…which will bankrupt Exxon within 2 decades.
Jimmy Carter is ancient history who was planning too far ahead.
Naturally, dinosaurs would bring up ancient Jimmy Carter, and dinosaurs somehow think they can re-burn easy oil that’s long been used up - i.e., somehow return to the past as if entropy doesn’t increase or something. So good luck with your theories. They’re a lot like senile Reagan’s when he inherited all that new Alaskan oil supply (and an oil glut from the North Sea AND dumping on oil markets to pay for the Iran-Iraq war, etc., etc.)…and cars that had doubled in fuel economy between the early 1970’s and early 1980’s.
No glut is on the horizon now – just increasingly constricted world-wide petroleum supplies that will cripple the world economy.
Elections from now on could be very important – especially at the US federal level. And at shareholders meetings. What’s your alternative ?? More handholding of the Saudi King by another groveling US President ??
Posted by: Jay Dee | Jun 8, 2008 8:35:00 PM
"a ridiculous proposition. do people fill up their gas tanks at night?"
In effect, they do. Either they buy it before going to work, or when coming home. The idea of getting a refill at night, without going anywhere, might be a marketable one even today (would save time, hassle, and maybe even fuel). But it will become the reality with PHEV's.
Posted by: | Jun 8, 2008 8:47:04 PM
@shigley
I understand .... hang in there.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 8, 2008 10:18:22 PM
Yes, there's a great need for a vehicle that can be recharged at home, go 200 miles on a charge, and not cost enormously more than a conventional gasoline car.
Fortunately such vehicles are available today. They run on compressed natural gas, which is already in the neighborhood of half the price of gasoline. You can buy a Honda Civic thats fueled by CNG (mostly aimed at the California market).
It may be easier to go to such cars and switch stationary heating applications to electricity, rather than try to electrify vehicles directly.
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Jun 9, 2008 5:09:16 AM
"Only 3% say that the first thing they did or will do is buy a more fuel-economic car or a hybrid."
Man this is so true and so strange?????
I was talking to my neighbours yestredat: middle class, single child, single dog, present=pickup and SUV
The woman in particular is concerned about high fuel costs and actually uses public transport and avoids trips. *HOWEVER* their next vehicle that is supposed to reduce fuel costs is going to be a van!?!?! Supposedly their family and the future 2nd kid just cannot fit in any car!?!?! Her husband is even worse - the usual big oil ripping us off thing. Total denial.
So while changing habits (driving less, less recreational use, etc.) is a good start, it is beyond my power of comprehension why people must keep driving big vehicles at any cost. I just cannot understand.
People all over europe and asia pack 2x more people into half size cars as north americans and still manage.
So progress yes, but boy is it ever slow?!?!?! Geez.
Posted by: q | Jun 9, 2008 6:48:04 AM
They run on compressed natural gas, which is already in the neighborhood of half the price of gasoline.
Gas is 3.89 here (near San Antonio, TX). I pay about $3/gge for natural gas at my house vs. only $0.50/gge for electricity.
CNG cars are terrific for places like Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia, which export large quanitities of natural gas. But the US is a natural gas importer. If we switched even 25% of our cars to CNG we'd soon be paying the world price for NG, which is 50-75% higher than we currently pay. Converting our entire fleet to electric, however, only adds 20% to our electricity demand and nothing to expensive peak load.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jun 9, 2008 7:57:59 AM
@g
I agree, the power of advertizing is amazing and, in fact, scary. When I see compact and efficient transportation extolled on the tube, I’ll know that the days for this attitude are numbered.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 9, 2008 8:23:19 AM
@Doggy
No matter what fuel source the beast (the world transportation fleet) eventually feeds on, it will be gone in short order evaporating like a drop flashing on a hot manifold and be forever gone. Even our much touted massive reserves of coal can’t prevail against it for long.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 9, 2008 8:47:49 AM
axil:
One nearby small city has already equipped all their customers with with remote controlled electric hot water disconnect/reconnect timers. The consumption peaks were reduced by almost 40% in many areas and night time (lower cost) consumption was increased almost correspondingly. This was not an expensive unit and was mostly paid by the e-power supplier.
Remote controlled heat storage electric heaters could do even more for most houses using electric heat. Those heaters are (currently) much more expensive than regular bass board units but they transfer the load to off peak hours with no loss in confort level.
Posted by: | Jun 9, 2008 11:06:07 AM
"The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas." ~ Linus Pauling
Posted by: Axil | Jun 9, 2008 12:28:01 PM
Jay:
I'm NOT defending the dinosaurs and will celebrate their second extinction (first one of course by climate change and astronomical attack). But to see the purported "elections" as anything more than a pablum of political pontification - is to be supremely ignorant. Now, if the people who scurry about behind election facades can screw up the courage to show themselves - they might become viable again. Until then, they rest with the mouldering bones of the dinosaurs.
Posted by: bleakhouse | Jun 9, 2008 1:58:43 PM
Axil, the wind will blow long enough for my purposes. Gasoline costs 16 cents/mile in the US now, wind costs about a penny and a half.
Can we build enough windmills? The US buys 16 million new cars each year. Last year we installed enough wind to fuel about 5 million of them. At wind's historic 30% growth rate we'll be installing enough to fuel all 16m by about 2013. Now all we have to do is start building the cars.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jun 9, 2008 2:08:57 PM
Jay:
I'm NOT defending the dinosaurs and will celebrate their second extinction (first one of course by climate change and astronomical attack). But to see the purported "elections" as anything more than a pablum of political pontification - is to be supremely ignorant. Now, if the people who scurry about behind election facades can screw up the courage to show themselves - they might become viable again. Until then, they rest with the mouldering bones of the dinosaurs.
Posted by: bleakhouse | Jun 9, 2008 2:10:05 PM
Sayeth the nameless
Who was recently unveiled
As the troll Kit P:
a ridiculous proposition. do people fill up their gas tanks at night?Car is parked at night.
Car must park to charge, you know.
Do them both at once.
What if gasoline
Issued from a garden hose?
Folks would fuel at home.
"quoth" engineer-poet (who is neither)Of all reactions
None is so amusing as
Blatant jealousy.
doggydogworld said:
The US buys 16 million new cars each year. Last year we installed enough wind to fuel about 5 million of them.Out of curiosity, where'd you get that?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 9, 2008 7:51:00 PM
The Bush regime has naturally caused a lot more cynicism about US politics since the Bush regime served only elites like the House of Saud. And together they conspired against the American public interest – in particular about fuel.
But it’s time to break with the past dirty deals, and simply return to scientific methods: TESTING THEN PUBLISHING TEST RESULTS for various alternatives. For example, a recent poster suggested compressed natural gas. Compressed natural gas is already fuelling vehicles around the world. And recent advancements in adsorption of natural gas in graphite (or even mere charcoal) mean the tanks can hold a lot more using a lot less pressure (and so can be oblong instead of cylindrical). The federal government already tests for gasoline and diesel mpg. Similar standard tests should be also be performed for natural gas fuel economy, in order to compare natural gas versus gasoline costs per horsepower-hour or mile.
Standardized testing could also be performed for synthesized fuels, and eventually electric vehicle drives. Although electrical energy costs are relatively low compared to fuel energy, the initial high cost and limited lifespan of batteries today mean that overall costs of electric vehicles (per mile or kWh or horsepower-hour) are still higher than equivalent ICE vehicles. But electric vehicles will quickly get better and cheaper.
Speculative investing in possible practical products shouldn’t normally be the job of the federal government. However, fairness and honesty in the marketplace needs to promoted by the federal government. For example, if you make some fantastic claims about your unconventional vehicle drive system, I think federal labs should be encouraged to test the claims. Such scientific testing will allow our economy to survive a lot of scams that a lot of Americans would otherwise desperately buy into. As oil gets scarcer and increasingly unaffordable, we must publicly test and evaluate alternatives because we really cannot afford another mistake (like subprime loans) during this critical transition to alternative transportation technologies.
Posted by: Jay Dee | Jun 9, 2008 8:24:50 PM
Gas is 3.89 here (near San Antonio, TX). I pay about $3/gge for natural gas at my house vs. only $0.50/gge for electricity.
Larger scale commercial and industrial users pay less, but your point is taken.
If we switched even 25% of our cars to CNG we'd soon be paying the world price for NG, which is 50-75% higher than we currently pay.
GreatPoint Energy claims they can convert coal to methane at an overall cost comparable to new drilling in the US, and cheaper than LNG imports. Their process is simpler than the one used at that existing synthetic natural gas plant in North Dakota (the one left over from the previous energy crisis), and requires neither an air separation plant nor a separate methanation reactor.
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Jun 10, 2008 5:00:57 AM
Engineer-Poet,
A plug-in hybrid gets about 4 miles per wall plug kWh. 12k annual miles is thus 3000 kWh. At 34% duty cycle (typical of new US wind installations), each kW of nameplate capacity produces 3000 kWh/year. So you need roughly one kW of wind to fuel one PHEV. Last year the US installed 5,244,000 kW of wind, enough for 5.244 million PHEVs. That's one-third of the roughly 16 million cars sold.
BTW, at $4/gal the annual fuel cost for a typical 24 mpg car is $2000. How much does that one kW of wind cost? It was recently close to $1000 but has since risen to about $2000. So about the same as gasoline, right? No, no, no, no, no. Gasoline is $2000 EVERY YEAR, wind is $2000 one time only. Pay for fuel the first year then never pay for it again! And since windmills last a lot longer than cars, fuel for your next car will also be free.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jun 10, 2008 7:09:02 AM
It looks like people will be buying big pickup trucks and SUVs less often to tow boats...boat sales at major dealers have had as much as a 400% loss from the first quarter 2007 to first quarter 2008!
Posted by: Patrick | Jun 10, 2008 11:26:26 AM
DDW: You know how good it feels to see someone doing the numbers?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 10, 2008 4:42:44 PM
It feels even better when the numbers work.
Of course numbers are easy, making it happen is hard.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jun 11, 2008 10:18:48 AM
Oerlikon has stated that they will reach $700 per kW on their thinfilm solar modules by 2010.
http://solar-cell-update.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-sub-us1-solar-cell-per-watt-by.html
A garage-roof does provides enough area to deliver significantly more than 1kW - sufficient to power the electric car parked underneath.
http://www.der-solar-carport.de/
Posted by: globi | Jun 11, 2008 10:50:44 AM
The capacity of the planners to beleive that they can PERMANENTLY change human nature, is never exceeded, nor ever discouraged.
Certainly, for a short time, people can be induced to modify their behavior. Tell it to Fidel that the joyous Labor brigades sent to the Sugar fields in the flush of revolutionary fervor of 1958,can't be duplicated. Somehow the draftees conscripted for the slavish druggery, are not too enthusiastic anymore.
Sugar crops have failed for some 45 straight years due to:
a) a continuous string of 45 years of bad weather,
b) the US/CIA is poisoning the fields,
c) counter-revolutionary sabotage,
d) any other stupid excuse that propagandists can dream up.
In the short term people will modify how they live. Then they will go back to "normal". Government forcing up the price via taxes, never produced better, or cleaner cars in Europe, just tinier, and dirtier ones, and more unsafe ones. That is all the Europeans could afford after paying the tax. If you don't believe that EU clean air standards are primitive, simply go there and take a single breath of diesel stink. QED.
Human nature never changes in the long run.
Posted by: | Jun 11, 2008 12:01:44 PM
Sure Switzerland has much higher taxes on gas then the US, but the income taxes are actually double in the US.
Particle filters do work well, especially in conjunction with the lower sulfur content Diesel in Europe.
Posted by: globi | Jun 11, 2008 2:05:44 PM
I rather pay more on gas and less on income taxes, but of course: To each his own.
Posted by: globi | Jun 11, 2008 2:08:10 PM
If European cars are unsafe. Why do more Americans die in traffic accidents than Europeans?
Posted by: globi | Jun 11, 2008 3:02:28 PM
Here is a device everyone should consider, devices that use a little electricity out of your car's battery, to separate water into a gas called HHO (2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO, also called Hydroxy or Hydrogen*Oxygen™, burns beautifully and provides TONS of energy - while the end product is just WATER! Mobile Magazine says HHO provides the atomic power of Hydrogen, while maintaining the chemical stability of water.
DID YOU KNOW: Pound for pound HHO GAS IS 3 TIMES MORE POTENT THAN GASOLINE!!! HHO is a fast growing trend for boosting performance and MPG.
It was 90-year-old suppressed technology,
SIMPLIFIED it,
You can have affordable yet very effective devices, right now.
Easy to install & maintain.
Good for carb/fuel injection, gas/diesel. Old/new cars, light trucks, boats, more.
Find more info on this at http://www.Gas-Upgrade.com
Posted by: ty | Sep 23, 2008 7:57:02 PM
Here is a device everyone should consider, devices that use a little electricity out of your car's battery, to separate water into a gas called HHO (2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO, also called Hydroxy or Hydrogen*Oxygen™, burns beautifully and provides TONS of energy - while the end product is just WATER! Mobile Magazine says HHO provides the atomic power of Hydrogen, while maintaining the chemical stability of water.
DID YOU KNOW: Pound for pound HHO GAS IS 3 TIMES MORE POTENT THAN GASOLINE!!! HHO is a fast growing trend for boosting performance and MPG.
It was 90-year-old suppressed technology,
SIMPLIFIED it,
You can have affordable yet very effective devices, right now.
Easy to install & maintain.
Good for carb/fuel injection, gas/diesel. Old/new cars, light trucks, boats, more.
Find more info on this at http://www.Gas-Upgrade.com
Posted by: ty | Sep 23, 2008 7:57:23 PM
