[dub_scratch]

Replacing 25mpg cars driving 12,000 miles a year with 50mpg cars driving 6,000 miles per year would reduce transport oil consumption by 75% using existing technology - that has to be a smarter idea that switching to coal.

I think you have the right idea with reduced driving. But I don't think that it supports the idea of turning over the fleet. The rate at which people buy new cars is dependent on the rate in-which they drive and ware-out the old ones. We will see a few new 50mpg-ers-- just not that many.

BTW, if we were to reduce driving by 50% the effective fleet MPG will go up pretty substantially.

First of all, the traffic will clear up making a big difference in fuel consumption on cars. My wife's new Audi does about 24 MPG in typical clogged LA traffic. But late-late at night when the traffic is clear, it gets up to 37 MPG (the car has a snazzy MPG gauge that allows me to read it).

Another factor is that the cars that will be driven less, most likely, are the worst gasoline hogs. The existing fleet carries a range of fuel efficiency, from low to high, and it is not at all unreasonable to expect the low ones will be knocked off the roads first.

[tugboat]

You can buy one now

http://www.hymotion.com/products.htm

[TommyJefferson]

But when is detroit anyone gunna make 50-100 mpg vehicles that an average person can buy.

When market demand makes it profitable for them to do so.

Small innovators in the U.S. are already developing such cars.

Unfortunately, a host of federal bureaucracies have been erected to keep those cars off the road using, literally, hundreds of thousands of detailed regulations and specifications.

Only vehicles approved by the State-run U.S. Auto Industry/Monopoly are legal to sell or operate on our roadways.

State-run monopolies are always unresponsive to market demands.

Example: This car gets 78 mpg. Attempt to bring one into the United States and you will be arrested and put in jail.

[rwwff]

You can buy one now
http://www.hymotion.com/products.htm

I'd rather wait until Toyota delivers its own. Besides, my current minivan has another five years of service life to go through before I buy another car.

[emersonbiggins]

Dub_Scratch has brought this up before, but I'll say it again:

With the projected increase in fleet turnover rate to a PHEV or biodiesel paradigm, what to do with all the existing vehicles?

As long as they're drivable, they will be driven - probably in Mexico or the poorest barrios of south L.A. or backwoods Arkansas. They might not be driven as much, for economic reasons obviously, but they will still be adding to the consumption rates that we see today, especially as nice vehicles go for fire sale prices. Even with $10/gal gas, a car is still worth more as a car than as scrap metal.

[clv101]

I think you have the right idea with reduced driving.

In a few weeks time I will reduce my driving from 18,000 miles per year down to <5,000 miles per year. A <70% reduction. I'm doing this by moving within walking distance of work, a mainline train station, sports and shopping centres. I will save around £160 per month in fuel and toll-bridge charges and I will replace a 45 minute drive every morning and evening with a 15 minute walk which is sure to improve my physical and mental health as well as freeing up an hour each day. A win win win win situation.

If more people did this (and many more people can but choose not to) then we could buy ourselves a lot of time with respect to peak oil.

[ClubOfRomeII]

I will replace a 45 minute drive every morning and evening with a 15 minute walk which is sure to improve my physical and mental health as well as freeing up an hour each day. A win win win win situation.

If more people did this (and many more people can but choose not to) then we could buy ourselves a lot of time with respect to peak oil.

But of course. I like my patented "scooter solution" of course, but I have a tough time understanding why the simple concept of USING LESS bothers so many people.

My personal solution has been to live close to work, own multiple vehicles for multiple uses, ranging from a gas hog pickup which I don't use much unless I'm hauling the entire family/motorcycles/camper scheme, to nice little motorcycles which get 60mpg in city commuting.

And I'm waiting for either a Honda diesel to get sold in the US or a pluggable hybrid, with the possibility of a Honda NG powered Civic if the other two don't work out within a year or three.

Changes in behavior change Peak...and better yet, change the consequences of Peak.

[Seraphim]

Personally, I feel a shift in transportation from cars to mopeds on a large scale could off-set the trouble a bit.

A moped can get 3 times the mpg's of most cars/suv's, and sells for 1/15 of the cost. People would loss utility however.

[TommyJefferson]

As long as they're drivable, they will be driven - probably in Mexico or the poorest barrios of south L.A. or backwoods Arkansas.

Our old cars are already headed that direction.

I ride US59 a lot, which connects the midwestern US with Mexico. I consistently see convoys of 5 ~ 7 vehicles, each towing another vehicle headed toward Mexico.

One newer vehicle with Mexican plates leads the convoy. The other vehicles are older, American pieces of crap, usually minivans. Each has a Mexican driving with another vehicle in tow. The vehicles have plates from Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota.

Thousands of these vehicles are streaming south of the border every month because I see these convoys every time I get on that highway, at all hours of the day and night.

[emersonbiggins]

Thousands of these vehicles are streaming south of the border every month because I see these convoys every time I get on that highway, at all hours of the day and night.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I can't drive for more than a 10-20 mile stretch of I-35 without seeing one of these caravans heading to Mexico with 5-10 year old F-150s, Explorers, Voyagers, Tauruses, you name it. I doubt they're headed to the scrap yard, either. Rather, they will be driven by the up-and-coming in interior Mexico, while their former cars will be shipped into Latin America and points further south, most likely. It will not stop until we all have cars (or peak oil economy occurs).

[aflurry]

Doesn't anyone else get put off by all the magical "100mpg!" claims about PHEV's? It's just untrue and blatantly so. They are running off of grid energy, which in most cases comes from a non-renewable source.

Now, I do understand the benefits of diversifying your energy sources in this way, to take advantage of arbitration opportunities between relatively scarce and plentiful resources. Overall PHEV's could contribute to making energy usage more efficient, if not so much in terms of actually saving evergy, more-so in terms of enabling usage of the most appropriate source at any particular time.

However, we shouldn't overlook a huge price that we pay for encouraging this type of energy diversification for the sake personal transportation. In doing this we are easing access to energy for the purpose of encouraging a relatively frivolous and wasteful use of energy. And we are hiding the cost of driving in what we pay for other things.

Even more distasteful, if PHEVs become widespread, one individual's choice to stop driving and modify their behavior to ACTUALLY use less energy, will become more difficult, because at that point they will be subsidizing other people's unsustainable driving habits by paying higher costs for the energy they do use for more essential activities.

There are numerous corrolary disadvantages to encouraging the development of these vehicles as well: the energy cost of building the new fleet and disposing of the old one, the underestimated problems of battery toxicity and disposal, and the general exacerbation of the trend toward backing ourselves into car-dependent living environments. I am also skeptical that PHEVs help environmentally. Sure, they cut down on the exhaust you see day to day, but they just relocate the pollution. Much of this electricity in generated by coal plants for which emissions standards could be less rigid than those for automobiles, or from hydroelectric plants with an entirely different environmental impact.

The bottom line is that personal transportation in individual vehicles is a dead end. These long-lasting problems with the PHEV idea far outweigh the short term and diminishing gains to be found in energy arbitrage.

Sometimes it is more important to protect and isolate a resource rather than efficiently exploit it. Things that are more difficult to obtain retain value. What has happened for the last 150 years with fossil fuels is that they have been waaaay too undervalued.

Furthermore there is something disingenuous about the whole PHEV idea from the ground up, starting with the attempt to sell the idea on this 100mpg claim. People with PHEVs will go prancing around like they are the good guys who are taking action on this whole environment/PO problem, but what is actually happening is that they are forcing everyone else to pay for their driving. Incrementally, off-peak energy prices will rise. Each dollar of increase you experience in your electricity bills will actually be going to fill some PHEV owner's "gas tank."

How is this a wonderful idea?

[denverdave]

PHEV's would make sense if we could ramp up wind power to offset the extra load on the grid, and there is no reason why this couln't happen barring a fast crash. Using coal-fired plants to power PHEV's is pointless though, when it would be much more efficient, economical and simple to turn the coal directly into motor fuel via liquifaqtion.

[TommyJefferson]

You can buy one now
http://www.hymotion.com/products.htm

Cool link, but we cannot actualy purchase these kits at this time. From their faq:

Q1 - When can I get my Toyota Prius and/or Ford Escape Hybrid installed with a Hymotion plug-in kit?

Our PHEV kits are currently available only for government and fleet use. However, we are working to ship PHEV kits for consumer use around October ‘06.

I hope their project availability date holds. I hope the sell so many they can substantially reduce the unit cost down from $9,500.

[TommyJefferson]

I can't drive for more than a 10-20 mile stretch of I-35 without seeing one of these caravans heading to Mexico with 5-10 year old F-150s, Explorers, Voyagers, Tauruses,...

Every time I see one of those caravans I wonder about the economics of such an enterprise.

Considering food, lodging, road repairs, and fuel, I estimate their cost per trip, per person to transport two vehicles at around $600. They are probably getting the cars at auction for an average of about $900 each.

I bet they can put a car in Mexico for $1,200 and sell it for a 100% mark-up.

I'm seeing mostly Ford's too. I remember when Mexicans stereotypically loved Chevy's. Perhaps the large number of new Ford manufacturing plants in Mexico has influenced their preference.

My understanding is that air pollution in Mexican cities is already pretty bad. All those clunkers won't be making it better, at least until world markets make their domestic petroleum too expensive to sell in Toluca.

Yet another benefit of Peak Oil!

[Clouseau2]

The real payoff with PHEV is when V2G (vehicle to grid) becomes widescale, along with an upgrade in grid capacity.

Now suddenly intermittant renewable energy sources become much more viable, since we can draw off the batteries of millions of cars plugged into the grid as the baseline, instead of fossil fuel or nuke power plants.

[emersonbiggins]

Yet another benefit of Peak Oil!

Remember, every PHEV/hybrid sold means that the economic viability of a third-world motoring utopia powered by exported ICEs remains a little longer.

Let's do what we can to kill that "dream" now!

[rwwff]

Remember, every PHEV/hybrid sold means that the economic viability of a third-world motoring utopia powered by exported ICEs remains a little longer.

Let's do what we can to kill that "dream" now!

Nononono. I got a house at just the right elevation, on just the right hill to become an awesome beach house, island getaway; that is if the ice in antarctica will hurry up and melt.

I need those third worlders to indulge to the fullest extent possible.

So shush! Go hyrbids! Save the Planet. Save the Whales. Give rwwff's grandkids their beach house!

[matt21811]

Doesn't anyone else get put off by all the magical "100mpg!" claims about PHEV's? It's just untrue and blatantly so. They are running off of grid energy, which in most cases comes from a non-renewable source.

And in some cases it does.

Now, I do understand the benefits of diversifying your energy sources in this way, to take advantage of arbitration opportunities between relatively scarce and plentiful resources. Overall PHEV's could contribute to making energy usage more efficient, if not so much in terms of actually saving evergy, more-so in terms of enabling usage of the most appropriate source at any particular time.

Spot on.

Even more distasteful, if PHEVs become widespread, one individual's choice to stop driving and modify their behavior to ACTUALLY use less energy, will become more difficult, because at that point they will be subsidizing other people's unsustainable driving habits by paying higher costs for the energy they do use for more essential activities.

I dont buy this. My view is that by creating the arbitrage opportunity PHEV's will drag the price of electricity up to that of oil and not the other way around. If the price goes up, saving energy becomes easier not more difficult.

There are numerous corrolary disadvantages to encouraging the development of these vehicles as well: the energy cost of building the new fleet and disposing of the old one,

This happens anyway. People scrap (recycle) old cars and buy new ones all the time. I seriously doubt that the new car market will have any significant change in volumes due to the introduction of PHEV's.

...the underestimated problems of battery toxicity and disposal, and the general exacerbation of the trend toward backing ourselves into car-dependent living environments.

Most battery types can be recycled. I suspect, givien the large volume of batteries in just one car, that a bounty will be offered for dead batteries for their metal value.

I am also skeptical that PHEVs help environmentally. Sure, they cut down on the exhaust you see day to day, but they just relocate the pollution. Much of this electricity in generated by coal plants for which emissions standards could be less rigid than those for automobiles, or from hydroelectric plants with an entirely different environmental impact.

Given that most Hybrids have regenerative braking means that they use less enegy than normal vehicles.
The energy efficiency of coal fired power plants is much better than that of ICE's.
More efficiency means less CO2. They are deffinately better for the environment.

Sometimes it is more important to protect and isolate a resource rather than efficiently exploit it. Things that are more difficult to obtain retain value. What has happened for the last 150 years with fossil fuels is that they have been waaaay too undervalued.

The market said otherwise.

Furthermore there is something disingenuous about the whole PHEV idea from the ground up, starting with the attempt to sell the idea on this 100mpg claim. People with PHEVs will go prancing around like they are the good guys who are taking action on this whole environment/PO problem, but what is actually happening is that they are forcing everyone else to pay for their driving. Incrementally, off-peak energy prices will rise. Each dollar of increase you experience in your electricity bills will actually be going to fill some PHEV owner's "gas tank."

How is this a wonderful idea?

I would have thought that an increase in electricity prices would reduce usage, which is what I thought you are arguing toward.
Of course using less oil will just lower its price encouraging more use.


All this talk of efficiency is lind of pointless though. Once you realise that people are just going to use fossil energy till it all runs out you discover that nothing you do will change the effect on the environment.

The only way to reduce pollution is by government restriction. Unfortunately, the worst polluter isnt interested in doing this.

[dagod1]

Gas is starting to get expensinve. I notice gas is the lowest in jan and feb, this is when I fill up for the summer mowing season. I buy 15 gallons, and this will mow the yard for the summer.
Summer at 1.99 x 15 is 29.85 3.00 x 15 is 45, so I save 15 bucks, not much but it helps.

Also I started car pooling with my buddy to work every single day.
I pay him 15 per week verses paying 53 to 55 in gas and he drives his car I don't use mine , I then put the jeep in the garage for storage and we use my wifes high mpg car for now and take the jeep out i the winter.

Gas savings over nine months(teacher) $1368
Insurance on the car savings. $35 per month is $315 in 9 months.
not to mention the waer and tear on the car. and repairs.
Total savings in 9 months $1683 at least.


I also went and looked at the pontiac vibe stick shift gets 34-37 mpg manual.
Rob

[aflurry]

I dont buy this. My view is that by creating the arbitrage opportunity PHEV's will drag the price of electricity up to that of oil and not the other way around. If the price goes up, saving energy becomes easier not more difficult.

why is this your view?
it will work in both directions to fill in the gap. liquid fuels will be driven lower, allowing more irresponsible driving habits in those that haven't switched to PHEV's. (bad) and electricity fuel prices will be driven higher, increasing ther burden on more essential services. (bad) the net effect considering both sides is a subsidy on driving.

This happens anyway. People scrap (recycle) old cars and buy new ones all the time. I seriously doubt that the new car market will have any significant change in volumes due to the introduction of PHEV's.

ok, i'll accept that.

Most battery types can be recycled. I suspect, givien the large volume of batteries in just one car, that a bounty will be offered for dead batteries for their metal value.

computer parts have material value as well. extraction if those precious metals is exported to developing nations with lax controls, creating a corrupt, toxic recyclinging industry.... yeah sure, the market may get the job done, but not in the sunshiney way it promises.

More efficiency means less CO2.

?
the two are completely unrelated.
the makeup oif the materials being burned primarily determines the CO2 output. more carbon - more CO2. Coal is more than 90% carbon. it is inherently CO2 intensive.
it also releases alot of particulate matter: responsible for the famous london fog. dark particulate matter resting on top of snow and ice, absorbs light energy and has a huge impact on melt rates, probably moreso than air temperature rises from the gases themselves... as the mass of the warm air cpntacting the ice is still small.

Sometimes it is more important to protect and isolate a resource rather than efficiently exploit it. Things that are more difficult to obtain retain value. What has happened for the last 150 years with fossil fuels is that they have been waaaay too undervalued.

The market said otherwise.

the market is like the Wizard of Oz. What it says is not the word of God, just the words fed to it by policy-makers.
It is an empty vessel that reflects the actions of men. That's all.

I would have thought that an increase in electricity prices would reduce usage, which is what I thought you are arguing toward.
Of course using less oil will just lower its price encouraging more use.

i am arguing against the blind will to efficiency. this kind of arbitrage will have a net effect of growth. when a resource is facing scarecity, and when all uses are not equal in value, inefficiencies that encourage the more constructive uses are desirable.

PHEVs encourage less productive uses. That's all i am really arguing. And so, I don't consider them all that valuable. Especially when misleading claims are thrown around with the sole effect of convincing that we can still continue with business as usual.

We are all concerned about how we are going to continue to jet around the open prarie, when we should be concerned about how we are going to reshape this sprawling car culture, open up some farmland, and create workable communitees. in this at least, Kunstler is right on...

this is the wrong problem to tackle, and every day we focus on jerry-rigging transportation, is one there the real problems get worse.