UMTRI: average US new vehicle fuel economy drops in October
10 November 2017
The average fuel economy (window-sticker value) of new vehicles sold in the US in October was 25.2 mpg (9.33 l/100 km), down 0.1 mpg from September, according to the monthly report from Dr. Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) . The value for October is up 5.1 mpg since October 2007 (the first month of their monitoring), but down 0.3 mpg from the peak of 25.5 mpg reached in August 2014.
The University of Michigan Eco-Driving Index (EDI)—an index that estimates the average monthly emissions of greenhouse gases generated by an individual US driver—worsened to 0.82 in August 2017, up from 0.81 in July 2017 (the lower the value, the better). The EDI indicates that the average new-vehicle driver produced 18% lower emissions in August 2017 than in October 2007, but 4% higher emissions than the record low reached in November 2013.
The EDI takes into account both vehicle fuel economy and distance driven (the latter relying on data that are published with a two-month lag).
All potential lower fuel consumption is totally offset by the use of more heavy SUVs and pick-ups for the last 4+ years or so.
The best way to reverse that trend may be with much higher fuel taxes. The Federal government will not do it but States could impose a progressive added fuel tax. People with very low taxable income could be compensated.
Posted by: HarveyD | 11 November 2017 at 12:00 PM
Yeah, but rich people don't usually have more miles than poor people. Rich people really won't change their lifestyle for such a trivial cost, an extra $6,000-14,000 a year, up from about $1500 a year.
Not to mention the precedent and the taxation you'd immediately put on those living paycheck to paycheck, having only to have it documented, then returned to them if they file for it at the end of the year. (Lots of red tape)
a vice tax for a "necessity" will never work here. If you're trying to change behavior, incentivize it with upfront credits or another "cash for clunkers" program.
As soon as it becomes unreasonable to drive a car to work, then you'll have your reduction.
Gasoline is very very inflexible. Gas, 300% higher cost, or even 1/3rd the cost we drive about the same. Mileage is going up for other reasons like people living in suburbs.
A car is the second largest purchase one makes, usually, its not wise to take something that so many rely on and alter the system so drastically by raising fuel costs 5-9x the current level (or what it would take to influence consumers in any great way).
Its like the carrot or the stick. If you raise the tax on fuels high enough, or issue a carbon tax, sure you'll get results, but why cripple the economy over something that can easily be achieved with incentives.
Previously electric car incentives have mostly favored upper middle class, being that the entry price was the same-higher than most could afford, but people received a tax rebate at the end of the year. The only ones buying really didn't have to have the incentive to make the purchase.
Offering rebates up front could change the dynamic, and get the majority of buyers to consider an EV.
Creating a carbon tax, or something of the sort would be revolutionary, but only in response.
If we are going to redistribute wealth, rather than using a shell game of taxation, then refunds, why not just tax those well to do, and use the money to fund renewable power generation on a national scale.
Rather still I rather see a 1cent/kwh hike in utility rates nation wide, requiring said utility to take that, and some percentage of their typical revenue, say a matchning contribution 10 cents on the dollar , and mandate that they invest it in renewables like wind.
That could be like $44,000,000,000/year in renewable projects. Sure there would need to be some review and oversight on the projects. But that's just an astronomical amount, just from a <10% increase in electrical costs. If all that money went straight to generation we could drastically clean up our aging grid. Heck even $.001/kwh would yield 4billion. and increase rates by <1%.
If they had to they could use some BLM land out in the desert and put up that 5 sq/mile of panels like Musk wanted.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 11 November 2017 at 08:10 PM
So, assuming a perfect world:
maybe 4000MW/year of solar in the desert somewhere, giving you
4000MW x 365 days x 24hr x 22%= 7,708,800Mwhs a year or .18% of our total output.
Or in other words, it will take us 555 years to get there, if we do about 1% of the electric bill
if we do 10% which would be on average for a home about $127/year, we could get there in 55 years.
Good thing there is a caldera that needs to be unheated. We could geo thermal our way to some decent numbers, they said a few 1000 years for us to cool it, perhaps we could get some use out of nearby Yellowstone. 4billion/year could build a nice carbon neutral plant for the states, hopefully we could scale it up to generate terawatt hours of electricity a year. I know its sort of like an external combustion engine using steam, so waste heat will be extreme, but hopefully we could run the steam through a series of generators before venting to get the most of it.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 11 November 2017 at 09:12 PM
https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php
2 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 4,380 MWh = 4,380,000 kWh
Assumption of what a wind turbine will produce in a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
4 million gwhr of electrical consumption per year
1 wind turbine produces 4 gwhr per year
I million wind turbines would about match our electrical consumption.
Which is on average 20,000 turbines per state.
Wind is expected to beat natural gas in price soon. Its the inevitable source to go to along with solar.
Posted by: Jeffgreen54 | 12 November 2017 at 06:26 AM