Economists lower economic growth forecasts thanks to oil prices (well, .... and the GOP)

[Bill USA]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x603433


Maybe we can use dreams to cut our oil consumption, huh?

[kristopher]

1. What do you suggest?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x295178

[Bill USA]

2. some calculations ....

here's some calculations of GHG emissions reductions from ethanol use in terms of equivalent hybrid emissions reductions - compared to J.D. powers estimate of hybrid sales over the next decade.


http://domesticfuel.com/2011/03/22/grfa-highlights-biofuel-reduction-on-ghgs/

"In 2010, world ethanol production was 85.7 billion litres and is estimated to have reduced GHG emissions by 101 million tonnes – a GHG reduction of more than 276,000 tonnes per day.

• GHG emission reductions of 101 million tonnes represents the equivalent of 18.7 million cars being taken off the road"

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/oct/31/electric-vehicle-sales-forecast-to-remain-low/

J.D. Power and Associates said Wednesday that combined global sales of hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles were expected to reach just 5.2 million vehicles in 2020, or only 7.3 percent of the 70.9 million autos expected to be sold that year.

The industry is expected to sell about 1 million electric and hybrid vehicles this year, a little more than 2 percent of global demand, the company said in its “Drive Green 2020” report.

Assuming that hybrids on average will achieve a 40% reduction of GHGs and assuming Ethanol production grows at 4% per year over the next 10 years the GHG emissions achieved using ethanol would be equivalent to removing 18.7 million cars from the road in 2010. This would be equivalent to 46.75 million hybrids replacing non-hybrid cars in 2010. These numbers would grow steadily (at 4% per yr) so that in 2020, while J.D. Powers is estimating there will be roughly 29 million hybrids on the road (assuming a constant rate of growth in sales) the GHG reductions from ethanol use would equal the GHG emissions reductions realized by having 69,000,000 hybrids (replacing non-hybrid cars) on the road (assuming 40% GHG reduction for hybrids on average).

          Ethanol GHG
          emissions       hybrid GHG 
          reduction    reduction avg 40%				
       equivalent cars   Equiv Hybrids		              Hybrid sales   cum Total
      4% annual growth    on road	        	           740,000   
2010	 18,700,000 	 46,750,000 			2010	 1,000,000   1,740,000 
	 19,448,000 	 48,620,000 			2011	 1,179,235   2,919,235 
	 20,225,920 	 50,564,800 			2012	 1,390,595   4,309,830 
	 21,034,957 	 52,587,392 			2013	 1,639,838   5,949,668 
	 21,876,355 	 54,690,888 			2014	 1,933,755   7,883,423 
	 22,751,409 	 56,878,523 			2015	 2,280,351  10,163,774 
	 23,661,466 	 59,153,664 			2016	 2,689,069  12,852,843 
	 24,607,924 	 61,519,811 			2017	 3,171,045  16,023,887 
	 25,592,241 	 63,980,603 			2018	 3,739,406  19,763,294 
	 26,615,931 	 66,539,827 			2019	 4,409,639  24,172,933 
 2020	 27,680,568 	 69,201,420 			2020	 5,200,000  29,372,933 
       

[JohnWxy]

10. very interesting calculations. Especially when you consider the cumulative GHG emissions reductions

Would have recommended, but was too late (not on here every day Bill). good stuff. Having an affect on the real world demands recognizing what the real world demands of you to produce a change. You can't affect Reality if you refuse to see it.

[Bill USA]

3. What are you suggesting? ...anything?

Replacing fossil fuel with any renewable fuel is a good idea but the article you cited refers to some ideas which seem to be barely off the drawing board. No cost benefit data or feasibility studies... unless you know of one.

I'm for investigating just about anything that's renewable. Is that what you are suggesting renewable fuels?

As far as fuel for internal combustion engines just about any alcohol is better than gasoline. the high octane property of ethanol enables high compression operation producing more power from a given size engine than with low octane gasoline. THis leads to performance improvements which can be realized in terms of reduced GHG emissions.

[kristopher]

4. Sure. If CO2 reduction is the goal, then...

A general sketch would be that we need to channel all available public funds towards creating incentives for electric producing renewables, upgrading to a smart grid, and deploying electric drive vehicles for our personal transportation fleet - hybrids or all EV.

Long term that is going to provide the most carbon reduction bang for our buck compared to ethanol. Liquid biofuels have a role, but it isn't personal transportation, it is heavy equipment. Whether that role is best played by ethanol has yet to be determined so while we reduce petroleum consumption with EVs we should continue the search for better liquid biofuels with an eye towards the role they will actually have.

[Bill USA]

5. If we don't do something about gasoline consumption in the near and intermeditate term

(like less than 20 years) we won't have enough people with enough income to buy - or an economy healthy enough to invest in electric vehicles.

gas is going up in price right now. We have to limit gasoline consumption long before the 20 years it would take electric vehicles to achieve perhaps 10% to 24% reduction in personal transportation GHG emissions.


We need renewable fuels now (and more of them as soon as possible) to minimize oil price increases so we can have some money left over to make electric cars a reality.

the ideas you stated do nothing to address gas consumption in less than 20 years.

[kristopher]

6. I don't think those 6 assertions are supportable or valid.

There is a whole world out there functioning on $5-6/gal gasoline. The high price propels change away from internal combustion and petroleum, it doesn't slow it.

[Bill USA]

7. and how many electrics are enabling Europeans to cope with $6 gas (most of which is tax)?

The economic reality is when people have limited resources they tend to buy what is more affordable. They will buy more fuel efficient cars at the most affordable price.

Actually, in Europe most of the price of gas is for taxes. Presumably the Europeans feel they are getting there money's worth in the taxes they are paying at the pump. We have very low tax rates on gasoline compared to Europe. As a result Europeans drive smaller much more fuel efficient cars than we Americans do. You can thank the Corporate Lobbyist Party for this. They have been well paid to keep taxes low on oil and gasoline.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/energy_prices

~
Analysts at Morgan Stanley say sharp increases in oil prices pose the biggest threat to growth because consumers suffer a sudden hit to purchasing power. They note a 85 percent to 90 percent increase in the price of oil over a year was followed by U.S. recessions in 1975, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2008.

Now, an increase in oil prices of that magnitude would take prices back to near $150 per barrel, and it's far from clear that they'll rise that high. But this is nonetheless a clear vulnerability for the American economy. And it's one that America has invited upon itself.


Petrol prices in America are substantially below levels elsewhere in the rich world, and this is almost entirely due to the rock bottom level of petrol tax rates. The low cost of petrol encourages greater dependence; the average American uses much more oil per day than other rich world citizens. This dependence also impacts infrastructure investment choices, leading to substantially more spending on highways than transit alternatives. And this, in turn, reduces the ability of American households to substitute away from driving when oil prices rise.

There are any number of good reasons to raise the petrol tax rate. The current rate no longer brings in enough money to cover current highway spending. Petrol taxes are an efficient way to raise revenue, and the government needs revenue; President Obama's deficit commission recommended an increase in the federal petrol tax rate. Burning oil produces carbon emissions, and dearer fuel would reduce America's sky-high per capita carbon footprint. But a higher tax rate would also diminish the possibility that a sudden rise in oil prices would throw the economy into recession. That would be a nice risk to minimise! And yes, higher tax rates would hit consumers just like rising oil prices. But those prices are rising anyway; better to capture the revenue and use it, all while improving behaviour.

http://www.babeled.com/2008/06/02/us-versus-european-gas-prices/

In the U.S., about 11% of the final cost per gallon is from taxes. At the $4.00 per gallon average cost, this means that $0.44 is tax and $3.56 is the pretax cost per gallon. Europe’s prices, on the other hand, are comprised of 70% taxes and 30% pretax cost. Taxes on the $8.70 average per gallon cost are $6.09 and the pretax cost per gallon is $2.61. Wait, did you catch that? If you disregard taxes, Europeans pay $0.95 LESS than Americans for one gallon of gasoline.

But are the Europeans using electric cars to handle higher taxed gasoline? Actuallly no. You can get fuel efficiency without going to electrics.

Now I am for continued development of hybrids and electrics. We need more of them. But You are unwilling to face the fact that it will take a couple of decades to get appreciable numbers of electric cars on the road. You refuse to face the fact that the threat of Global Warming cannot wait 20 years or more for a significant reductions in GHG emissions from the use of electric cars. You cannot accept that the rising price of gasoline is occurring now and must be dealt with in far fewer than 20 years.

We need to incentivize the use of public transit. Help the development of Hydraulic hybrids for urban applications (again this is a cost issue. Hydraulic hybrids will be cheaper to produce and adopt than electrics and thus get results in terms of reduced gas consumption and reduced GHG emissions sooner than electric vehicles can). And, increase availability of and more efficient use of - renewable fuels. These steps can get results much quicker than electric vehicles can and limit the increase of oil prices. We need to do this to facilitate the investment in and adoption of electric vehicles. Without taking these steps the adoption of electrics will be slowed and that is not a good thing.

[Bill USA]

8. Gas Prices Push Consumers to the Edge - USA Today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x603542

[Bill USA]

9. Economists: Lower growth estimates, higher oil prices coming - AP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x603549