Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I pointed out people in California use a lot more AC. Neither explains Wyoming's 5 times greater per capita energy consumption.
Heating costs 4-5 times as much as AC does, though. Californians in general use less AC than one would think. In the largest metros AC is not very popular. (nobody has AC in SF, San Jose, LA, etc) It's mostly popular in places like Fresno and Sacramento. People in Wyoming likely use AC more than Californians do.
PS. Exploiting our own natural resources won't solve the issue that we are introducing carbon and methane into the atmosphere faster than at any point in our planets history. It won't solve the fact that large shifts in the earth's atmosphere have lead to environmental devastation that wipes out many of the living species.
Nobody ever takes into consideration the number of people that the "fuel refinement" industry employs. These people are going to be added to the ever-growing roster of the unemployed. Not to mention the lack of revenue that a drastic reduction in fuel sales will cause, further increasing the national deficit.
Since the cost to the consumer for these "fuel efficient" vehicles is considerable, how far down the line is the "break even" point for people? Are we going to be forced to purchase vehicles that are so over priced that we end up paying MORE for them than we do for the fuel to operate regular vehicles?
Instead of doing this, America needs to fully exploit their own fossil fuel stores and reduce reliance on foreign imports. This would grow the economy and give a significant boost to employment in this country.
We shouldn't prop up an industry just to keep people employed if the market says otherwise. Plus, it's not like the industry is going to disappear overnight anyway -- it will shrink gradually and is not going to completely go away; there will always be some people employed in it. And of course, new jobs and businesses will be created as a result of new infrastructure and technologies.
Fuel-efficient vehicles will go down in cost over time as well as manufacturing economies of scale kick in. Manufacturers want to sell cars and won't be able to do it if they set the prices too high.
As far as reducing oil imports goes, we've already been doing that; it's been dropping for nearly a decade now and will continue to do so. This is due to both decreased demand and increased domestic production, especially in North Dakota but in a few other states as well.
I thought this was very interesting. A bunch of people I've shared this with find the number "amazing". But doesn't this simply display that cutting our consumption is far easier than often portrayed?
Why should we want to cut gasoline consumption?
Everyone goes around say we need to cut back, but why?
Carbon emissions in the U.S. are now back to 1992 levels, so the environment is not a factor. For every ton of emissions the U.S. cuts back, China and India increase a ton. In fact, they are opening an average of one coal fired power plant per day!
We should knock ourselves out for them?
Nah. Those who need to cut back should do so. Everyone else is fine.
PS. Exploiting our own natural resources won't solve the issue that we are introducing carbon and methane into the atmosphere faster than at any point in our planets history. It won't solve the fact that large shifts in the earth's atmosphere have lead to environmental devastation that wipes out many of the living species.
Methane and carbon are elements that have existed since the formation of this planet, no one has any idea what existed on this planet before about 6,000 years ago (pre-history), so your assertion does not hold water. If there have been "large shifts" in the earth's atomosphere that have lead to environmental devastation, as you say, it is a natural phenomenon (much like the creation and subsequent melting of the ice age theory). Again there is no hard EMPERICAL evidence that anything that humanity is doing is having any significant, long term affect on anything. That is simply propaganda that has beens spewed for so long by the media, that there are people, such as yourself who actually believe it.
Why should we want to cut gasoline consumption?
Everyone goes around say we need to cut back, but why?
Carbon emissions in the U.S. are now back to 1992 levels, so the environment is not a factor. For every ton of emissions the U.S. cuts back, China and India increase a ton. In fact, they are opening an average of one coal fired power plant per day!
We should knock ourselves out for them?
Nah. Those who need to cut back should do so. Everyone else is fine.
It's ironic that the third-world countries are developing and the United States, is becoming a third-world country. Does anyone else see the irony in that?
According to sources like the EPA , the country could use 1 billion gallons a year less by making sure vehicle tires are inflated properly. That could happen overnight and is far easier than say, spending tens of thousands on EVs, yet that seems to be difficult to accomplish.
1 billion by tomorrow or 1 billion by 2020. Many people can't use less gasoline or other fuel, they need to go to work, shop for food and so on.
If we really want to lower fuel consumption, the answer isn't EVs, that just shunts the fuel use to some other part of the use chain, the fuels are still used. The solar power so often claimed to be "the" solution isn't happening by 2020 or by the time horizon doomsday for environmental collapse is claimed to be irreversible. We are decades away from that making up enough supply to meet the demands of even a significant portion of EV if everyone had them.
The solution to lower fuel use is making it possible to use less fuel by reducing the distances need to travel to accomplish what everyone needs to accomplish, not by changing the way you get there.
You only have to look at new delivery systems being proposed and actually worked on by the likes of Google and Amazon to see that the real genius isn't Musk and EVs, it is behind being able to buy something and have it delivered or working and not having to commute as much as practical.
The ugly little problem is always taxes. Everyone drive an EV? Right until they get taxed heavily to make up for reduced taxes coming from fuel sales. The thing often overlooked is that people aren't as accepting of taxes when they use an EV because like solar panels on your roof, everyone expects someone else to help pay for it. Remove the subsidies watch how fast these nifty "green" initiatives go kerplunk. There is only so much tax money to go around.
There are some people that will see new taxes as an offset for fuel taxes. Most will not because things like subsidies are easy to give , nearly impossible to take away.
The fuel providers will simply raise the prices of their fuels, they are driven by shareholder demands so thinking using less fuel is going to hurt them doesn't flow. Notice the price of a litre of gasoline in Europe? It isn't like they can't get fuel there and it isn't that it costs that much more to get it either. The price is higher because people pay it. The same thing will happen here.
Tax hikes and new taxes are just on the horizon. There is no way out of it when it comes to reducing fuels used by consumers. You want proof? Look at the price of water where water conservation took hold. Prices shot up like crazy because people used less water and those were municipal water districts, not private entities.
There is no free ride but things like EV and solar have been marketed as just that, a free ride that other subsidize. Try changing that.
I'd love to see people maintain their vehicles better and do things like monitor tire pressure.
EV engines are more efficient than ICEs, so even if it moves the fuel consumption to a different area, it's still a net positive. I don't disagree though that telecommuting increases would yield big improvements and your points on companies like amazon. I also think that wider use of apps like Waze could help us see some modest improvements as a society also.
People said the same thing about subsidies and hybrids, except hybrids still sell today without subsidies. EVs offer people more options. EVs will have no subsidies soon enough as well. And I don' foresee a dropoff in sales as economies of scales will help bring down the costs and more people are learning about the monetary savings EVs offer.
Yes, EV drivers will have to have some sort of fee to help pay for roads. That could be tied to registration or insurance. Easy enough. more logical too, because it could then be charged by miles, preventing free riders that drive a lot from paying their true cost (gas taxes aren't nearly at the level they would need to be to fully pay for transportation infrastructure).
Isn't the recent gasoline consumption decrease attributed to the recession to some degree? With less people working and work hours cut people drive less. Same with transporting merchandise to stores. Less people buying would mean less inventory in stores so less deliveries. Also, more people buying online (Amazon, ebay, etc.) so less trips. One UPS truck delivers dozens and dozens of packages per day so that eliminates consumers' trips to the brick and mortars to buy those items. Another factor may be urbanization. Cities want people to shop and hang out downtown- close to home. You can walk, ride your bike or ride the bus. Bicycle infrastructure is on the rise everywhere in the USA. Cities are rushing to get bike lanes set up. People riding their bicycles to work, to shop, to school is rising considerably. Bicycling should at least make a very, very small dent to overall driving.
-Cheers.
yes, but then as we came out of the recession, consumption has stayed flat or decreased in numerous parts of the country. younger generation is more apt to go car-less. public transit ridership is up. as you pointed out, more efficient ways to consume goods. cycling infrastructure is popping up across the country, as are bike-share programs. car-sharing is increasing. lots of good things happening to help us decrease our fossil fuel consumption.
Nobody ever takes into consideration the number of people that the "fuel refinement" industry employs. These people are going to be added to the ever-growing roster of the unemployed. Not to mention the lack of revenue that a drastic reduction in fuel sales will cause, further increasing the national deficit.
Since the cost to the consumer for these "fuel efficient" vehicles is considerable, how far down the line is the "break even" point for people? Are we going to be forced to purchase vehicles that are so over priced that we end up paying MORE for them than we do for the fuel to operate regular vehicles?
Instead of doing this, America needs to fully exploit their own fossil fuel stores and reduce reliance on foreign imports. This would grow the economy and give a significant boost to employment in this country.
20yrsinBranson
This sounds like the argument my dad makes against getting an EZPass. He doesn't want to put toll workers out of work, so he won't get an EZ Pass. Nevermind that the companies that make EZ pass and process the transactions and provide customer service also employ people.
So, the fuel refinement industry employs people. I guess the solar industry doesn't? The battery industry for EVs doesn't?
What about all those poor horse-carriege drivers that are out of a job today because of the ICE?
C'mon - come up with a better argument.
I've evaluated numerous EV or PHEV options and there's a handful that offer me lower operating costs that my current vehicle.
And you forget that we can fully exploit our fossil fuel stores, but because of commodity pricing, we're always somewhat reliant on foreign stores because that all impacts prices.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
