By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
No, just markets. Well the attempts to control production by OPEC is, of course, manipulation. But the market reaction to the news, is not.
Suppose we somehow discovered that all the oil in the world would run out in 12 months at the present usage rate. Would you not expect the price to go up NOW?
The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents a gallon. Its been that same amount since 1993. California's state gas tax is 18 cents a gallon, which hasn't changed since 1990 and is actually lower than the national average. However, California also collects a 6% sales tax on gasoline and local communities can add to that. The state average ends up being 8%. So Californians are paying around 55 cents a gallon in gas taxes. About 10 cents more than the national average. Californians per capita fuel consumption is 414 gallons per year, only 6 states use less. This comes out to around $227 in fuel taxes per year. When you consider all the other costs involved with driving this hardly seems like the deciding factor that makes driving unaffordable for poor people. Now if someone chooses or thinks they need to burn a couple thousand gallons a year that's their problem.
People thinking like that is a big part of EVERYBODY'S problem. (Global warming, peak oil, et al)
james
Exactly.
If I throw my trash out the window while driving I will get fined for littering. I suspect there aren't many people that have a problem with that. What's the difference in imposing a fine for littering the atmosphere? A gas tax is the perfect mechanism because it will penalize you in proportion to your offense. I've heard the brilliant comment that maybe people should be fined for breathing since we exhale CO2. I suggest anyone who believes that do some research. They will find that the human metabolism results in zero net CO2 production. The carbon came from the food we ate and this food source must have first taken this carbon out of the atmosphere.
I'm not sure if I buy into the peak oil theory. Primarily because it doesn't take into consideration price. As far as $20/barrel oil goes we have probably already past peak oil. At $100+/barrel I'm guessing that peak oil is in the very distant future. But when oil goes over $100/barrel alternatives will start looking very attractive and we'll never run out. The problem is that, IMO, this price increase won't be gradual enough to allow for a smooth transition and will be very disruptive to world economies. Again, a significant gas tax will allow for us to better manage the price. Is this a case of the government getting involved in social engineering or dealing with an issue of grave national interest? That seems to be the point of contention.
When the energy cost of extraction equals the energy yield of the product, it's "game over". However, long before that point is reached the RATE of extraction will begin to decline. Late in the life-cycle of an oil field, it just become a slower process. Throwing more money at it can speed it up only slightly, and may actually diminish the total extractable volume.
When the global rate of extraction can no longer be increased (at any price), peak oil will be a reality. Most scientific experts think the time is near. The best that we can hope for is that the impact will be gradual enough to allow us to make the transition to conservation and renewable sources without too much chaos and human suffering.
james
This is simply not true. The form of the energy matters too. A BTU of coal costs less than a BTU of oil or a BTU of electricty for a reason.
If a negative energy balance were the key factor, we would have exactly zero fossil fuel fired electric power plants, since every power plant has a negative energy balance.
Suppose the oil can be extracted at a negative energy balance, but the energy used is electricity generated by solar power (or even energy from nuclear or coal). This would not mean that the oil will not be extracted. Many people will be willing to pay more for a BTU of gasoline than for a BTU of coal or electricty for a long time
It will be extracted as long as there is a profit to be made by extracting it.
IIRC, electricity can be generated from coal for as little as something like 2 cents per KWH. If you used electricty equal to 100% of the energy value of a gallon of gasoline, this would come to around 80 cents per gallon. There would still be plenty of demand for gasoline, if the price rose by 80 cents per gallon. There would still be a lot of demand if it rose by double that...meaning it could still make economic sense to extract oil when using twice its energy value (or even more) in the extraction process.
You are doubtless correct that there would still be some oil production even at a net energy loss. However at that point, oil would no longer be a (net) energy source for the human race. This could be a problem.
The "game over" that I was referring to was the end of the cheap, abundant energy.
james
Well I agree and disagree. I agree that the days of cheap oil are numbered but there will always be abundant energy that should eventually also be cheap. Wind energy is already cost competitive on large scales. Solar energy is projected to be cost competitive within 10 years. Then there's tidal energy, which I don't have any idea about the cost. These sources will never go away and the only cost involved is the conversion device. The average homeowner has more solar energy striking his roof than he could ever use. The only obstacle is capturing, converting, and storing this energy in a cost effective manner. We aren't that far off. Then when we get people driving EVs it will be game over for the oil industry. It's not pie in the sky science fiction and it will happen. Whether it takes 25 years or 50 years is just a matter of how committed we are to making it happen.
Well you are still wrong and we don't even have to get into what might be developed in the future, coal is cheap and abundant.
I am not sure I can agree with that. Many areas do not get the sunshine to justify solar use. Wind generation is even more problematic. Not a lot of places average 9 MPH wind that is needed to generate electricity. We are unfortunately on the north face of a mountain here in San Diego. That makes it tough for getting much sun in the winter. Until solar cells are cost effective it will not get wide spread use.
My electric bill in Hawaii averages over $500 per month without air conditioning. I researched solar and found two problems. They do not charge as well with heavy cloud cover as we have on the Big Island nor in very high temperatures as found in the desert southwest.
The problem is that 80 sq meters of solar panels will run you over $50k. Even with the tax breaks being given its not exactly cost competitive, at least not right now. There is a lot of research going into broad spectrum PV cells that can approach 40% efficiency. There is also research going on to replace the expensive silicon in today's PV cells with cheaper carbon based materials and there are companies developing thin film PV cells that use much less silicon. So the cost could come down dramatically and during this time its highly likely that grid electricity will get more expensive.
As far as cost and widespread use go that may one day be a limiting factor but currently the PV manufacturers are churning out these panels as fast as they can and have aggressive plans for expanding capacity. The main problem holding them back is a lack of silicon.
Rocky
I'm glad the EPA is finally recognizing modern driving patterns and habits.
Rocky
if not, won't there be lots more new vehicles subject to multi-thousand-$ gasguzzler taxes?
I remember the JD Powers survey that came out right after the H2 was launched the H2 got very low scores and one of the most common complaints was the Low Gas mileage.
People honestly did not expect it to be as bad as it was.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Sixth is a 0.50:1 overdrive, and at U.S.-legal highway speeds the LS7 is barely above idle. Setting cruise control at 75 mph we recorded 27.8 miles per gallon. Even more impressive, in suburban driving we saw 20 to 21 miles per gallon, and that without really trying. Or honestly, for that bit, playing all that much. But regardless, stick that in your CAFE and drink it.
But with tougher standards, more companies will be subject to fines unless they get their act together, and BMW would have to pay more, maybe enough that it would hurt!
The gas guzzler tax is paid by the consumer; the manufacturer is off the hook regarding fines if the guzzlers are counterbalanced by a sufficient number of gas-sipping small cars. I don't have a problem if people want to buy a Ferrari and must therefore pay a guzzler tax.
CAFE doesn't have to be so convoluted -- get rid of the carry-forward and carry-back credits. Discard the long-obsolete distinction between import and domestic fleets. And consign to the ash heap the nonsense "extra credit" for FFV vehicles, most of which NEVER use a drop of E85. The irony with this last item is that E85 is less energy dense and therefore provides worse fuel economy than gasoline.
I agree that the E85 loophole is a complete boondoggle but the domestics would cry foul if it was taken away. Given their precarious financial state I don't see that happening.
Another flaw is basing it on mpg rather than gpm (gallons per mile). You cite BMW as a company that routinely incurs fines for not meeting CAFE standards. Consider this hypothetical example. Company A produces cars that all get 25 mpg. Company B's line consists of 50% that get 40 mpg and 50% that get 15 mpg. Company A will get fined under our current CAFE while company B will be in compliance when the reality is that Company A's fleet burns less gas. CAFE encourages this type of polarization within the fleet. Basing the numbers on gpm would result in the automakers placing the greatest priority on improving the efficiency of their least efficient vehicles. As it stands right now they get the most benefit out of improving on their already high mpg vehicles even though that results in minimal fuel savings.
Possibly the biggest flaw in CAFE is it doesn't address the individual, who is actually burning the gas. There is no incentive to reduce driving, maintain their vehicle, drive conservatively, etc..
The only real appeal CAFE has is political. It's a very popular position to put the responsibility on the other guy, in this case the auto industry and avoid any personal accountability.
( Not a Z06. )
I did not buy it ( primarily ) with gas mileage \ efficiency as a top priority.
Yet in my research before purchase, I found it rather interesting to read that nearly everyone reporting MPG on a recent vintage Corvette said that they could easily obtain better fuel mileage on a highway trip than the EPA rating. ( Mine is rated at 17 \ 27. )
And that is while maintaining speed above ( sometimes WELL above ) the highest specified by the EPA testing procedure – where 60 is still the maximum speed achieved on their schedule. ( Through MY 2007. )
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
At a steady 65 to 70 MPH on level road the trip computer instant MPG readout quickly stabilizes at 31 to 33 MPG.
It will pull 55 in sixth gear with no problem – and with full TCC lockup.
( 55 MPH = approx. 1,200 RPM in sixth gear. )
In fact, it will pull sixth from about 42 MPH – with no indications of any stress or strain.
( 6.0L and OHV = Lovely Torque, even at very low RPM. Peak TQ is 400 at 4,400 RPM – but the LS2 also makes a bit over 300 at 1,200 RPM. Plenty to move 3200 #s along. )
In my driving I consistently see 27 to 29 in typical long distance cruising at 65 to 80 MPH. Again, given the fact those speeds are substantially higher than the EPA test speeds, I find that quite reasonable. My last GM vehicle ( also a V8 with EPA Highway 27 ) under identical conditions, would return 24 to 26 MPG.
Just one more data point.
- Ray
Happy to beat the EPA highway rating - with even a little restraint . . .
Rocky
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0702_honda_fcx_concept
And it's installed at the tailpipe, AFTER the fuel has burned?
Puh-LEzze !!!!!
Exactly right, andre - only in perfect conditions does it actually save you a significant amount of mileage, and perfectly flat, windless, resistance free conditions just don't exist many places. So, the reality is - you save 2-3 mpg for a more expensive motor - I wouldn't want it. You also have to deal with the complexity of the system and expense.
Look, Cadillac's V 8 6 4 motor tried this before. Course, theirs never worked, and the new ones are surely more reliable. For the money, I don't want it.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/391
- Ray
EPA says:
In the laboratory, the vehicle's drive wheels are placed on a machine called a dynamometer that simulates the driving environment—much like an exercise bike simulates cycling.
The energy required to move the rollers can be adjusted to account for aerodynamic forces and the vehicle's weight.
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
I think that one other factor in play here is a concentration on obtaining the absolute maximum posted EPA numbers. With real world fuel mileage generally a distant second.
In the case of my previous GM car – I believe that the DoD was specifically tuned \ calibrated to engage & provide benefit at speeds up to 60 MPH. Again, the highest speed in the EPA test, through MY 2007.
My personal experience, in many thousands of miles of driving was that if I maintained a cruising speed of 60 or below ( as in heavily patrolled rural areas ) I could maintain close to the EPA highway number. But at anything over 65 MPH or so, DoD would not typically engage – and the MPG would suffer accordingly.
And the point in the fuel mileage vs MPH curve where above a certain MPH, under certain specific conditions, DoD will not engage - likely results in a sharp drop in MPG. In fact, I’d predict that it will result in a discontinuity (??) in the curve. Meaning a straight drop, where DoD disengages, then pick up a continuation of the downward sloping curve – at a substantially lower MPG level as speed continues to rise.
For example. One might expect a somewhat linear drop in MPG as speed rises across the range of typical US highway travel. (Yes, I know, not really linear and not over all speed ranges, etc)
But for purposes of illustration here - If I assume that at an absolutely steady speed of 60 MPH, my GM car ( a Grand Prix, GXP V8 ) could achieve 30 MPG, then at 65 it might be capable of 28 and at 70 it might be 26 and at ( theoretically ) 75 it might be 24 and at 80 it might be 22 MPG.
If DoD is actually operable up to about 70, in the real world, but will not engage starting at say 73.14159 MPH for instance, the numbers might then look like this:
MPH\MPG
60 – 30 (DoD on)
65 – 28 (DoD on)
70 – 26 (DoD on)
75 – 20 (No DoD - instead of 24 if DoD was in operation)
80 – 18 (No DoD - instead of 22 if DoD was in operation)
I am sorta making these numbers up, and I realize the drop is never a precisely linear slope, but I believe these are in the range of possibility \ reality for my GXP.
This would mean that exceeding the DoD engagement threshold would cost something like an additional 20 or more percent (24 with DoD vs. 20 at 75 MPH without DoD and 22 vs. 18 at 80, etc.) beyond the expected decrease as speed rises beyond whatever that critical speed actually is. My driving suggests that the threshold speed ( above this, DoD does not engage in ** my ** typical driving ) is between 70 and 75.
But that’s just me speculating.
YMMV.
The Corvette developers, based on my 3,500+ miles of driving thus far & in reading many Forum board posts, appear to have assigned more equal weight to MPG in real world driving. And ( obviously ) DoD is not an issue.
For the same example speeds as listed above, I’d estimate my Corvette at something like:
MPH\MPG
60 – 34
65 – 33
70 – 32
75 – 30
80 – 28 [ = still over EPA highway of 27 ]
-ish.
Just my $0.03 worth – adjusted for inflation.
- Ray
Still enjoying the drive – and not obsessing about MPG . . (?)
Sorry - Displacement on Demand - used by GM to de-activate some cylinders when acceleration ( or - at cruise - a certain level of HP \ TQ ) is not required:
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/news_issues/news/displacement_ex- - plainer_052101.html
To provide better fuel econony...
- Ray
How much more would you pay ?
Rocky
There will never be freedom from terror again. That was yesterday. Today we live under a constant threat from those that we support by driving our cars. It will only get worse. Not a pleasant outlook for our children and grandchildren.
I appreciate your reply and would say I agree. I however do feel we have the "know how" to rid ourselves from oil that is bought from country's that don't like us. Why don't we purchase some of our oil from Norway ???? Why don't we try to work out a deal with Mexico ????? I think their is alternative country's we can buy from. Russia, has lots of oil also and it might warm relations with them ?????
The ultimate answer is to invest federal dollars into alternative energy. We should give GM, Ford, billions in grant money to use on alternative energy IMHO.
Rocky
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=119372
Rocky
We do. Norway is generally around #14 or #15 of the top exporters of crude and petroleum products to the U.S.
"Why don't we try to work out a deal with Mexico ?????"
Mexico is consistently at #2 on the top exporters to the U.S. (right behind Canada).
"Russia, has lots of oil also and it might warm relations with them ?????"
We also buy from Russia; not sure where they are on the crude oil list but they're generally around #13 on the petroleum import list. Their problem may be lack of infrastructure.
You ARE aware that crude oil is a globably traded commidity? And that Norway/Mexico/Russia et al will simply sell it wherever they can get the most profit?