Foreign oil and the Prius

op2:

 

Did you read it? It also says trading all consumer cars to prii will not give you the gains you are talking about.

 

So 'significant progress' is the same as 'fixes the problem'?

Is that another case in which it depends on what the definition of 'is' is? Slick.

 

Well it says the following which is the gain I'm talking about. Keep in mind that "Vehicle Miles Traveled" and "Vehicle Fuel Per Mile" are equivalents. If I travel 50 miles per day via electric mode that would equate to 0 miles traveled for the purposes of oil used.

US eliminating oil imports in 18 years would be miracle of good government regulation, as the report out lines.

The report finds that the United States must achieve significant improvements in vehicle technology and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita (compared to business as usual projections for 2050, which anticipate a 40 percent increase in VMT per capita over 2010 levels) to meet these targets. With improvements to vehicle technology and reductions in per capita VMT, the United States would not need to import any oil by 2030.

 

I'm going with ~10% of target GHG reductions -- lower than my initial estimate of 12.5%, but both are close enough to show your error in thinking that substituting Prius throughout the passenger fleet solves, or comes close to solving, the GHG problem.

I am not arguing the merits of Prius, or its utility in decreasing oil imports. I have already said as much.

I am telling you that the GHG emissions target are way beyond what Prius can solve. I think this is the fifth time I am posting this information, so at this point you will either grasp the obvious, or not.

 

You don't fix problems without making significant progress.

 

Actually VMT times VGPM (average gallons per mile) = gallons of fuel. The piece said if VMT stayed at business as usual then it would increase by 40%, if we doubled mpg then 140%/2 = 70%. If every vehicle, simply doubled its mpg but we continue on the same path, then transporation oil use will only drop 30%. People need to travel fewer vehical miles to reduce it more as I said, better public transportation and fewer individual trips. That would require not just cars but trucks, trains, and busses also double the mpg.

That would indeed be great, unfortunately the DOE has always been optimistic here on how fast consumption will go down.

 

And higher than your third "estimate" of 7.5%. The ever popular "just right" Goldilocks solution.

Which Prius? The one that gets 41 mpg or the one that gets 112 mpg?

Which emissions target? The target that cuts US oil use by 50%, eliminating oil imports, cutting green house emissions by 20% by 2030 or the target of 80% green house gas emissions reduction by 2050?

 

Well the study quoted says elimination of US oil imports, 50% of current oil usage, by 2030.

Your mileage will vary, significant progress either measure, a back of the napkin 30% or by a detailed study 50%.

Keep moving forward.

 

I hate in interject in another perfectly pointless attempt to convince anyone dedicated to resisting reasoning but here's a news flash ... relating back to the OP of all things. Foreign oil. It's not foreign. Oil is an international comodity. We pump around the world ... and we transport around the world. If one county pumps more or less quantity, the other countries simply have to try to pump more. That's why the U.S. exports oil, all the while importing 1/2 our requirements. It's just a matter of logistics. You can call it 'foreign' oil ... but all oil is foreign in a manner of speaking, because it's a world supply now. I think it was PC member 'ewhaney' (the oil industry specialist) who pointed out that oil deposits are similar to an ice filled margarita. First, you can suck on the straw and get lots of quantity. Then, you get more ice than margarita ... so you gotta suck on the straw slower in order to get margarita. Many of our old wells are in that 'wearing-out' state now ... where you can no longer draw down and get the good quantity that you used to get. We try to grow the economy ... which requires MORE energy ... not just sustaining the existing energy. Old wells continue to go off line. You need more new field discoveries just to keep up for the old fields going off line. Yet the rate of new field discoveries has NOT compensated for either a growing economy, much less to grow the economy. New field discovery has diminished, since the 1960's. So ... I guess I'm just saying ... the prius is not going to permit us to continue on and on and on. Yet ... we have the lion's share of folks still convinced they must have a Ford 150 or a Silverado. Change ... it aint easy.

.

 

US does not export oil.

US is a NET OIL importer to the tune of 8 million barrels a day.

 

Look up the word NET.

 

Well there's the "Combat Radio" version where US floats on secret oil tank hidden from the public by a Commie conspiracy to cause our precious bodily fluids to lose their essence and where US is a secret net "oil exporter".

And then there's real world version of US Dept of Energy, OECD, OPEC, oil trade deficits, oil wars and harsh reality where US is an actual net oil importer.

Take your pick.

US Department of Energy
U.S. Net Imports by Country
All Countries 2011 8,436,000 barrels a day.

 

A lot of people think that to be able to get 40 mpg or better, one has to buy a hybrid. However, with the fuel efficiency arms race among car makers, there are bevy automobiles that get 40 mpg without hybrid technology. Article source: Plenty of 40 mpg capable cars use no hybrid technology

 

Sigh.... As I posted at My Nissan Leaf Forum • View topic - The Economist: Electric cars Difference Engine: Tailpipe tru.

You just trying to drive traffic to your site or something? The post you made at MNL was your first and only post so far.

 

Only hybrids and electrics rated at 40 mpg combined.

Only the Passat Diesel manual 6 spd makes it to 35 mpg.

Fuel Economy

 

He's not going to get it I fear. Here's a graph from Exxon of when new U.S. oil field discovery peaked, as well as world wide, as well as all other energy companies (1960's):


Every once in a while, a promising new field is discovered still. Very deep in the water, or in VERY harsh climate areas. People don't understand that one, two ... even a hundred new fields does not reverse a half decade trend. Never mind oil discovery/depletion ... all the gas well fracking ... all the coal digging in the world (and its use) can not enable exponential world wide economic/production/growth like we had from 1912 to 2012.

Then there's the whole dismissive thing with that fact that we import 1/2 of our fuel (and then sell a smaller portion to the far east ... because it makes logistic sense). That's some serious burying the head in the sand. One has to (with little evidence) convincingly believe there's a conspiracy going on. Simple economics teaches us that if you COULD sell more oil (now that it's appx $100/barrel) you'd sell it as fast as you could. But we don't because we can't. World wide production hasn't increased for several years. Yet still, that patterns get ignored. Fascinating.

.

 

We also export most of our oil because of its high sulfer content. Our crude is "sour", while the crude from places like the middle east is "sweet".

 

Nope. US exports very little crude oil. Only 2% of US oil exports are crude oil.

Regarding high sulfur (over 15 ppm) oil products, they represent only 8% of US oil products exports.

US doesn't export oil in any real sense. We are net oil importer of 8 million barrels a day. We do export some products created from oil which is a bit different.

 

Actually about 18% of what we produce is exported.

According to the CIA World Factbook, we produce 9,056,000 bbl of oil per day, which is #3 in the world behind #1 Russia and #2 Saudi Arabia.

We export 1,704,000 bbl per day. We import 11,310,000 bbl per day.