Japanese Gasoline Sales in FY05 Drop for 1st Time in 21 Years
21 April 2006
The Nihon Keizai Shimbun reports that gasoline sales in Japan in fiscal year 2005 dropped for the first time in 21 years on factors such as surging prices and more fuel-efficient cars. Gasoline sales had previously fallen just twice since 1950: in 1974, during the first global oil crisis, and then in 1984, when record heat curtailed leisure travel.
The retail price of regular gasoline in March came to ¥131 (US$1.12) per liter (US$4.24 per gallon), up ¥14 (US$0.12) over the previous year. Gas stations reportedly are experiencing a decline in customers who fully fill their tanks.
Oil wholesalers are reporting lower sales, with leader Nippon Oil Corp. seeing a decline of 220,000 kl, or 1.5%, marking the first dip since fiscal 1999. Cosmo Oil Co. suffered its first decline in seven years, while Japan Energy Corp. saw its second in a row.
Overall gasoline sales in the sector, including Idemitsu Kosan Co. and Showa Shell Sekiyu KK, likely fell tens of thousands of kiloliters to slightly less than 61.4 million kiloliters, based on inventories at the end of fiscal 2005.
The US last saw its overall consumption of gasoline drop on a year-to-year basis in 1991, according to figures from the Energy Information Administration.
Average daily consumption of gasoline in 1991 was 7.188 million barrels per day, down from 1990’s figure of 7.235 million barrels per day. In 1991, the average price of gasoline was $1.20 per gallon ($1.76 in 2006 dollars).
In 2004, according to the same set of figures, the US was consuming 9.063 million barrels of gasoline per day—an increase of 25% since 1991, accompanied by a 16% increase in the average retail price to $1.92 (in 2004 dollars).
What percentage of cars are even hybrids over there?
Posted by: Russ | 21 April 2006 at 09:55 PM
just like the US, very few
because hybrids are a gimmick. they don't reduce lifetime energy consumption, they don't reduce cost to the customer. so, naturally, they are only bought in large numbers by populations concerned with image.
if you want to really reduce enviormental impact, there are a few easy things to do:
1.don't use paint. most of the toxic emissions from a car are created during the painting process
2.buy small. taxes linked to engine displacement like those in place in japan and china make sense and work.
3.buy light. the only reason to buy a heavy car is so that, in case of accident, you'll be the heavier one. this is a bit selfish and has led to a situation where everyone has to drive 2 tons of dead weight around just to get to-from work. this is idiotic. if we all drove smaller cars, we would all be much safer. small cars are only unsafe in the US because there are so many big cars
then, of course, there are all of the other technologies that are discussed here. but, what it comes down to is that no technology is going to be efficient if it is used to lug a two ton brick 150 miles every day at 85 mph. it just won't happen. it doesn't make sense.
japan, unlike the US, doesn't mind using taxes to encourage people to make decisions best for society, so there are large numbers of cars with 660 cc or less engines. these cars are about the size of a mini, but actually have a back seat and some of them, like the daihatsu copen, look nice and are reasonably quick. check out daihatsu's website, their cars are hot. they make sense in countries with reasonable mixes of cars. in the US, your neighbor would accidentally park on top of your car
Posted by: shaun | 22 April 2006 at 03:44 AM
It costs $1489 to fuel Camry (non-hybrid) for 15,000mi.
The Camry MSRP is $18,445
It costs $759 to fuel a Prius for 15,000mi. Prius MSRP $21,725
67,397mi later your at the break-even point, and that doesn't even include tax incentives. Take your "it doesn't make financial sense" BS and shove it.
Posted by: LochDhu | 22 April 2006 at 05:17 AM
The cost of hybrid components are coming down. I average 48 mpg in my Prius. The current tax incentives, state (Colorado) and federal, more than make up the difference. I could do better but my wife is constantly stopping on the side of the road to let cars pass. It is not a gimmick. Repeat, It is not a gimmick.
I will agree, however, that we should reward people for buying fuel efficient cars, regardless of whether or not they are hybrids. Let the most fuel efficient car win.
Posted by: t | 22 April 2006 at 07:31 AM
www.toyota.com
The hybrid does get better mpg and has the cool factor of "look at me I'm green" but it may or may not save you $.
It will depend on driving style, insurance rates, taxes, gas prices, intrest rates etc.
Take a look at the edmunds true cost to own calulations to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
They rate the cost to own a neon as $.36 per mile vs $.43 per mile for a prius.
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/dodge/neon/100454730/cto.html
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/toyota/prius/100454051/cto.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/gm_announces_fi.html#comments
In some cases it may be cheaper to by a low cost gas modle rather than a hybrid, or the non-hybrid version of the same car and put $ saved in the bank earing intrest.
Let us compair a camry hybrid to a camry non-hybrid.
camry le msrp $18,270 cd .28 weight 3308 lbs 24/33 city hw auto trans
camary hybrid msrp $25,900 cd .27 weight 3680 lbs 40/38 auto trans (no manual avaiable)
expected life of battery pack 150,000 mi.
Both are heavier than a jeep cherokee, these are not light weight cars.
$7630 more msrp for the hybrid.
assumptions
$3 gal of gasoline
10,000 mi city driving per yr
5,000 mi highway per yr
5% intrest earned on $ in bank
non hybrid gas costs
$1250 city
$455 hy
$1705 total
hybrid gas costs
$750 city
$395 hy
$1145 total
differnce in gas cost per yr
$560 more for non hybrid
or about $47 per month
So let us say we have $25900 but we buy the non-hybrid camary and put the other $7630 in the bank earning intrest at %5 compounded monthly, and we take $47 out each month to offset the extra gas we have to buy for our non-hybrid model.
After 5 yrs we will still have $6595 in the bank.
After 10 yrs when it would be time to replace the expensive battery pack in the hybrid $5268 in the bank.
Even if you stick the $ under your bed earning no intrest you would still have $2030 left after 10 yrs.
Projecting that far out gets less acurate with so many things that can change.
This does not account for rising gas prices, different driving styles, insurance costs, maintenance costs, tax credits, changing intrest rates, msrp vs retail, inflation, etc etc.
A change in any of the above could tilt the balance more in favor of either car, depending on what happens.
The "does it make financial sense?" question is legitimate one, and not an easy one to answer because so many factors go into it not just the mpg.
Posted by: rj | 22 April 2006 at 08:34 AM
I see the quote from rj:
"expected life of battery pack 150,000 mi"
and I wonder what is the reference for your number is? My local dealer says told me that he has never replaced or repaired a battery pack, except in the first 5000 miles (while under warranty). The US Dept. of Energy gave up testing Toyota hybrid batteries after 160,000 miles because they were unable to measure any degradation.
Also, while rj's statement "does it make financial sense?" is indeed a legitmate question for hybrids, it is not the only legitmate question. Others include:
Does the hybrid it reduce the marginal import of oil into the U.S. created by the owner's driving?
or
Does the hybrid reduce the marginal increase in money supplied to governments hostile to USA due to the owner's driving?
or
Does the hybrid reduce the marginal increase in NOx, SOx, CO, HC, and particulate emissions created by owner's driving?
or
Does the hybrid reduce the marginal increase in spectual absorption of the earth's atmosphere created by the owner's driving?
So, while economics should always play an important factor in life's choices, there are other important factors that have value. I certain didn't chose to marry, have children, buy a home, go on a nice vacation, etc., based solely on economics. Why should my decision to buy a more efficient car be based solely on economics?
Posted by: prius-in-WV | 22 April 2006 at 09:32 AM
prius-in-WV:....what you're saying does not sound very American but you are pointing out where the race to the all mighty dollar, and the bigger than my neighbour, has taking us. Sweeden and Japan have managed to reduce oil consumption while maintaining a very high standard of living. USA and Canada, with appropriate individual ajustments, could eventually do as well but the changes needed are enormous and may require much more than one generation, specially if gas stays relatively cheap.
Gas at $7 to $10 a gallon may be needed to convince most of us to drive smaller, lighter more efficient vehicles. Will it come via higher Oil prices, higher taxes or a combination of both? Much higher taxes would be better for USA (the money would stay home but it won't happen with elections coming). Much higher Oil prices would be better for Canada and other oil exporting countries (it will happen very soon with $100+/barrel within 1 or 2 years).
Other direct and indirect incentives would help to accellerate the transition and may have better 'vote appeal' but would have to be financed with new 'unpopular' fuel taxes or deeper budgetary deficits. It is not an easy decision to take in an election year.
Posted by: Harvey D. | 22 April 2006 at 10:20 AM
Battery life is much more time dependent than mileage dependent. It will be roughly another 5 years before we can reliably say anything abought hybrid battery life. Battery life can be extended by not fully charging or discharging it which I believe is hybrid car strategy.
Posted by: tom deplume | 22 April 2006 at 11:03 AM
Btw, I don't think the Le was the right comparison, especially because the price for the automatic was quoted wrong (too low). The price differential for comparable features is probably closer to $5,000. The hybrid has more features than the le, and is closer to the higher priced models.
In any event, why pick the Camry. If the Honda had been picked, the price differential would have been much smaller. If one is going to make a point, it would be preferable to be more accurate in one's comparisons.
And as I said earlier, the price of the hybrid components are coming down with ligher and smaller batteries in the future.
Posted by: t | 22 April 2006 at 11:12 AM
http://www.toyota.com/images/vehicles/2007/camry/specs.pdf?s_van=GM_TN_CAMRY_SPECS
The 150,000 mi expected life span comes from Toyota not from me.
"4. Hybrid vehicle battery expected life is 150,000 miles based on laboratory bench testing."
There are many reasons to reduce oil consumption or drive a vehicle with good fuel efficiency and good fuel economy (not the same thing) and low emissions.
The impact of ones choices on the environment or oil imports is not felt in the same way that a lower operating cost or a lower price at the pump is felt.
This is why people can drive a vehicle that gets better mpg and see a lower price at the pump and think they are saving money when they may or may not be.
This is also why no one thinks that they are part of the problem. There is no direct and immediate cash reward for reducing pollution.
This is partly why it is so hard to get people to change unless there is a tangible measurable monetary reason for doing so. Why do you think the tax credits for hybrids exist? People are reluctant to spend more on the initial purchase price on a technology that they are not accustomed to if there is not a $ incentive to offset the real or perceived risk.
The hybrid uses 187 less gallons of gas per yr under the assumptions above.
I could save as much or more by biking to work, then the cost is the price of the bike, minus gas savings + the cost of my time as biking takes longer.
I'd love to bike more often but it is not always practical to do so.
Quotes from above.
"Why should my decision to buy a more efficient car be based solely on economics?"
I did not say you should.
The $ evaluation was in response to
"Take your "it doesn't make financial sense" BS and shove it."
We could however build a steam powered car that runs on BS.
If you can't afford the cleaner car it does not matter how much better it is.
If it does not fit your needs it does not matter how clean it is. 6 adults can't fit in a Honda insite.
6 people riding in a 22 mpg van still takes less gas than if they paired up and drove hybrids.
"..there are other important factors that have value"
Not every one has the same needs and priorities.
"I will agree, however, that we should reward people for buying fuel efficient cars, regardless of whether or not they are hybrids. Let the most fuel efficient car win."
"The cost of hybrid components are coming down. "
Good
Some folks are asking good questions, keep asking, never be content
Posted by: rj | 22 April 2006 at 11:43 AM
Harvey D. - Un-American? Looking for a flame war? B-) I hope not.
Since when is it un-American do everything practical to preserve clean air? Please recall that the current Clean Air Act was signed by President Bush the 41st.
Since when is it un-American to not want to send money to those who - to say the least - don't like America very much? For example, Americans buy over one and a half million barrels of oil a day from Saudia Arabia... at current prices that is more than $100 million a day. And, now... for our civics lesson of the millennia, where, Harvey D, did most of the 9-11 hijackers call home? The list of countries who don't like us very much doesn't correlate exactly with the list of countries we buy oil from, but, there are, in my mind, a suprising number of countries on both lists.
Clean air is a personal thing to me and my neighbors. The first time (when I was nine years old) I visited the city I now live in; I threw up because of the stink. People in this city endured decades of filthy, stinking air, that thanks to government action and industry response, is gone. Today I can breathe deeply the clean mountain air that sits over my city, because our universities, our industries and our regulators have worked hard for 40+ years to clean the air. Driving a Prius that is 90% cleaner than a "normal" car is one way to improve the trend that the air my family inhales continues to get cleaner. (And I admit that there aren't enough ultra low pollution cars to clean up the air over our cities - yet. Please recall that every journey starts with a single step, and that every step in the right direction takes us closer to the goal - in this case, clean air for every American to breath.)
Regarding the price of oil, Harvey D, you may be right about the timing. You may not. I've learned most folks' crystal balls (especially mine) are pretty cloudy. Matthew Simmons talks about only being able to see "peak oil" in his rearview mirror. I suspect $100+/bbl oil will be a similar thing. So far we've experienced a somewhat gradual price change, with no significant supply disruptions. For the sake of all Americans, I hope that oil supply and pricing trends remain somewhat gradual.
Now, climbing down from my soapbox, I'd like to mention battery life one more time. I remain optimistic that the NIMH battery in my Prius will outlast both the warranty and the life of the car. The Prius has been for sale in the US since the late 90's. Most likely, if there was a significant issue with battery life with those early cars, there would be lots of folks willing to let us all know about the problems.
Posted by: prius-in-WV | 22 April 2006 at 04:36 PM
Its good to buy a 660 cc vehicle, but i guess that its available only in Japan and so here in USA, it makes sense to buy a Prius, Civic-hybrid, Escape-hybrid, all these are vehicles with V4 engines meant for maximum fuel efficiency.
Yes, they do get the Return on Investment, after all gas prices have crossed $3.0 in many places before even the start of summer.
Recently Escape & Mariner hybrids are selling well.
Saturn Vue hybrid will cost just $ 2,000 more than the regular one and hope they offer a good competition to Prius, Civic.
BTW, big suv's sales are crashing and hopefully it will reduce the US consumption of gasolene as well.
Posted by: Max Reid | 22 April 2006 at 07:56 PM
prius-in-WV:... I'm with you...not against what you were saying but it will not be easy to change acquired habits. The majority of us are guided (mainly) by our pocketbook and our love for huge vehicles. If coal is cheaper than Hydrogen or Electricity, we will use coal. If imported Oil is cheaper we will use more of it regarless of the national trade deficit or pollution created. Somebody else will solve those problems for us. That's how we (the majority) are. With time, we may change but a little incentive (something like a $6+/gal gas/fuel) would help to convert some of us sooner.
PS: Canada is now No.1 supplier of Oil (almost 2 million/barrel/day) and Natural Gas to USA.
Posted by: Harvey D. | 22 April 2006 at 08:27 PM
hybrids are a gimmick because it helps people think they are going in the right direction. that they are doing something useful or important.
i believe there are environmental and political problems associated with oil. i think most of the readers here believe this.
i believe adding trees, reducing industrialization, reducing work-related stress, eliminating childish competition with neighbors, increasing equity between people around the world and focusing more on individual and community development are all good things
currently, most of us believe that our image, what we consume, and where we eat have something to do with who we are. for many of us, environmentalism is just another image and the prius is an excellent accessory. within this context, the prius makes sense, just as young men drive trucks, mothers drive minivans, and bussinessmen drive BMWs
but this context is bankrupt. what we buy means very little. who we are matters. what we do matters. what we think matters.
Posted by: shaun | 22 April 2006 at 11:34 PM
If Americans are interested mostly in their image, and that induces them to buy a hybrid, then go for it. Personally, I bought a hybrid because I felt it was the right thing to do. If I can influence a few others, regardless of the reason, then that's better than nothing.
Posted by: t | 23 April 2006 at 07:53 AM
i goofed the le with an auto is 20,500
the manual ce is 18,270 but is rated at 34 hy rather than 33.
hybrids have their merits
Let us examine them in a rational and logical manner.
"environmentalism is just another image and the prius is an excellent accessory. within this context, the prius makes sense, just as young men drive trucks, mothers drive minivans, and bussinessmen drive BMWs"
well put.
People need to realize that they are not their cars.
People will take you more seriously if you admit when you are wrong and invite others to investigate your claims.
You ask the question "do hybrids really save you $ ?" and people take it as a personal attack ...
then they start personal attacks on others
saying that if you drive an suv you must have a small ---- well you get the idea
my car puts out less co2 per mile than yours, dad can beat up your dad....
I think it is funny but it really gets in the way of people learning if you cant ask a question or make a statement without being called anti american or a hippy or be accused of destrying the environment ...
http://www.motorage.com/motorage/data/articlestandard/motorage/102005/149552/article.pdf
http://www.automotivedesignline.com/blogs/archive/index.jhtml;jsessionid=KLF50GX54FEXCQSNDBCSKHSCJUMEKJVN?start=5&howMany=4
Posted by: rj | 23 April 2006 at 12:39 PM
Camry LE to Camry Hybrid is an apples to oranges comparison. The closest feature-for-feature match to the Camry Hybrid is the XLE-4 with auto trans. After you subtract out features unique to the XLE-4 (sunroof, power passenger seat, etc.) and adjust for features unique to the Camry Hybrid (stability control, smart key, extra power, etc.) and allow for the Hybrid's faster acceleration but smaller trunk, you come up with a price difference of about $1500. You recover this cost in a little over 50k miles using EPA estimates and $3/gallon. It takes few more miles if you use 'real world' MPG estimates and $2.50/gallon.
Of course this is based on list price. In reality the Hybrid will be sold at full list or higher while the XLE-4 will probably need to be discounted. I also ignore the tax rebate -- Toyota sells more hybrids than the rebate covers so your ability to qualify with a Camry is iffy.
Posted by: chris | 24 April 2006 at 10:57 AM
I can't read the original article, but I'm wondering if they mentioned the elephant in the room. Japan's population is expected to peak this year. The number of new drivers has steadily declined for the past ten years.
I'd expect Japan's gas usage to decline if everything else held steady, let alone extra hybrids or minicars.
Posted by: David | 25 April 2006 at 06:50 AM
Shaun, I agree with most of your ideas. Hybrid is only one of the steps in the right direction, not the whole journey. But, hybrid is the important step. Toyota's HSD hybrid eventually will cost about equal to a comparable non-hybrid model, once development cost will be recoup, demands for hybrids will be satisfied with a flood of models, and hybrid components price will go down due to competition. Toyota could have reduce the price of the Camry hybrid a lot more if they had chosen to use the Prius' drive train and the 1.5 liter engine, instead of using a much larger engine and everything else, for the sake of raising acceleration power so they can price it a lot higher. Even with all the super duper power in the Camry hybrid, someone just posted here that the real price differential between a Camry hybrid and a comparably loaded Camry is only $1500.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 01 May 2006 at 10:24 PM