Shell surveys driver attitudes towards fuel efficiency
 

Sure wish they'd have done the U.S....

http://www-static.shell.com/static/p...010_global.pdf

Everyone can agree that fuel costs are to way too high accept for the oil executives..
I do think the Europeans and Asians summed it up pretty nicely though.

I disagree- they are too low.

I agree. The price should be about $13/ga. to reduce externalized costs.

Slightly OT. As part of this campaign (FuelSave) Shell had been claiming their fuels improved FE - however those in charge of policing advertisement claims have stopped them saying it any more.

ASA Adjudication on Shell UK Ltd - Advertising Standards Authority

Who would collect the extra money and where would it go ?

Should? On what moral or economic grounds is this based upon?

A price is nothing more than a quantification of a product's value. And if the seller sets a ridiculous price, the consumer tries to leave. The seller wants it as high as consumers will tolerate, and consumers want it as low as possible. Really, a product's price is determined by what the market (the aggregate of the people) will tolerate.

Why artificially increase it?

I would like to see gasoline prices as high as they need to be so that my tax dollars are not used in any way and so that no tax brakes are given and from what I remember that would bring the price up to $8 to $10 per gallon, but I'm sure someone else has exact figures.

Dang, I can only post one thanks at a time. This post deserves at least a dozen. :thumbup:

A government appointed but voter approved agency would be fine if all funding transactions were transparent and subject to watchdog groups. It works for such things as water quality violations. Someone does something wrong so they pay the price. The money is put into a fund that is eventually distributed to projects which improve or mitigate water quality. The same can be done with gas tax except it's a bit more tricky to allocate funds when appropriate projects would include health care for those who suffer from cancers and respiratory illness, environmental remediation from leaks and other super fund sites (usually inadequately funded), USDA for reduced crop yields, road improvements, research etc..

Kodak, the price should be set to mitigate, or attempt to mitigate the problems cause by burning fossil fuel. Fossil fuel should not like diamonds where the price is subject to the whims of a few. There are great externalized costs associated with it. By bringing the price up you can fund mitigation and deter people from buying gas guzzlers. Every time someone says "it's my right to burn as much fuel as I want" I want to punch them in the face for being ignorant or callous with the health of our community.

High energy costs destroy the economy. Even the Saudis know that. Triple the energy costs in the US and watch a trillion dollars of our national net worth go overseas every year. That's close to 2% of the total net worth of every asset in the US, and we have already spent our national net worth in long term unfunded obligations.

Conversely inject the currently lost 350 billion, we send across out borders, into out economy every year and the banking system would multiply that into at least another trillion in new capital into the economy which would go a long way to solving our economic issues.

The key is greater efficiency. Waiting fro drivers to drive more economically is going to be a very long wait. If it wasn't we would see millions of hits on this site and hypermilers becoming the majority instead of the smallest minority.

Cars today could average 50-60 MPG with existing technology. Short term capacitive storage and release of energy is the secret that has yet to become the focus of designing for efficiency. It does not need to cost the driver in performance and it does not need to penalize the driver for less than the most stringent hypermiling techniques.

Hypermiling demonstrates the paltry state of vehicle design.

regards
Mech

Okay, I can see that this thread is going to rapidly descend into a political descussion. Nonetheless, I'll put in my $0.02 worth. ;)

Before we get too excited about all those "tax breaks" that the evil oil companies are getting so they can make huge gobs of profits, consider profit the oil companies make vs. the tax revenue collected:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wsoMz4L_mG...600/gastax.jpg

The fuel price, subsidized, still doesn't fairly take into account environmental damages. That $11.62/gl without subsidies would be higher if it were. Then, if we were to add in health-related problems (productivity losses) it would change still further.

All of which is to say that we -- individually and societally -- do not practice honest accounting. But, as we are exceptions to history this is of little concern to right-thinking people.

Ran across this, this morning:

If the annual American per capita annual oil consumption is 23/bbls, then that of the Chinese is 1/bbl. They can absorb a much higher price than we, perhaps 20% or more. (Especially as so much of American use is for transportation).

If the American economy starts to hurt at $90/bbl, the Chinese may not feel that pinch until $110/bbl or greater.

To keep domestic disturbance under control, the Saud familys' "nation" needs, increasingly, a projected $90/bbl or higher -- ramping even farther in the future with projected demographic growth -- to maintain todays level of benefits. Ain't goan be no A-rab Spring in Riyadh

.

It's true that the economic principles of the free marketplace determine the price of goods.

However in the case of oil (and many other items), the price is artificially lowered. It's lowered by our government and our military spending billions, if not trillions every year, to keep the international scene "safe" for the energy trade. You can add to that the costs of any tax incentives/rebates/credits given to the oil companies.

If those costs were to be charged directly to the oil companies it would have a significant effect on prices and on all economies where oil figures prominently (that is, any economy other than a third world backwater).

In other words, oil in fact is very expensive, and if we had to pay the full cost at the pump we would refuse. Instead, we pay for it via our taxes, and we complain about the taxes instead. Those taxes are there to pay for all the stuff we keep asking our government for. So I say pay the taxes, or live in an unorganized society where it's all out everyone for themselves.

Here's another cost: How about a sign on the pump "My son or daughter died in a desert so you could fill your tank"? That concept is actually not so unrealistic; we just don't want to think about it.

It's just one more case of "conservatives" trying to work both ends of the same lever. They want everyone to be self supporting - including business and government. But if you really attempt to make that happen, things don't necessarily work out smoothly.

OK, end of rant.

Fossil Fuels Got More Aid Than Clean Energy: IEA - Bloomberg

Our countries have implemented laws to increase auto fuel economy, and to start selling hybrid vehicles. This is how our western countries will / do enforce fuel economy not by jacking the price up so we all pay more to drive to work. It is the manufactures and the governments who will change our future not jo blow who rides his bicycle to work because he cannot afford gas. imo
Mass production of hybrid/ electric cars will be our only hope for saving fuel on a national scale. imo laws not higher gas prices
I am wondering if Frank Lee was jesting with his reply.

Because the government has a vested interest in petrol sales (huuuuge money maker for them via taxes) and they are infatuated with the growth philosophy, they heavily manipulate fuel prices- perhaps not on the commodities trading floors or at the retailer level, but in vast subsidies for oil companies in the forms of favorable leases, tax deals, and of course military acquisition and protection of territories. Our "price" is not "true". Why artificially decrease it?

"High energy costs destroy the economy" People arrange their lives around cheap energy (long commutes, guzzlers, 67 phantom electrical devices on 24/7, idling, stuff left on, etc.) and businesses do much the same. If they KNOW energy costs are going to be X, they can take steps to build that into their personal budgets and business models. But for the most part, it ain't gonna happen until it HAS TO, and not a second before.

"Cars today could average 50-60 MPG with existing technology" In the early '80s cars were well on their way to doing that. However thanks in large part to a booming economy, all that was forgotten and the next two decades were devoted to a largess pissing contest- who can build the biggest McMansion the farthest from town and use the most ridiculous Hummer-type thing to tear around in? Maybe booming economies- like too much Halloween candy- are bad for us?

I agree. I saw news items a few years ago on this, when gasoline sales dropped somewhat due to shockingly high gas prices (around $4/gallon in the US, same as we have now!). Some state governments were concerned that any REDUCTIONS in fuel sales would seriously impact the tax revenues, impacting not only highway and bridge maintenance but potentially the overall state budget.

Anyway, Frank Lee is not the only one saying or implying that higher gas prices would get consumers to find ways to cut back fuel use.

Personally, I don't have a problem with taxes, as long as we don't have "taxation without representation". In this country, we citizens "own" the government. We are responsible for it, and we fund it. I think a lot of us have to get over the idea that anything the govt does that we personally didn't ask for or benefit from is waste. That's just being selfish.

Might be a bad time to bring up that I'm seething over last night's successful passing of TWO school levies :mad: :mad: Thanks for perpetuating breeder welfare, rock star superintendent compensation, taj mahal school facilities, and general dysfunctional school management, idiot voters.

I can understand the argument in favor of protecting public health, and having a price per gallon that is not dependent on other citizens' tax dollars. It's a perfectly lucid argument that petrol is not the kind of product that is done at the purchasing phase.

I can see what you mean, this is one of the inconveniences associated with representative democracies. We pay for roads, bridges etc. even those who don't use them frequently or at all. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's true.

At the same time, I'm very weary of majority rule. Group-think can lead people to make decisions without thinking, and sometimes the majority is wrong.

Not many "conservatives" are opposed to drilling locally.

Just one more case of "liberals" trying to work both sides of the same lever. They want energy independence, but aren't willing to exercise tried and true methods to achieve that end, even in the short term.

Maybe you can adjust your opinion to "people are foolish" instead of targeting either group.
;)

Here's another brilliant extrapolation: Motorbikes are more efficient means of transportation, without any doubt. And there are precious few viable arguments for why a person would drive a (typically 4 seat!) car daily instead of a motorbike.

Since a bike gets twice the fuel efficiency of your car, wouldn't it be more valid to say;

"My son or daughter died in a desert so that you didn't have to learn to ride a motorcycle" ?

That concept is actually not so unrealistic.

We just don't want to think about the unfortunate reality that there is always someone who can judge you from a higher position on any scale of morality.

Well I have to agree, people certainly can be foolish. I don't think I'd say they ARE foolish. Just sometimes.

Also I'd say they see different priorities, and think themselves smart and fair in what they deduce accordingly. What's good for the duck hunter isn't good for the duck, as an extreme case.

Agreed. They voted in Hitler... And that's only one of probably many cases where the majority was wrong.

I've come to appreciate the "shared consensus" approach to decision making. It's easier in small groups than larger ones, and can be impossible to do in larger groups . But the benefit is that all involved really feel ownership of the resulting decision. You end up with less people feeling like they want to take their ball and go home.

Eventually we might evolve some kind of internet forum interchange format, where ideas get bounced around until we have enough consensus of opinion to make a unified decision.

Yes, it is a bad time to bring this up. But your views on school funding are not accurate. In my kid's district, they are practically starving from lack of funding. Sorry to go OT, I won't do it again.

I'm not against high petrol / diesel prices - I've lived with them (comparative to the US) all my life so I know they mean more efficient vehicles and usage, but...

How appointed ? What criteria ? How transparent ? What "watchdog groups" ?

I don't want to open an "in" for a certain EM person to start a, er, "debate" here, but this idea is like a castle with a drawbridge down and a "please keep off the grass" notice to defend it.

None of these fuels pay for themselves.

Total Excellium Diesel is even suspected of harming the PSA-Group's DPFs, despite Total being a preferred Partner of PSA.

I agree with you post completely Frank. My family would be fine with gas at $20 per gallon. We have no debt and most of our income is retirement and investments. I have no children of my own. My 3 brothers have only 3 total children. Govt is absolutely atrocious at funding schools as well as everything else they "manage" (what an atrocious use of a word).

I just see the problem as poor design. Better designed vehicles would mean more miles for the same gallon. Just consider the 13% of total fuel consumed that is wasted idling uselessly. No manufacturer considers it a priority to eliminate engine idling throughout their vehicle lineup.

Craig Vetter's focus is on aerodynamics. My focus is on power train. I know it is completely feasible to improve mileage by 80% through power train design.
Every hypermiler demonstrates this daily. Sadly the public seems to be oblivious to the benefits of reasonable efforts that have dramatic results.

I have been and always will be solution oriented. Fixing stupid just doesn't work. So you fix stupids car to get good mileage even though stupid does not change his-her habits. Pop always told me, "Don't blame the people, blame the system". He was in charge of a group of people who computerized the accounting and payroll systems for the US Air Force for decades. The people at the bases where he went tried everything to stop computerization of their jobs. They tried everything you can imagine to discredit his work, even to the point of hiring hookers to try to entrap and bribe him.

If I build a car that you really can't drive wrong then I have solved the problem. Not a never ending rant against what can't be changed, but a dedication and focus on things that can be changed.

Make the machine inherently more efficient. Forget about the idiot who drives it inefficiently, he-she may get slightly worse mileage than you-me, but we all will use less energy to travel the same distance.

regards
Mech

I wish I could buy an Audi A2. What a magnificent vehicle. I wish the European versions were brought to the US, and you are exactly right. The high price of fuel is probably the single most important factor in the cars available to our European ecomodders.

That being said even European cars could be seriously improved upon by focusing on the power train, with capacity storage of deceleration energy and start-stop technology. Better aero would improve it even further.

regards
Mech

One more comment on this (because I've been doing my homework and kicking the local yocals' arses online): these two levies passed with 19% of the registered voters approval. "Majority"- Ha! :rolleyes:

I hear you on that. Even in presidential election years, U.S. voter turnout has been varying between roughly only 54-64%, depending on which year, and whether you gauge by voting age population or by eligible voter count. In "off year" elections the level of participation can truly be dismal. United States Elections Project

That sounds strange. Are you saying the majority didn't vote, or the results were falsified? If the former, how do you know they opposed it? and if the latter, that's criminal.

If only 37% vote, then 19% is a majority. Local elections generally do not get high voter turnout.

regards
Mech

Absolutely, and why I questioned how Frank knows the people who didn't vote all felt the same way about the issue. On an issue like this, as opposed to an election of a person for office, if you don't vote, you have no basis for complaint.

I don't know how ALL the voters felt and I never claimed to. I said it passed with 19% of available voters voting yes. It passed with a majority of those WHO BOTHERED TO SHOW UP. In things like this you can really see how an energized special interest group who may or may not represent the majority, can get what they want because of the apathy of the general public.

Or they can pull a stunt like my local district did. A huge build-new-schools bond passed that has raised my property tax by 40%. It passed by 14 votes. I got a notice about the election in my mailbox, the day after voting was over. :mad:

That sounds like something that could be fought as class-action in court, if everyone got their notices after the fact.

I would think that you have no basis for complaint in any election in which you do not vote.

regards
Mech

Unless the good candidates get outspent/smeared in primaries, so the final ticket is a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I think that constitutes a reason not to vote "for" either one, and a basis of complaint. That's why I made the distinction between voting on candidates and voting on issues.

Time for a user fee plan.