6 stupidly simple steps to save billions of gallons of gas

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Sep 16, 2001
Messages
8,448
Reaction score
3
Location
Roseville/Sacramento, CA
6 stupidly simple steps to save billions of gallons of gas

By Hank Green Posted Wed May 7, 2008 12:58am PDT



OK, gas prices are getting out of hand, and carbon emissions have been out of hand for a long time. So let's kill two birds with, well, five stones.



We generally focus on high technology here at EcoGeek, and how we can save energy with smart designs. But sometimes, there are simpler ways.



An absolutely tremendous amount of gasoline could be saved in America with some very simple measures. Such as:



1. Lose some weight = 900 million gallons of gas

Americans weigh about 24 more pounds per person than we did in the 1970s. That weight, when we're driving, has to be moved around with our cars. Multiplied over the three trillion miles driven in America each year, suddenly we need a lot of gas to move around our extra chub. If we could (preferably through walking and biking) lose those 24 lbs. and reach 1970s sizes, America would used nearly one billion gallons of gas less than we currently do.



2. Intelligent traffic lights = 1,000 million gallons of gas

Studies have shown that altering traffic lights to ensure maximum flow can reduce gasoline consumption in cities by between 10% and 20%. Already, lots of places have traffic light systems that use sensors to detect when and how often to change lights.



But a great deal of traffic infrastructure is still extremely primitive, and most of it is programmed by hand. Researchers have begun to attempt to create traffic lights that can make decisions for themselves. Stoplights might soon communicate with other nearby lights about when they plan on changing, how much traffic they've seen, and what's working for them recently to keep traffic flowing. They will even be able to remember what worked in the past, and use those same techniques in the future.



3. More expensive gas = 450 million gallons of gas (so far)

OK, this isn't necessarily the best solution to our problems, especially since most people who really need to drive can't afford to pay much more for gas. But 2007 showed the first decrease in the number of miles traveled since the gas crisis of the '70s. As gas prices sored to upward of $3 per gallon, people actually drove less. The amount driven dropped by about 10 billion miles. At an average fleet efficiency of 22 mpg, that's 450 million gallons of gas saved.



4. Drive a little slower = 600 million gallons of gas (just for semi trucks)

Recently, with diesel prices topping $4, Con-Way Freight, owner of one of the largest truck fleets in America, decided that it would decrease the maximum speed its drivers could drive from 65 mph to 62 mph. This will save the company 3.2 million gallons of fuel per year. And that's just ONE trucking company going 3 mph slower! If this were expanded to all 1.5 million semis on American roads, it would save 617 million gallons of fuel!



If it the national speed limit were lowered to 65 mph, the savings would be extreme. Already, the U.S. trucking industry is calling for a decrease in the national speed limit, first because the difference in speed between trucks and cars creates possible safety issues. And because it would ultimately decrease the price of fuel.



5. More people per car = 1,500 million gallons of gas

If every car in America that transported one person instead transported two people, we'd save about 8 billion gallons of gas per year. But we'll aim lower. If just 20% of these solo-driver trips became two-passenger carpools, we'd use 1.5 billion fewer gallons of gas per year.



6. Increase mileage to 35 mpg = 55,000 million gallons of gas by 2015

This needs to be said. The current average fuel economy of an American car is 22 mpg. It would be lower if there were no law in place requiring that efficiency. The auto industry
 
Number 6 is retarded. Number 3 is asinine.



I think we all know why. I think this is a satirical post, but I'm not sure...I hope it is.



 
Kevin L,



Retarded? Asnine? Why do you say that? These steps seem quite logical and hard to contradict.



If we raised the price of gas people would use less. We have seen that happening the last two years already.



If we had better, average MPG in cars on the road, we would use less. Again, hard to argue there.



You might find these steps (or some of them anyway) not that palatable, or plausible, but you can't argue that they wouldn't have the effect desired if realized.



P.S. We have folks on this board that have special needs family members, so you might want to curtail the characterizations of things you disagree with as "retarded".



TJR
 
well, none of these steps are opinions they are all facts because they can be proven, or disproven, therefore retarded and asinine are fairly asinine things to call these steps. six is perfectly logical and would obviously save gas, and three just goes without saying, if something costs more the demand for it will be less, thats simple econ 201, and i even got a c in that class and still see that it makes perfect since, "retarded" "asinine" you arent a very happy person are you?
 
Retarded means to slow down. I'll use retarded for the denotative or connotative definition as I see fit, I'm sure we all know whether or not it's an "insult" on a per use basis, but can it ever really be an insult? I don't think so, not unless you say it with a negative inflection. Calling someone "challenged" is just as much an insult, as it is said in the regard that we know that the person will never really overcome their "challenge".



Is it better to be called slow, or to be perpetually faced with a challenge that the rest of the world has overcome, a challenge which you will never truly overcome? (Well, one that the people who call you challenged do not expect you to overcome, as there is not anything that can truly hold back determination.)



35 mile per gallon cars will come about from cheap construction and cutting corners, the unibody explorer seems to be a step in that direction. The post says that the auto industry has been fighting the law for years, and I agree to that, so what makes you think that they would capitulate and give in to law now? I think they will just degrade their product to conform to the standards. If you have to market something with restrictions on production, you either have to up the price, or reduce the quality of the production. If you think that we'll start seeing "hydrogen gas assisted" engines in stock cars or some other efficiency-boosting, mother earth saving device in cars as the result of an automaker epiphany brought about by this law, I regret to say that you will probably be disappointed. We already complain about how automakers are cutting corners, and they were cutting these corners before gas prices went astronomical.



Number 3 is asinine--forgive my word choice but it is a rather unique word--as raising the cost of gas to drive (pun) people away from their gas-powered vehicles without providing anything near a realistic viable alternative is not exactly intelligent. It is, well, asinine. Or "Foolhardy" for those of you who think that asinine is a word only used by those who are bitter and melancholic. (sigh)



TJR, you even brought up that there is no public transit that can provide services even on par with those of private automobiles. Without cars, there will be your demand for the public transit, but what will we all do while we wait for it to be built? Twiddle our thumbs for years?



Without gas taxes to pay for roadwork (cough) and to pay the subsidy on mass transit, where will money for public transit come from? I can only see it coming through price hikes on the transit fare, which is the same thing as the gas price hike, only you're now paying to have the privilege to ride on a rolling billboard in a seat where drunken bums are known to urinate, instead of the comfort of your own private vehicle.









lol, clay I am a happy person ("very happy" on occasion), but you seem to be a bitter person.



 
kevin,

if i remember correctly, you also called people names based on the type of vehicle they drive??? :huh:
 
One of those members uses that word to describe his sister. I wonder about him sometimes too.



Calling my sister Retarted is accurate since she is severly mentally retarted and requires 24/7 care.



Still think it is funny?





Tom
 
tom,



i had it at work with some employees calling mentally challenged people "window llickers".

it really pissed me off and finally i had to tell them to f- off!

it is not at all funny and anyone who does this lacks any maturity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin L said:
TJR, you even brought up that there is no public transit that can provide services even on par with those of private automobiles.



I never said that. Public transit in large metro areas in the US already provides services that in many cases are much better, safer, more convenient, and less costly than the private automobile. So, there is an example of public transit that is better than the private auto.



What I said was that there are many real-world obstacles that keep public transit from catching on and being as widespread in this country as compared to many countries in Europe.



Oh, and #3, rising prices as a way to cut consumption, clearly isn't asnine, because it has already proven to work. The article provides “steps” for saving gas. Rising gas prices have shown to cut consumption by motorists the past several years. That step works, and at this point I don’t see anyone being anything more than a little conservative minded and slightly inconvenienced.



If you have legit reasons for not agreeing then let's hear them, but dropping down to derogatory only cheapens your argument and has your opinion largely lost in the noise.



TJR
 
re: #4, I normally drive from FL to VA at 80-85mph and get around 17 mpg.



Today, I held it to 75 and made the daughter do the same when she drove.



MPG? 20.12



I saved about 23.00 in gas expenses. (approx 6 gallons @ 3.799). It only took about 30 minutes more for the drive.
 
So, it's not Bush's fault that gas is 3.50+ per gallon...

Round up the usual suspects...Al Gore "Mr. I want to

do away with the internal combustion engine"

Al Gore is to blame and those other wackos

with their "global Warming/Climate Change"

I'm glad with the help of the internet

that we can see what is really happening here.

Thanks Al for inventing such a wonderful form of communcation!

Thanks Mr Gore.:lol:
 
#5 isn't true--at least, not the way it is worded. Simply putting more people in each car, without reducing the number of cars on the road, doesn't reduce gas consumption--in fact, according to #1, it would increase gas consumption, as the weight in each vehicle would go up.



Granted, if that extra person were someone who would otherwise drive their own car, gas consumption would go down, as there are fewer car-miles occurring. But that's not what it says. According to the article, adding a person to your vehicle who otherwise wouldn't be traveling whatsoever is somehow going to reduce gas consumption. And that's nonsense.
 
I do think vehicles being manufactured with standared 35 mpg would be a good thing! Think of ALL the sport trac meets we could all attend, if we could get that many miles per gallon! :D Good post Rodger (& Georgia)!
 
re·tard·ed

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈtär-dəd\

Function: adjective

Date: 1895

sometimes offensive : slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress



Usually considered offensive by disabled persons.
 

Latest posts

Top