I knew I could count on you! I heard this pile of poop argument, when during a moment of weakness; I went to the AM dial and listened to Limbaugh’s program. I knew he was wrong and I was going to check with DOE/EIA myself but you beat me to it Joe. So yes if you drive sensibly and keep your car properly maintained you can save on gas BIG TIME. I employ some hypermiling techniques (sorry trolls no tractor trailer drafting or other such dangerously bad habits) and the mileage on my 2000 Toyota Camry 2.2 l 4 cyl. car has gone up from its EPA rated 24 mpg to 32.01 when I checked at my last fill up. I still use my A/C to but I do it efficiently and I still keep my car cool in heat sweltering Houston Texas.

Let’s do a few comparisons:

Number of passenger vehicles in the U.S.: 251 million
Number of passenger vehicles in China: 15.2 million

Population of the U.S.: 300 million
Population of China: 1.3 billion

Annual car sales in the U.S.: 16.1 million (2007)
Annual car sales in China: 8.8 million (2007)

Average American’s annual gasoline consumption: 1,635.2 liters (2003)
Average Chinese’s annual gasoline consumption: 44.6 (2003)

Oil consumption in the U.S.: 20.7 million barrels/day
Oil consumption in China: 8 million barrels/day

U.S. fuel economy standards: 24.8 mpg now (cars and light trucks combined), 35 mpg in 2020
Chinese fuel economy standards now: 36 mpg now, 43 mpg in 2009

Driving more efficiently. #1 (I don’t think rapid acceleration and braking is particularly prevalent on most highway trips) and #2 are basically the same thing aren’t they? yet one gets to 33% and one gets 7%-23%. Once again, not everyone speeds and if half the miles are in the city, I find it hard to believe that you could get above 10% total here. Another 1% for a total of 11%.

I agree that this is significant and should definitely be a priority, but one of the reasons I frequent this blog is that I find your numbers to be pretty reliable and well thought out so it concerns me to see numbers which seem hyped up. I think using more realistic numbers will make this post just as strong (1.4 MBD savings is significant) and provide less fodder for the denier/delayer group.

I would grant that 10% may be on the high side for what better maintaining your car would do — although I think the tire pressure thing is a bigger deal since the Toyota manual for the Prius I drive has a much lower tire pressure recommendation then what the most efficient people online recommend. I actually think it makes more sense to include removing excess weight in this section. Still, if you want to put “keeping your car in shape” at 5% to 10%, I won’t lose any sleep.

As for what you “find hard to believe,” — there I can’t help you. Aggressive driving and observing the speed limit are not the same thing, although they can overlap a little. If people drove sensibly (i.e. safely) and the speed limit, they would save large amounts of gasoline. I think 20% is about right for the kind of driving I see here in United States. Maybe people drive better in Canada.

Now I left out all the other driving recommendations. Using cruise control wherever possible. Don’t idle. Combine trips. Minimize discretionary travel. That is probably another 5% at least.

So I think 25% to 30% is about right. It is certainly a vastly larger amount of oil than we would ever find in coastal waters.

BTW, the 24 mpg to 32.01 mpg fuel increase in my 4 cyl. 2.2 l 2000 yr. Camry was for city driving.

A good start: jawbone the oil companies to put free air pumps back in the gas stations, and encourage people to save gas, lives, and money with correc tire pressure.

http://www.chron.com/ CDA/ archives/ archive.mpl?id=2008_4566363

A couple of reporters set their cruise controls to 60mph and drive all of Houston’s major highways over 2 days. They count how many cars pass them, and how many cars they pass. It’s not even close: the second day was a shut-out.

Yes, it’s anecdotal and also consistent with my casual observations over a recent 6-week visit. Adding my own 2 bits, SUVs and pickup trucks out-number fuel efficient small cars by about 10 to 1.

I think quite a bit of motor fuel can be saved. But what is needed is real world examples.

Take an average 100 motor vehicles on the road, check the fuel usage. Do the changes to the cars and test them again. Do the same for the drivers.

I thought that states could have a rebate on vehicle registration every year, the first 50 dollars on a tune up at a registered tune up shop gets taken off the vehicle registration.

But the real motor vehicle fuel savings will come with better vehicles and even real time fuel measuring gauges in vehicles. It’s feedback that has a lot to do with decisions we make on how we drive. With no feedback, we drive anyway that gets the job done. If we can see the actual difference, we might make the adjustments.

It’s when the nations motor vehicle fleet changes to more efficient vehicles that the real changes happen. There’s more fuel in better vehicles than in the off shore drilling.

I understand that additional drilling will not solve the oil crisis, but I believe that drilling should be allowed and that the Democrats position on this question is just wrong.

If we do not approve drilling now, we may find ten years down the road that there is a critical need for that oil. It is not unlikely that chaos in oil producing nations could cause severe shortages of oil.

If the nation is slow to act to reduce our dependence on oil, then we will need that oil and we will eventually drill it, no matter what the Democrats, who will no longer be in power, think.

The no-drill proponents are hypocritical: They will oppose drilling in ANWR and off the coasts of America because they fear environmental damage, but do not oppose drilling anywhere else in the world that will cause similar damage. Similarly the no-drill proponents remind me of the Kennedy’s fight to keep wind farms from marring their view from Martha’s Vineyard. It’s let everybody else suffer, so that we can lead beautiful lives.

Finally, the amount of damage that might be caused by this additional drilling is minimal compared with the amount of damage that has already been done. So, what are we really saving anyway?

If this really is a crisis we’re in, then we should pursue all means to alleviate it. While the call to drill is being powered by the high gas prices we pay, there is also the underlying national security issue of dependence on foreign oil. Climate change is important, but it may not be the driving force in this argument.

I submit that a better position for the Democrats is to go along with additional oil drilling (on national security grounds) in exchange for concessions from the Republicans on funds/programs for alternative energies. This strategy takes the issue off the table for the elections this fall, provides a jump start toward freeing ourselves from oil and provides several years breathing space before the oil wells come on-line.

It could be that ten years from now that oil will be uneconomic to drill.

Done.

The GF’s 2000 VW Jetta* has one standard, activated off of her right-hand lever switch on the steering column.

Best,

D

* Maybe its a Passat. Never can remember.

Perhaps your comment is even more d*mning about the average Joe’s attention to efficiency…

Best,

D

[JR: Hopefully next week, they say.]

I’ve read that a real time, easily read, home electricity gauge works also in reducing electricity. Apparently just telling kids or any of us to make sure we turn off the lights and other avoidances of energy use isn’t always enough to change behavior, there should be a measure of success and failure. Having a gauge in the hallway that’s easily read everytime people leave the house lets people turn off everything before they leave.

Houses that have gauges such as that has had 15 percent electricity reductions. It matters if a person can compare one months use from another or one days use from another.

Obviously we’ll have to do the latter. Why can’t people see this is the same for oil? In a world with finite investment available, it is such a simple argument.

The problem is- someone should calculate the costs of keeping your car in shape versus paying for the extra fuel if you don’t. That is where the average person might make their decision. I’m actually hoping that the average person will soon think environmentally and then cost will not be the only factor.