Not really. Consumption of marginal value is...of marginal value. The US doesn't really lose much if it cuts down on fuel consumption that doesn't benefit the user very much.
For example, if people use a Prius instead of a Chevy Tahoe (reducing fuel consumption by 75%), they may have lost a little bit of status, comfort, acceleration and crash safety, but...they get to work just fine.
Similarly, if they move from a Prius to a Volt (reducing fuel consumption by another 75%, to the point that ethanol could provide all of the non-electric miles), they may pay a bit more upfront, but over the Volt's lifetime they'll come out ahead. A little frontloading of expenses seems like a pretty small price to pay, especially when a Volt (like EVs in general) has much better road performance.
There are many more examples: shipping companies may lose a tiny bit of flexibility by moving from trucks to rail; water freight may have to retrofit skysails, reduce speed a little (a 20% speed reduction gives a 50% fuel consumption reduction), and eventually go to specialized batteries which might require more stops in port for battery switching; makers of packaging may have to find ways to maintain structural strength while reducing plastic content; chemical companies may have to add a process step or two to use non-oil sources of hydrocarbons; middle income shoppers may go online, and consolidate a few trips while they're waiting for their Prius to arrive; lower income drivers will have to go to lower-status higher-mileage older small cars (whose depreciation cost is so low that it offsets higher repair costs) while they wait for Priuses to arrive in used car lots; telecommuting would make managers uncomfortable.
None of these are a really big deal - their development diverts R&D away from other productive uses, and slow the economy down a bit during the transition, but it's not TEOTWAWKI.
In the long-term, oil consumption will be strongly non-linear. Above about $80, investment grows in alternatives, especially batteries. As both R&D and manufacturing volumes increase, innovation and economies of scale are creating disruptive competitors whose costs will reasonably soon start to fall well below the old oil-based price norms - at that point oil consumption will continue to fall even if oil prices start falling.
At that point, oil exporters will be in deep trouble, and wish they had saved as many of those T-bills as they could....
2 comments:
"Not really. Consumption of marginal value is...of marginal value. The US doesn't really lose much if it cuts down on fuel consumption that doesn't benefit the user very much."
While that statement is true, there is a *very* big IF in there.
And presently, I'd say that "if" is not being satisfied - trucks and SUV's are outselling hybrids by a hefty ratio.
So today, the marginal value produced by fuel consumption in the US is indeed marginal, built in developing countries, where the same amount used to fuel and SUV for a year is fuelling a village seed mill for year, or something, the value is anything but marginal.
There is no doubt that the US could change it's oil use faster and avoid a crisis, but then, the Titanic could have changed course faster too - and we know how that turned out.
The solutions you mention are great, but they don;t achieve anything unless they implemented at a scale large enough to make a difference, and that doesn't seem to be happening at any great rate.
I agree - see http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-quickly-will-we-move-to-electric.html
The longer oil importers wait to get serious, the more they bleed income and wealth, and risk damage from another oil shock (especially a big one, like an Arab Spring in Saudi Arabia, or an Israeli strike on Iran).
The only consolation: we are moving, albeit slowly. EVs and EREVs are becoming available, and the CAFE regulation is improving. So, when fast change is needed, some of the tools will be there.
Post a Comment