We have the problem that people occasionally need a 4WD for towing, dirt roads or carrying 6 people but in practice spend most of their time in slow moving traffic. Perhaps genuine workhorse models could be speed limited to 90kph or painted a dull brown which may not be so chic in the affluent suburbs.

However I think discouraging big cars could be too little too late if some forecasts prove correct. One prediction is of a 50% drop in world oil production by 2020 and another says exports could be down that much in 5 years if producers suddenly realise the need to conserve. No doubt there will be more battery powered cars with in-wheel electric motors. Urban dreamers who rationalise their current 4WD ownership might then have to revise plans to do the Birdsville Track. Provided society doesn't split into mobility have and have-nots the 4WD boom could be over in a few years.

Hurray ... finally someone's said it! I've been driving 20km below the speed limit and blogging about it at A Year In A Day since I found out that I could reduce my emissions by 20% that way. People don't realise that speed limits are limits, not targets!

I'm keen to get a more efficient car but hanging out to see if the government will drop sales tax on hybrid cars so that they become more affordable .... and hoping that suddenly some other brilliant new type of transport option might appear.
www.stoplaughing.com.au/wordpress

Peter,

Your superficial understanding of energy, peak oil and the way the world economy works is demonstrated by your focus on 4WD vehicles, the removal of which from roads would have little impact on overall oil use. When you have read and understood a little more you may realise that food production, not transport, will be the most critical aspect of our lives impacted by peak oil. You will also understand that becoming more energy efficient is not a solution if you do not stop population and economic growth - in fact it is dangerous since growth on the back of efficiency gains leaves you will less ability to reduce energy use when ultimately required. You may also realise that the economic impacts of energy decline mean that there will be very little in the way of infrastructure reforms (e.g. fleets of new, efficient vehicles) that are possible due to the sky-high price of any activity and that high-tech solutions will be unsustainable.

Do some more reading Peter - rather than bashing out half-thought through articles in rapid succession!

Oh dear, why do I get the feeling that PeterMcM was recently intimidated by some person in a 4WD?

An article that means well with slightly foggy numbers: transport is where "most of our oil use" goes: about 55%. The rest is in manufacturing and agriculture. My car (a sedan) is most fuel efficient at a tad over 90km/h. There is a tradeoff between fuel consumption per km/k and consumption per minute spent travelling. Congestion is a major fuel user and I'd like to see LOTS more wide flat highways and arterial roads. Later (in 10+ years) they can be easily converted to bus and light rail routes. Nowhere in the article is another real per person fuel guzzler--air travel--mentioned. Maybe Dr. Pete likes to fly a bit.

When Hurricane Katrina hit and crude priced jumped the sale of 4wd's in the US slumped (it's why both GM and Ford had massive losses: they were making the 'wrong' vehicles) so, to some extent, the market does an efficient job punishing those who ignore the smoke signals. Governments can influence behaviour with taxes and restrictions and should do so but singling out obvious, but possibly minor culprits---if the INCREMENTAL 4wd useage is more than a few percent I'd be surprised---is a fairly ineffective, gets those users offside and makes the rest of us wonder if we'll be targeted next.

To my knowledge no Aussie government had acknowledged the threat of PO and the Feds believe it's 30 years away. That's where the real work needs doing. I'm just about to write to my local MP. I don't think I'll get an enlightened response.

This article smacks of the author's personal loathing of 4wd's, no mention of v8's or v6's. This is one of the big problems with the "green" movement. It allows/encourages people with their own agendas to push for changes under the guise of helping the environment. Next comes the death squads that take care of people that display "sheer anti-sociality". Erosions of freedom are happening at an ever quickening pace and the garbage espoused by this author does nothing but encourage it. The word "flogger" comes to mind.

A proper sentiment and a very good article. However peak oil is not when we have used half the total oil. Each oil field reaches a peak when it is fully developed and from there on, for that field, it is downhill. If oil could be found at the rate it is being used the overall oil peak would be a long way off. Exploration is now only finding one litre for each four litres used so much of our consumption is coming from wells that are on the downward slope and this is not be ing compensated for by new fields coming into production. All the fields in mainland USA reached their cumulative peak in about 1970 and the North Sea fields of the UK and Norway in the late nineties. There are still significant reserves in the politically unstable Middle East and in the oil sands of Canada and Venezuala. Oil sands are expensive to mine and process both is money and energy cost so all considered there is now no alternative to economy and substitution. I would suggest some further restrictions. Engine sizes could be limited to say 2.5 litres for both petrol and deisel and weight to 1200kg (early Holdens were about 1000kg). The grey nomads can tow a moderate caravan with a modern 2.5L deisel engine. Registration fees could be based on standardised fuel consumption tests for each vehicle. Each individual adult or family unit could be allocated a fixed number of litres per month at the base price and charged extra for fuel above the allowance, in effect a reverse shopper docket system.
We then need substantial infrastructure investment in both city and inter-city rail systems. Cities such as London are already well off in this regard. We do not need private equity to do this. We face a virtual war and in war finance is obtained by government borrowing. Its cheaper than private equity!
Foyle

We’ve heard it all before. There is nothing new about oil-shortage scaremongering and admonishment to use more efficient vehicles.

But what’s the point? People are still driving 4WD’s, one-up, from inner suburbs, to their jobs in the city, where they park the things all day in concrete, multi-storey monstrosities.

The author says, “Governments should…..” blah, blah, blah just like all the others before him who think (sorry, know!) they have all the answers.

The problems with these ‘answers’ is that they rely on the heavy hand of government; the good old nanny state. As if governments are going to do what Peter McMahon says they should do. They would be chucked out of office quick time.

Personally, I think that anyone who drives a car with an engine bigger than 1.5 litres is a twit. My own daughter has just taken delivery of the biggest-engined car available. But, people have to take responsibility for what happens in their society and, if we do run out of oil, tough titty.

Peter would be much better off, as would we all, by refraining from telling others what to do (and living with the consequences of what they do) and regulating his own behaviour in a way he sees fit.

From the environment point of view, oil-produced emissions and their effect on the climate and all that waffle will prove to be a hoax eventually. And, if we have to find viable alternatives to oil (as opposed to the current Mickey Mouse stuff), then the problem will be solved by free enterprise movers and shakers – not by Peter’s authoritarian nanny-state and pursed lip tutting each time we see someone driving a ridiculously overpowered and unnecessary vehicle.

The majority of modern vehicles, with 5 or 6 speed transmissions, maintain very low consumption at high speeds. In fact, highway driving is universally accepted to have lower consumption of fuel than city drivers.

Many urban anti-motor people drive increased emissions by lobbying for extra chicanes, roundabouts, humps and traffic calming which make fuel consumption higher.

Urban nimbys campaigned against the Bondi beach railway and the abandoned surface alignment of the Chatswood-epping line which had more stations.

I wonder how many of these same green crowd will support the mandating of water tanks on any townhouses/homes offered for sale or rent, or mandate that any replacement of hot water heating shall include solar as the principal heating source? I suspect that many of them are on the public tit with negatively geared investments and prefer outcomes that impose only on others, not themselves, which means they lack sincere commitment.

lis, I hope you don't try to drive 20 km below the speed limit in Victoria in school holidays. driving too slow is also a form of dangerous driving as cars desperately risk all to overtake the slow coach. besides its a traffic offense for which you can be fined.

If you can't drive at the same speed as the prevailing traffic you should hand in your license.

Our state governments haven't really addressed the fact that peak oil will make fuel more expensive thus it will cost more to drive to work, school, and play. Last night there was an report on Hack about a public transport study that showed there were 20,000 households in outer suburbs of Melbourne with household income of under $500 that ran 2 cars. Low income people have to factor the increasing cost of fuel into the costs of working. The time honoured remedy for outer suburban kids is to learn how to hitch hike.

Leigh, Your experience of big business much be much different from mine and mine included direct contact with many senior officers. Less than 20 years ago Westpac had to be rescued and BHP hit a very bad patch after buying Magna Copper and investing in a $2billion direct reduction plant which proved a technical failure. Of course then there was the Bell, Bond, Skase and several similar debacles and less regulation of financial markets has been a major contributor to pricing young average wage earners out the housing market unless they have wealthy parents.
How much do you really understand about the resources industry? All resources deplete and if we leave the planning to free markets we will go over a cliff!
Foyle

Our petrol prices are too low because it isn't taxed heavily enough. They neither recognize the scarcity value of oil; or correctly price in the cost of externalities (pollution costs such as healthcare; and climate change). If fuel cost the same as in Europe it wouldn't mean that we would be driving any less, it would just mean that we would be driving a more efficient fleet (Japan,Europe). The extra tax revenue would mean paying lower income tax (or we should be), which would all give us different choices about where we spent our money.

As to scarcity - Peak Oil is real. Global production has not increased for nearly 3 years and it may now never increase again. How long it can hold at 84m barrels per day is anybody's guess, but I have already changed to more efficient cars (Yaris and Golf Tdi). Anybody who thinks that oil production can increase again needs to consider this: Schlumberger, probably the most knowledgeable private sector oil exploration company in the world (these are the guys the oil companies hire when things get tough), have an oil field database that shows that 24m barrels per day of new production must be found to offset known declines from existing fields by 2010. That is nearly a whole new OPEC!.

The omens for this happening are not good. The big 5 (Shell, BP, Exxon etc) all have spent more money in looking for oil than they have found recently. That is why they have all but stopped looking. The National Oil Companies are run on a different agenda - they may not want to increase production for economic or political reasons. Then there are the wars: Iraq and Nigeria cannot produce any more oil.

I wouldn't try and find out who needs an SUV. Just tax them off the road. Anyone who really needs one will pay. They are ridiculous things anyway; and are a sure sign of hubris and excess at the top of an unsustainable cheap oil driven boom. Reality is going to smack us all in the face soon.

Foyle,

I presume you know what you are talking about. If you want to engage people in discussion, please read what they say, and don't rabbit on about things they did not even mention

One things governments can do is to get serious about public transport. In Sydney at peak times and even on weekends, buses and trains are packed. People do choose to use public transport and more people would if it was more accessible. There have been some initiatives but it is going to take more than a new rail link here and there to get people off the road. I hate driving but there are some instances where I have needed to use a car because the public transport system to those areas is woeful. New rail systems won't instantly unclog the roads but better to start building them now rather than later.

I understand that wind resistance to a vehicle increases to the cube
of the speed. If this is correct then with most later cars having
been wind tunnel tested there must be an optimiom speed for all
modern cars. (This is why they all look alike).
That speed is probably already known and could be the speed limit.

When you see the trucks on Pennant Hills Road you realise that trucks
have to a major user of fuel. They are on the road 12 to 24 hours
a day at maximium speed.
We should have a crash program of getting interstate trucks loads onto rail.
If we wait till the price of diesal forces them off it will be too late
to build the extra rail infrastructure.

Exactly right, Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family.

It's the speed of your engine, not the speed of your vehicle that counts.

Watch the tacho not the speedo .... but don't lug it.

Power usage is actually nearer to the square of the speed as form drag is equal to the cube of the speed but induced drag is inversely proportional to speed. The optimum speed is therefore much lower than many would think. If we were paying the same amount for fuel as the Poms are we would all be driving small one litre diesels as they are. Try A$2.30 per litre.

However, to really reduce energy consumption, apart from the obvious need to reduce population increase, we also need to compel people to build smaller, more efficient houses, without all the modern gee gaws which consume electricity like it is going out of fashion.

The market will determine when "peak oil" arrives.
In the mean time, all I ask is that the busybodies stay out of my life and mind their own damn business.

"all I ask is that the busybodies stay out of my life and mind their own damn business"

Good luck with that Admiral...they're everywhere at the moment.

Small engined cars might be fine putting through Sydney for a commute, but are not much good if you actually need to carry something (of weight) or in hilly areas outside cities. In mountainous areas the lack of torque (based on cylinder size) can result in heavy fuel usage as the poor little car is too underpowered to cope with the climbs.

Towing a caravan with a 2.5L diesel might be fine if you are heading across the Nullabor or Hay Plains, but for your average Victorian heading to the Gold Coast it would be a disaster. Again the issue of it being underpowered would result in heavy fuel usage. My dad drives a very efficient 2L diesel sedan (thats 22 years old). Its got 600,000 kms on it, has only JUST had the motor rebuilt and gets 1000km to a 60L tank. BUT he lives on the Hay Plains, so no city traffic or hills to struggle with.

No Admiral the market will NOT decide when peak oil occurs.
It will be decided by geology !

Country Gal;
Yes I think the points you make are correct.
I am not an expert, but just common sense would indicate that.
However to be definative about it you would have to find the ratio of
flat running to hilly running and another input would be the steepness
of the hills. Also a further complication would be the effect of running
down the hills. A very complex calculation.
The only alternative would be to measure it for two specicic cars and
a particular district.

The price and availability of fuel will drive what you do anyway.
It might be advisable to lay in a stock of older cars as larger cars
just might not be available.
Once rationing starts you might be looking for a good horse.

Admiral V.S.-- "The market will determine when 'Peak oil' arrives."
No it won't. Peak oil, for free flowing oil, will be determined by the cumulative geological natures of the reservoirs already being exploited unless we find some gigantic new reservoirs which is unlikely.
"...busybodies stay out of my life..."
Anyone wasting resources is adversely affecting the future of my grandchildren and yours. I am aiming to protect and benefit that future. Who should stay out of whose life?
Leigh-- You commented that "the problem will be solved by free enterprise movers and shakers." I doubt that. I attempted to point out some of the debacles caused by some of those characters, even when operating within large corporations. Some of us are trying to prevent our civilisation from going over a cliff. It doesn't much matter to me personally. I've had more than my three score and ten
Foyle

There are always some around who want everyone else to conform to their vision. Well a society full of these types is not worth having, so foyle, bon-voyage, & please, take your mates with you.

Anyone who thinks these horrible cities you live in, can survive the loss of the car, & road transport, is a twit. With out the truck to collect your food from scattered, & far-flung production areas, & transport it to, & around your cities, you are stuffed. Rail can't supply cities developed with, & for road transport.
You are going to have to live within horse & cart range of your food sources, if road transport fails. Better start looking for a new fuel.

I'll put the stallion in with a few mares, next year, if you like. It would be interesting to see how you would handle the manuer in a horse drawn city of 2.5 milloin.
Good luck.

"Some of us are trying to prevent our civilisation from going over a cliff." (Foyle, Friday, 29 June 2007 7:20:19 PM).
I guess I have more faith in human ingenuity.

Hasbeen said, "Better start looking for a new fuel."

I think you should have said "Better start looking for a new foal."

Lucky for me I have been attacked a couple of times for my postings. That gives me targets for provision of new information. Does anyone believe that our resources are infinite? They are finite! So we should use them carefully. Every human is entitled to some share of them or do some who have posted believe that the proper approach is, "To hell with anyone else."
Can we grow our fuel? Not likely! The world's liquid oil consumption is about 3.5 billion tonnes (all figures per year) whereas the total production of grains and sugar is less than half that (about 1.6 billion tonnes). World coal consumption is about another 5 billion tonnes. We are already using all of the best agricultural land and still cannot feed everyone adequately. Should some more people starve to death (already many thousands do each day) so we can drive monsters unnecessary distances or heat and cool oversize houses at will?
I too believe in human ingenuity but that needs careful thought, education in the sciences and careful co-operation rather than action by cowboys.
Foyle

What a passionate discussion. On the one hand, those that feel entitled to do as they please. On the other, those that want the heavy hand of government to punish the selfish.

The shortcomings of Mr. McMahon's article have already been pointed out and, really, one has come to expect more of the ISTP at Murdoch. I'll just add that it's 'affect', not 'effect'.

I could be described as an environmental crusader: not on the activism front so much as the action front. I am of the opinion that it is engineers standing on the shoulders of scientists who have made the world as it is, and I hold them personally responsible. I am also one of them.

This discussion seems to have missed the crucial point that most people use whatever they see lying around - be it a broken femur for bashing your neighbour with (ref: Mr McMahon's bio) or a 4WD vehicle down at the local Toyota dealership. No 4WD, no problem. A team of engineers designed that thing, employed by business interests supported by government policy and taxpayers' dollars. There is a subtle interplay between what we can do as a species, what we end up doing and why we end up doing it that way. Technology, commerce, government. There is no master controller. Governments cannot run countries as though they were fish and chip shops. Modern democratic theory sees government as a strategic device only, tweaking (and I wish I could think of a less technical term) control variables like subsidies, taxes and regulations. These things amount to encouragement and discouragement to commerce. Commerce is merely a formalisation of basic human instincts like survival, greed and status-seeking behaviours. Commerce takes action based on opportunities. In the modern world, where all pre-existing niches are filled, opportunities are created by innovative technologies and an engineer or scientist saying "yes, I can do that".

(continued)

(...)

So I am not concerned about peak oil. The raft of technologies that will replace the current dig-it-up-and-burn-it mentality are already in the lab. Movement from the lab to the real world, however, requires cooperation from commerce and government. Why isn't every roof covered in solar panels? They are too expensive. Why are we not all driving around hydrogen fuel cell cars using hydrogen sourced via non-polluting renewable energy systems? They are too expensive.

Your typical four wheel drive vehicle is OK in my book, provided that it runs on clean energy. What is missing for that to happen, however, is commercial incentive. We use oil because it is cheap. One day soon it will no longer be cheap, and other technologies will become attractive.

There is a choice to be made here, though, by every one of us and especially those in government: to be deliberately blind to the changes that will occur over the next 20 years, or to be prepared. Offload your four wheel drive or V8 vehicle if you can, because when petrol becomes so expensive that you decide to sell, rest assured that no-one is going to buy. Fork out for a hybrid: their re-sale value is excellent and it creates a commercial incentive. Don't complain about fuel taxes: they can save the world if properly channelled. Write to the government and request that petrol be made more expensive to everyone outside the transport industry (we do not want to tax the army of early morning people who bring our food to our local shop, as HasBeen rightly pointed out). While you're there ask the government to subsidise clean energy commercialisation so that when the Saudi's say "sorry, we sold all our oil to the Chinese", this country will not come to a crashing halt. Support the technologies that are going to save your behind with your wallet, whenever you can. Get ahead of your neighbours, because when things go pear shaped they're not going to hesitate to buy you out of the running if they can.

"Offload your four wheel drive"
Or buy a diesel 4wd which can run off biodiesel without needing any conversions. Or get an LPG conversion done. Or wait until coal liquefaction starts. Actually better hang onto that 4wd for now.

"Write to the government and request that petrol be made more expensive to everyone outside the transport industry"
Yeah sure...letter is in the mail.

"Fork out for a hybrid"
Too expensive.

Why buy a hybrid car that will do 45 miles per gallon when you can
buy a diesal car that will do 60 miles per gallon ?

Alzo makes a good point with respect to biodiesel. Biodiesel is one of the things that I would include in the 'raft of technologies' that I mentioned that will replace the current dug-up fuel supply. Biodiesel can't, however, solve the problem for us completely, as Foyle has already pointed out. Biodiesel will be a niche market, for those that require lots of power: trucks, heavy machinery and the like (because hydrocarbons are the best compact energy carrier we know about). Growing the crops that provide it also present a substitution problem: which crop does a farmer choose to grow on his or her land? The first requirement is obviously a crop that will grow in the region in question. The rest is down to knowledge and economics. If a farmer can get more money out of growing food, then what incentive is there in growing a crop suited to biodiesel production? Machinery, distribution, skilled worker, government subsidy and tax costs and benefits all have to be factored in to that decision. It's not simple, and it won't be cheap.

LPG conversions are a good idea, as long as you don't mind refilling all the time: there is only 66% of the energy in LPG as there is in biodiesel. Coal liquefaction? Coal is the dirtiest fuel there is (CO2,SO2,NO-wise). How about 'carbon tax'? If you think you're going to avoid carbon taxes then I wish you good luck with your 4WD. I'm still inclined to recommend offloading it and saving yourself a dollar or two, though. Of course, it's not about four wheel drive vehicles - it's about coping with peak oil without beggaring ourselves.

Alzo, you may not write to the government about raising funds to save the country's transport future - but someone else will. One voice heard, one voice not. Everyone is free to choose their ground in a democracy. Those that don't embrace energy consumption reduction strategies will subsidise those that do, that is all. It is when that happens on an international scale that we need to stop and think as a group.

Hybrids, for Alzo and Bazz. A Daimler-Chrysler (Mercedes) A-class converted to run off a fuel cell goes for about $1 million. That is too expensive. 5kW of solar panels for your roof, $50,000. That is too expensive, considering what electricity costs. I can spend $45,000 on a brand new Volkswagon Beetle or $35,000 on a new Honda Civic hybrid that provides better performance off the line and way better fuel economy. How is that too expensive? Bazz: none of my research indicates a pure diesel that gets 65 miles per gallon. Perhaps you are thinking of the Smart Fourtwo cdi, which gets nearly 80 miles per gallon compared to the civic hybrid's 60 miles per gallon (both advertised figures and probably not attainable in the real world). Of course, the Smart cdi is a diesel-electric hybrid, and is anyone willing to admit that it's a 'real' car? For offsetting peak oil, though, we should all buy one right now - and drive around the streets in the knowledge that when that 4WD ploughs through you, you're toast.

Esatwood,
The BBC program Top Gear recently did a test of the Prius and
that was their comment.
There are a number of small diesal cars on the market
in Europe, Renault and Citreon among them.
As it was a recent program it may be on their web site.