The Good Old USA

"The United States is committed to reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of the American economy by 18 percent over the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. This initiative puts America on a path to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, and -- as the science supports -- to stop, and then reverse that growth."

---2001 White House Policy Statement

Wank, wank, wank,

Here's the data

However, 2006 did actually see a slight reduction of 1.5% in Carbon intensity. But this is more likely driven by the high cost of energy, than actual policy. A similar reduction occurred during the year 2001 which was also a bad economic year. Reduced energy consumption clearly occured in the 2008/9 (the economic disaster years) but the data is not yet in to formalize the actual reduction Overall gasoline consumption appears to have been down by about 5% over thie period.

However, over the period 1990-2005 one notes the following:

• The small difference between line 1 and line 2 in the above table represents the release of carbon in a non-combustible form (like disturbing soil, etc)

• Electricity plus transport makes up 70% of our total greenhouse gas budget

• Fossil fuel based electricity generation rose by an average of 1.8% per year

• Transportation rose by 1.5% per year

Clearly these are the two policy areas to attack, which natural leads us to the The No Balls Energy Act of 2007

Breakout of combusting of fossil fuel by various sections

It is useful to reclassify the US emissions using the IPCC criteria. This reclassification clearly shows that we need a new energy policy.

Rates of growth:

The waveform of our Carbon intensity really just shows the kind of stochastic behavior that one might expect due to fluctuations in the US economy. There clearly is no systematic decrease.

Once again, wank, wank, wank

Will the New Adminstration Be Different?

Maybe:

• Previous Energy act of 2007 set signficant improvements in MPG to start in 2020
• New regulations start in 2016 and are pretty agressive:
  • Passenger Cars = 39.0 mpg
  • Light Trucks = 30
  • So AFE = 35.5 MPG with the usual mix of Light Trucks and Passanger Cars

• Can the US automakers meet these goals? Its gonna be difficult.

But the economic model is a) costs of production will be higher per vehicle, b) those costs are passed on to the consumer directly, c) consumer gets this money back because of lower fuel costs.

Let's see how this works by example:

Joe SixPack currently gets 20 mpg in his Joe Six Pack truck:

• He drives 15,000 miles per year.
• Average fuel price is $3 gallon
• Total fuel costs are $2250 per year

If he doubles his fuel mileage to 40 mpg

• Then at $3 gallons his annual fuel bill reduces by $1125 per year
• If gas went to $6 gallons on average his fuel bill is reduced by $2250 per year

US Automakers generally claim that producing more fuel efficient cars can increase the average sticker price by as much as 25%

Joe's truck then goes from 20K to 25K

Big deal, at the current a likely future price of gas, this 5 K difference can easily be made up in reduced fuel costs.

But can Detroit produced the required volume of cars by the year 2016?

things look good

Things look less good

If a policy goal is physically unattainable, then this amounts to Policy Wanking as well.

Currently most fuel efficient cars:

1. 48/45 (hybrid)

2. 40/45 (hybrid)

3. 30/41 (diesel)

4. 28/37 (lightweight)

5. 29/36 (lightweight)

Where are the US cars?