Keep Biking - We Need To

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by oilfreeandhappy, Jan 15, 2006.

  1. Here's some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
    comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.

    Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
    Million
    Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS,
    Australia: 796,000 BBLS
    GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion

    Dividing some of these figures:
    Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person
    Australia: .040 BBL/person
    GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia:
    $769,000 / BBL
     
    Tags:


  2. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On 15 Jan 2006 21:26:44 -0800, "oilfreeandhappy"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Here's some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
    >comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.
    >
    >Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
    >Million
    >Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS,
    >Australia: 796,000 BBLS


    I believe that's a daily figure.

    >GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion
    >
    >Dividing some of these figures:
    >Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person
    > Australia: .040 BBL/person


    Obviously daily.

    >GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia:
    >$769,000 / BBL


    Divide by 365 for annualized rate.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  3. > Here's some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
    > comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.
    >
    > Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
    > Million
    > Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS,
    > Australia: 796,000 BBLS
    > GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion
    >
    > Dividing some of these figures:
    > Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person
    > Australia: .040 BBL/person
    > GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia:
    > $769,000 / BBL


    As much as I agree with the basic premise (that the US uses more than its
    share of the world's resources, which is a problem that goes beyond any
    moral or ethical issues in that it puts us in an increasingly-defensive
    position vis-a-vis the countries rich in oil), we need to look at how the
    oil is actually used. To the extent that it's due to inefficiency & waste &
    just simply driving around too much, yes, absolute problem. But the US also
    is a huge exporter of food products, more so than the other countries listed
    (actually, I don't know the breakdown for Australia; could be they're a big
    exporter as well). Huge amounts of petroleum products are used in
    agriculture, and it may be relevant to factor that out of the equation.

    So yeah, we're bad, but let's make it as defensible a case as possible.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  4. Jim

    Jim Guest

    I guess there are 101 ways to make the U.S. look bad, as our consumption is
    higher, but U.S.'s productivity is also higher. I'll never forget the time I
    spent working in Australia, with it's socialist policies & high import taxes
    resulting in unemployment, bashed-up old autos & patched washing machines.
    BTW; the U.S. Navy provides Australia's defense. And how much have we spent
    for Europe's?
    Jim
    "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > > Here's some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
    > > comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.
    > >
    > > Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
    > > Million
    > > Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS,
    > > Australia: 796,000 BBLS
    > > GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion
    > >
    > > Dividing some of these figures:
    > > Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person
    > > Australia: .040 BBL/person
    > > GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia:
    > > $769,000 / BBL

    >
    > As much as I agree with the basic premise (that the US uses more than its
    > share of the world's resources, which is a problem that goes beyond any
    > moral or ethical issues in that it puts us in an increasingly-defensive
    > position vis-a-vis the countries rich in oil), we need to look at how the
    > oil is actually used. To the extent that it's due to inefficiency & waste

    &
    > just simply driving around too much, yes, absolute problem. But the US

    also
    > is a huge exporter of food products, more so than the other countries

    listed
    > (actually, I don't know the breakdown for Australia; could be they're a

    big
    > exporter as well). Huge amounts of petroleum products are used in
    > agriculture, and it may be relevant to factor that out of the equation.
    >
    > So yeah, we're bad, but let's make it as defensible a case as possible.
    >
    > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
    >
    >
     
  5. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:26:44 -0800, oilfreeandhappy wrote:

    > Here's some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
    > comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.
    >
    > Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
    > Million
    > Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS,
    > Australia: 796,000 BBLS
    > GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion
    >
    > Dividing some of these figures:
    > Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person
    > Australia: .040 BBL/person
    > GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia:
    > $769,000 / BBL


    The comparison with Australia is interesting, because it's probably the
    next most car-oriented society to the US. But the difference is still
    great -- probably because Australia is actually more urbanized than the
    US, with more of its population concentrated in and around major cities.
    These cities have decent public transportation that people actually use.
    Also, Australians are less likely to view American-style 50mi commutes as
    normal. Unless they're making special trips, they tend to stick close
    to home in their daily routine.

    Matt O.
     
  6. Thanks for the correction. Sometimes these GDP figures are confusing.
     
  7. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:06:31 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

    > As much as I agree with the basic premise (that the US uses more than
    > its share of the world's resources, which is a problem that goes beyond
    > any moral or ethical issues in that it puts us in an
    > increasingly-defensive position vis-a-vis the countries rich in oil), we
    > need to look at how the oil is actually used. To the extent that it's
    > due to inefficiency & waste & just simply driving around too much, yes,
    > absolute problem. But the US also is a huge exporter of food products,
    > more so than the other countries listed (actually, I don't know the
    > breakdown for Australia; could be they're a big exporter as well). Huge
    > amounts of petroleum products are used in agriculture, and it may be
    > relevant to factor that out of the equation.


    It's an interesting point. Actually the amount of petroleum used in
    agriculture in the US pales in comparison to what's used just driving
    around. It's those incessant trips across sprawlburbia that are the
    culprit.

    Australia is probably different. I found Jared Diamond's account of
    Australian agriculture in Collapse quite shocking -- the land is so
    infertile that agriculture is not even possible without massive infusions
    of petroleum based fertilizers. This is true in the US too, but not to
    the same degree.

    As a former resident I found this chapter in the book the most
    interesting. So did a couple of other people I shared it with, who had
    also spent a lot of time there. The reason it's so interesting is that
    Australian culture is so enamored of the land, pastoral and agricultural
    traditions, etc. It was a surprise to find out just how much of a sham
    the whole thing is.

    Matt O.
     
  8. My wife and visited Australia a while back. We loved the Mass Transit
    system in Sydney. It was convenient and very easy to use. We're
    pretty active though, and we didn't mind hiking from the station to our
    eventual destination.

    We also took the train from a town near Cairns through Brisbane to
    Sydney. It was great! They only add on about a 10% surcharge for a
    Sleeper Car. Amtrak, our excuse for a National Train System, doubles
    or triples the price.

    Can you even bring a bike on Amtrak?
     
  9. Good point. I did a little looking around, and I found this statement:

    "Agriculture directly accounts for 17% of all the energy used in this
    country." Source:
    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

    Taking 17% off from the US total isn't correct, because these other
    countries also use a lot of energy in their agricultural systems.
    Also, the 17% is for all forms of energy, including electricity. So
    using this figure is a "best-case" scenario for the US statistics.
    Here's the revised data with this factored in. Bottom line, we're
    still the oil gluttons.

    Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
    Million
    Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 16.3 Million BBLS (19.6 x
    ..83),
    Australia: 796,000 BBLS
    GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion


    Dividing some of these figures:
    Daily Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .055
    BBL/person
    Australia: .040 BBL/person
    GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $2,192 / BBL, US: $1,975 / BBL, Australia:
    $2,106 / BBL
     
  10. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:39:50 -0800, oilfreeandhappy wrote:

    > My wife and visited Australia a while back. We loved the Mass Transit
    > system in Sydney. It was convenient and very easy to use. We're pretty
    > active though, and we didn't mind hiking from the station to our
    > eventual destination.


    I lived in Sydney as a teenager. I took the train to school, and
    everywhere else. Because of the great public transit I had the run of the
    city, in a way I never could have the US. It was a great experience, and
    I feel privileged to have had it.

    > We also took the train from a town near Cairns through Brisbane to
    > Sydney.
    > It was great! They only add on about a 10% surcharge for a Sleeper
    > Car.


    Long trips by train to neighboring cities seemed ridiculously cheap.
    Obviously the trains were very heavily subsidized. This is the cost,
    which results in high taxes, and other problems.

    > Amtrak, our excuse for a National Train System, doubles or triples the
    > price.


    Well, it costs a lot to provide that service. Think about it -- how many
    people fit in a sleeper car, vs. regular seats. On top of that is cost of
    running essentially a hotel.

    > Can you even bring a bike on Amtrak?


    Absolutely. The details vary by route. Sometimes the bike has to be
    boxed, other times not. Bike/train commuting on the Amtrak Metrolink
    routes around Los Angeles is very popular.

    Matt O.
     
  11. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    Matt O'Toole wrote:
    > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:39:50 -0800, oilfreeandhappy wrote:
    >
    >
    >>My wife and visited Australia a while back. We loved the Mass Transit
    >>system in Sydney. It was convenient and very easy to use. We're pretty
    >>active though, and we didn't mind hiking from the station to our
    >>eventual destination.

    >
    >
    > I lived in Sydney as a teenager. I took the train to school, and
    > everywhere else. Because of the great public transit I had the run of the
    > city, in a way I never could have the US. It was a great experience, and
    > I feel privileged to have had it.
    >


    I visited Australia for a few weeks and while we were in Sydney we
    didn't bother getting a car. The trains and ferries were fantastic. We
    did, however, rent a car for driving from Uluru to King Cyn to Alice
    Springs.

    Greg

    --
    "All my time I spent in heaven
    Revelries of dance and wine
    Waking to the sound of laughter
    Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
     
  12. Wayne Pein

    Wayne Pein Guest

    oilfreeandhappy wrote:

    > My wife and visited Australia a while back. We loved the Mass Transit
    > system in Sydney. It was convenient and very easy to use. We're
    > pretty active though, and we didn't mind hiking from the station to our
    > eventual destination.
    >
    > We also took the train from a town near Cairns through Brisbane to
    > Sydney. It was great! They only add on about a 10% surcharge for a
    > Sleeper Car. Amtrak, our excuse for a National Train System, doubles
    > or triples the price.
    >
    > Can you even bring a bike on Amtrak?
    >


    Mr Oilfree,

    Do you realize how energy intensive mass transit is? How do you think
    moving those very heavy vehicles occurs?

    Wayne
     
  13. Paul Cassel

    Paul Cassel Guest

    Wayne Pein wrote:

    > Mr Oilfree,
    >
    > Do you realize how energy intensive mass transit is? How do you think
    > moving those very heavy vehicles occurs?
    >

    Those who love mass transit tend to ignore the cost of passenger trains
    or lightly loaded buses. The same thinking causes folks to buy a Prius
    paying $4k over a similar car expecting the delta in petrol to make up
    the difference.

    Even if it could, then there is the cost of the replacement batteries.
     
  14. On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:37:42 -0700, Paul Cassel <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    >Wayne Pein wrote:
    >
    >> Mr Oilfree,
    >>
    >> Do you realize how energy intensive mass transit is? How do you think
    >> moving those very heavy vehicles occurs?
    >>

    >Those who love mass transit tend to ignore the cost of passenger trains
    >or lightly loaded buses.


    Buses only need a few passengers (5 or so) to consume less than the same
    number of people in cars (at 1 apiece, of course, as most of the miles,
    especially in the US, are made), the same goes for trains with higher
    absolute numbers.

    Jasper
     
  15. Ron Ruff

    Ron Ruff Guest

    Jasper Janssen wrote:
    > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:37:42 -0700, Paul Cassel <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > >Wayne Pein wrote:
    > >
    > >> Mr Oilfree,
    > >>
    > >> Do you realize how energy intensive mass transit is? How do you think
    > >> moving those very heavy vehicles occurs?
    > >>

    > >Those who love mass transit tend to ignore the cost of passenger trains
    > >or lightly loaded buses.

    >
    > Buses only need a few passengers (5 or so) to consume less than the same
    > number of people in cars (at 1 apiece, of course, as most of the miles,
    > especially in the US, are made), the same goes for trains with higher
    > absolute numbers.


    True, buses and trains are *much* more efficient than cars... as
    generally used. Large "cars" are the worst of all...

    One of the biggest reason for the differences between the US and the
    rest of the world, is because gas and oil are cheap here, and we seem
    to have abandoned any attempt at conservation. Our current
    administration seems to support using as much fuel as possible, and
    even the recent price increases are not enough for many persons to
    select smaller vehicles based on cost.
     
  16. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    Jim wrote:
    >
    > II'll never forget the time I
    > spent working in Australia, with it's socialist policies & high import taxes
    > resulting in unemployment, bashed-up old autos & patched washing machines.


    OK, then explain Europe with its socialist policies and traditionally
    high import taxes, but which has generally better cars and better
    washing machines than the US has.

    I think you are looking at a situation that's cultural and calling it
    economic.

    Chalo Colina
     
  17. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    Matt O'Toole wrote:
    >
    > oilfreeandhappy wrote:
    > >
    > > Amtrak, our excuse for a National Train System, doubles or triples the
    > > price.

    >
    > Well, it costs a lot to provide that service. Think about it -- how many
    > people fit in a sleeper car, vs. regular seats. On top of that is cost of
    > running essentially a hotel.


    Amtrak is so broken in most places that there's not much in the way of
    lessons that can be drawn from it-- except that subsidized monopolies
    don't have to be functional to survive.

    How in the world could coach passage on a crappy, infrequent train cost
    more than coach passage on a jet airliner? Airlines are money-losing
    operations these days, but then so is Amtrak. And how is it that
    Amtrak passes through entire sections of the country without having any
    stations in them?

    It seems to me that the federal government keeps Amtrak on life support
    so they won't have to allow a real business to provide functional
    cross-country rail service. If we had that, about half of our airlines
    would fold.

    > > Can you even bring a bike on Amtrak?

    >
    > Absolutely. The details vary by route. Sometimes the bike has to be
    > boxed, other times not. Bike/train commuting on the Amtrak Metrolink
    > routes around Los Angeles is very popular.


    It's true that where Amtrak has stations, there is no better way to
    send a bike around the country (at least if you're not particular about
    it arriving on a specific scheduled train). I've been able to ship
    bikes that were too big for UPS or FedEx Ground, and Amtrak personnel
    were very friendly and accommodating about it.

    Chalo Colina


    > Matt O.
     
  18. Wayne Pein

    Wayne Pein Guest

    Jasper Janssen wrote:

    > Buses only need a few passengers (5 or so) to consume less than the same
    > number of people in cars (at 1 apiece, of course, as most of the miles,
    > especially in the US, are made), the same goes for trains with higher
    > absolute numbers.
    >
    > Jasper
    >


    If one examines the relavent actual fuel consumption per passenger mile
    statistics, mass transit systems, even the most heavily used, in the US
    get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption as the average
    car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the driver. This is because
    transit keeps moving whether anyone is using it or not, and the vehicles
    are very heavy. And transit proponents never consider the fuel used
    transporting replacement drivers around, which would reduce transit
    actual fuel economy.

    Cars are parked when not in use. Have a fuel efficient car (or carpool
    or both) and transit can't compete.

    If transit was so good, people would clamor for it, but people don't
    want it unless driving is miserable. Here in Chapel Hill NC, transit is
    FREE. Yet few "townies" use it, except those who are forced to by
    increasingly restrictive parking on campus where they work. It is used
    almost exclusively by students who don't have the option to drive. Many
    routes are virtually empty during non-peak student times. When the
    students are totally gone, the busses are virtually empty.

    Further, when it became "free" (i.e. even more heavily subsidized than
    normal), walking and biking plummeted. Close-to-campus bus stops, which
    previously had few boardings, now have many boardings. People are too
    lazy to walk or bike a couple of blocks. So, previous non-polluting
    travelers are now "motorists," except they are chauffeured. And it makes
    our local transit artificially look better than it is. If our transit
    was populated only by people who would otherwise drive alone (rather
    than walk, bike, or carpool), it's fuel consumption would be truly ghastly.

    Wayne
     
  19. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    Wayne Pein wrote:
    >
    > If one examines the relavent actual fuel consumption per passenger mile
    > statistics, mass transit systems, even the most heavily used, in the US
    > get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption as the average
    > car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the driver. This is because
    > transit keeps moving whether anyone is using it or not, and the vehicles
    > are very heavy.


    If you are going to make preposterous assertions like that, you had
    better back them up with reputable sources, preferably with hard
    numbers attached.

    Chalo Colina
     
  20. Chalo,
    I agree. Some hard data should be forthcoming to back that statement.
    However, I have read that airlines do use more fuel than if all the
    occupants drove cars. This was stated in a Worldwatch Institute
    article.

    If used heavily in a major city, Lightrail can vastly reduce car trips
    within a city. This has been proven in Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, and
    Minneapolis, where it is a big success. I hear this isn't going so
    well in Baltimore though, and they recently closed 3 stations. The
    justification and feasibility of these systems for Denver and St. Louis
    were not compared to buses though. The studies compared the cost of
    expanding infrastructure for more car-lanes, etc. The thinking here is
    that the gridlock is so bad that the city needs a system apart from the
    roads, which the buses did not offer.
     
Loading...
Loading...