tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post6746859093803202582..comments2024-03-11T00:31:41.186-07:00Comments on The Oregon Economics Blog: Fuel EfficiencyPatrick Emersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17242234148546323374noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post-89226757296491470802009-08-17T22:23:44.584-07:002009-08-17T22:23:44.584-07:00Hi Patrick,
Thanks for the great response. I can ...Hi Patrick,<br />Thanks for the great response. I can see how the food considerations you wrote of are important but difficult to generalize for the reasons you gave. As you may have implied, if cyclists' body energy be counted, I suppose motor vehicle energy costs should also include the food consumption count of the non-starving drivers whose belted bodies also participate in the necessary energy consumption motorized vehicles. I can see this attempt at deeper, honest counting can lead toward more and more exotic measurement of the food calorie of all the participants of the chain of activities required to produce the vehicle or shoe--what did the miners, engineers, administrators, the car show model eat to make that vehicle's existence possible? Was the cow that formed the shoe leather fed with petroleum-fertilized corn? Was that petroleum shipped from near or far, and how much energy did it require to build the oil tanker? Maybe seated bus passenger's energy consumption required for living in motion should be included. I don't know where one draws the line "I'll stop counting energy here, not there" without bias or madness, but it seems worth the effort to make an attempt. I appreciate your intimation of the complexity behind it. Thanks for answering my question.Peter Gelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844253583785446469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post-87537764731434566872009-08-17T09:57:17.678-07:002009-08-17T09:57:17.678-07:00Peter,
This is a topic that has produced a pretty...Peter,<br /><br />This is a topic that has produced a pretty heated debate. A lot of the 'fuel efficiency equivalent' calculations depend on your diet. Producing beef is very energy intensive, for example and the source of the UK study from a few years ago claiming that walking is less fuel efficient than driving if one only eats beef. <br /><br />I have seen estimates of about 800 MPG biking and 400 MPG walking, but this uses the caloric content of fuel. If we factor in the energy required to produce the food, the calculations change and the numbers get much smaller. However, on the other side, the energy cost of producing the car, the energy cost of the wear and tear on the infrastructure and so on will tip the scales back in favor of walking and biking.Patrick Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242234148546323374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post-8393809849001491852009-08-17T08:53:39.548-07:002009-08-17T08:53:39.548-07:00Please put bicycles (& walking) in the chart. ...Please put bicycles (& walking) in the chart. Thank you.Peter Gelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844253583785446469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post-14274901537007936832009-08-14T22:37:38.706-07:002009-08-14T22:37:38.706-07:00This is a great example for teaching people to thi...This is a great example for teaching people to think at the margin. If you leave the Prius at home and take the bus instead, you have a marginal fuel savings from the Prius but no marginal consumption from a bus that would have traveled its route anyway.Doug Gabbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08004276724238866340noreply@blogger.com