21 ms·

Demand for oil&gas will continue to grow for a long time due to: - SUV/pick-up boom (America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series!) and more cars + t

Demand for oil&gas will continue to grow for a long time due to: - SUV/pick-up boom (America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series!) and more cars + trucks in countries like Brazil, India, China, Indonesia - crazy growth in air travel (look at order numbers of Airbus, see how many airports are under construction, see miles traveled via plane) - simultaneous shift away from coal+ nuclear, giving a huge boost to natural gas in the long term (LNG build-out is only now beginning) - the world getting richer (more and more humans are living like Westerners). We're on a path towards $100tn/y world GDP and 10bn humans. I provide more detail + resources on my blog: https://mxschumacher.xyz/post/long_oil_and_gas/ https://mxschumacher.xyz/post/long_oil_and_gas/

yters 7y ago
I thought the primary user of oil and gas is industry, not consumers.
- mxschumacher 7y ago
  I'm not sure the distinction matters, because all industry eventually serves consumers.
  - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 7y ago
    The distinction is crucial with respect to regulating pollution standards.
    - appleiigs 7y ago
      Regulation isn't the answer. First, politics will never allow it. Look at the political environment in US, Great Britain... Then when regulation is put in place, it isn't effective. Loop holes, grand-fathering, unintended consequences, incompetent gov't agencies. And then even if one country goes green, it won't help if the rest of the world is spewing air pollution and dumping plastic into the oceans. The probability of all this getting aligned to make regulation effective is zero.
      - entropea 7y ago
        I'm sure the residents next to the Hudson river in Upstate NY would love more GE polychlorinated biphenyls dumped into their rivers. I think what you mean is that our current bought politicians don't have the guts to properly stand up to the people who pollute the environment.
Cshelton 7y ago
I completely disagree. While I do not believe we have hit peak oil yet, I do not believe we are far off nor will oil and gas demand continue to grow for "a long time". - The personal transportation industry will go through the biggest change it ever has in the next decade. Bigger than horse + buggy -> automobiles. An electric car will be cheaper to operate and maintain. Production of EVs will proliferate even countries like China (already happening), India (already happening), and others. Autonomous ride networks, especially in dense urban areas, will also take a massive market share. The need for individuals to own vehicles will decrease in urban and even suburban environments. Couple that with almost any good or service you need being delivered to your door "instantly", the vehicle is no longer needed. The rise of remote working will also contribute to this. Yes, some people like their SUVs/Trucks, but that will pail in comparison to the reduction elsewhere. - Air travel will grow, assuming economic stability of course. Towards the end of the decade, we will also have short length, all electric aircraft operating. That will shore up the growth of air travel in regards to the demand for more oil. - Natural Gas growth long term... no way. Not happening. Within this decade, we will see the price of solar and batteries drop to levels never before imagined. Production and efficiency will also greatly increase. We have only just begun. You will have distributed "grids", where many more people are generating their own power, and borrowing from their neighbor when necessary. BRIC countries will also be leading on adopting these types of grids as well, especially in areas where the grid is not stable/doesn't even exist. See Puerto Rico. They have only just begun. - Yes, the quality of life across the world is getting better. That means the demand for alternative energy and the Capability to pay for the infrastructure is ALSO increasing. This will move the growth needle forward for renewable energy. This will be your peak oil. Your peak oil will be in the past once you see entire areas of housing in BRIC countries running on Solar/batteries. Goodbye. Oil. Also, I think humanity will do the right thing as a whole. Governments will STOP subsidizing oil like they do today. It will become much more expensive. Peak oil will be in the past at this point as well. So go on, go invest in your oil companies and throw your arms in the air saying "yes, but it's not my problem, I'm just making money". War profiteers say the same thing. They never come out on the right side of the history book. Neither will you. Oil and Gas will NOT have growth for a long time.
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
jliptzin 7y ago
Tesla is coming out with an all electric pick-up and semi. Hopefully others will follow. But at least a few years before mainstream uptake.
- mxschumacher 7y ago
  It's important to note that even with electric cars, it will still take a long time until most electricity is produced without the use fossil fuels. Getting all of the required cobalt out of the Congo to make millions of large batteries isn't exactly ideal either. Storage and long distance transport abilities make natural gas extremely attractive.
  - alan 7y ago
    I never figured out why the cobalt has to come from the Congo. There are cobalt mines in North America that are sitting idle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt,_Ontario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt,_Ontario
    - nickserv 7y ago
      It's cheaper when you don't need to follow labor and environmental regulations.
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        Bingo, and when it becomes too expensive there, you just do your typical political corruption/bribery dance and get the rules to change here so you can continue to profit from environmental destruction.
        WorldMaker 7y ago
        Besides, warlords often want lots of Nickel and other metals for projects. The Cobalt is "waste product" from what they were going to be mining for in the first place.
  - deleted 7y ago
ben010783 7y ago
America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series! American's are going crazy for SUVs and pickups, but the F150 has been the best-selling vehicle for decades. Pickups have outsold passenger vehicles for a long time.
- Animats 7y ago
  Coming in 2021, the electric Ford F-150.[1] That should be a great truck. Empty pickups have poor weight distribution; not enough weight in back. With a giant battery pack under the pickup bed, traction is better. [1] https://youtu.be/bXFHgoon7lg https://youtu.be/bXFHgoon7lg
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    > Empty pickups have poor weight distribution; not enough weight in back. With a giant battery pack under the pickup bed, traction is better. The problem you're mentioning being solved by a battery pack could just as easily be solved by putting any random ballast in the back of the regular truck. I think electric will have other advantages (and disadvantages), but I doubt this is a big one for most people.
    - donkeyd 7y ago
      That ballast would then make the truck use even more fuel, which wouldn't make much sense.
      - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        Sure, but it solves the problem of traction. The electric vehicle also reduces efficiency by adding weight to the vehicle - being electric doesn't change physics. And being able to remove weight is always preferable to not being able to remove weight.
        jdietrich 7y ago
        >The electric vehicle also reduces efficiency by adding weight to the vehicle - being electric doesn't change physics. The battery adds weight, but that's more than outweighed by the tremendous efficiency of an electric drivetrain. The EV equivalent of a gas-guzzler (e.g. a Tesla Model X P90D) still achieves the equivalent of 90mpg.
Apocryphon 7y ago
It's insane that SUVs are back again, after their original wave during the Bush years.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  They're not really back. Station wagons have just grown into them to compensate for the compromises in features that modern sedans have suffered in the name of fuel economy and safety. People want something that's AWD, has a belt-line lower than your nose and a trunk that's integrated with the rest of the cab. In order to get that in a package that meets modern safety requirements it needs to be decently big and decently heavy. To make a decently big and decently heave vehicle comply with modern fuel economy and emissions rules you have to be able to call it an SUV with a straight face. Enter the "crossover". Sedans and compact hatches make great commuter cars but if you can only afford one payment at a time then you can only really justify buying a multi-tool of a vehicle. On the small end that gives us things like the HRV. On the large end that gives us crew cab pickups.
- SI_Rob 7y ago
  Self-reinforcing arms race to sit up high and see over the top of traffic. If people could be trusted to reliably signal, merge, etc. the perceived need to see 300 feet ahead to predict behavior of immediately adjacent drivers would diminish.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  SUVs were a thing during the Reagan years. Although they were mostly 2 doors and based on small pickups with body on frame construction and very little power by today's standards. In 1987 I remember you could get a 4Runner, a Pathfinder, a Cherokee, a Blazer, or a Bronco.
odiroot 7y ago
> SUV/pick-up boom Not sure why but I see the same here, in Berlin. There is even a meme circling about SUVs being just mothers (usually talking on a phone) driving their kids to school.
- mxschumacher 7y ago
  I've heard that consumers perceive SUVs as safer
  - dfsegoat 7y ago
    Consumer Reports seems to back this up, but they cite an added rollover risk: > "In car vs. SUV head-on crashes, the study found that the odds of death were 7.6 times higher for the car driver than the SUV driver. In crashes where the car had a better front crash-test rating than the SUV did, the car's driver fared a bit better but was still four and a half times more likely to die than the SUV driver. " > "Choosing an SUV for safety isn't an automatic win, as their higher center of gravity makes them more prone to rollover, an often fatal event. " [1] - https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/suvs-are-safer-than-cars-in-front-crashes-but-there-is-more-to-the-story/index.htm https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/suvs-are-sa...
    - Faark 7y ago
      A criticism is this being at the cost of the other crash participant (due to mass), thus it being a spiral were everyone will drive military tanks a bit down the line.
      - munificent 7y ago
        > everyone will drive military tanks a bit down the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer
    - NickM 7y ago
      I would say CR doesn't back up the "SUVs are safer" argument; they say SUVs are safer in head-on collisions with smaller vehicles, but don't really indicate whether they're more or less safe overall.
FooHentai 7y ago
>SUV/pick-up boom (America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series!) My understanding is that this is a misleading fact - There are less models of SUV in the market than other classes of vehicle, so even if less SUVs, as a class, are sold than other cars, the lack of variance means the total number of a particular model is likely higher than sales of a model in any other class.
- coliveira 7y ago
  That might be true, but total volume of SUV sales in the US is giant. In fact, SUVs are now the standard car model, with sedans being left behind. This is the result of a strong push from auto companies in terms of advertisement and diversification of SUV offers.
  - FooHentai 7y ago
    Crossovers apparently make up the bulk of it (40%), but yeah those plus pickups and SUVs combined eclipse small, medium, large, and luxury cars combined. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-demand-by-vehicle-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-...
    - elihu 7y ago
      It seems like Crossover is just a name for "I can't tell if that's a bulky sedan, a minivan with slightly bigger tires, a small SUV, or a short station wagon." I think statistics that classify them as SUVs are a little misleading because the distinctions are blurring.
      - FooHentai 7y ago
        It's a platform difference. The starting point for a crossover is a car chassis, whereas SUVs are derived from a truck.
        perl4ever 7y ago
irrational 7y ago
Why are pick-ups so popular? I can understand if you are a construction worker, farmer, etc. that actually needs a pickup truck; but why are they so popular for other people? The vast majority of pickup trucks I see have beds that are so clean that it is obvious that has never been used to haul even one bag of cement or load of dirt.
- pm90 7y ago
  In the South (especially in Texas, where I lived for a bit) they're considered a symbol of rugged manliness, which is the main reason why they're so popular among city dwellers. They're also nice to go off-road in areas with not good roads. I've driven a few and they also offer a different perspective when you're driving (you feel "taller"). Also, they might be safer than tiny sedans (although not sure how they compare with the German ones w.r.t safety). If you live in Suburbs, its also nice to have one for the occasional lugging around of furniture or moving heavy stuff.
  - graycat 7y ago
    Here are some points about pickups that appeal to me and maybe to others: (1) Bumpers. Pickup trucks (PUTs) tend to have actual, steel bumpers (often chrome plated which indicates that they are steel), both front and rear. Passenger cars have, instead, plastic over some structures for crumple zones or some such. So, if run into something, say, a deer crossing the road in the middle of the night, then are better off with the bumpers; the plastic and crumple zone is less rugged and more subject to expensive damage. Bumpers can be useful otherwise, say, wrap and hook on with a steel cable and pull or be pulled. (2) Passenger cars emphasize smooth ride. So, the springs and shocks tend to be soft. On PUTs, the springs and shocks are stiff enough to do well carrying heavy loads over rough ground. So, (i) the springs on both passenger cars and PUTs are usually spring steel with a not very long fatigue life, say, under 100,000 miles. Having the springs suffer from metal fatigue and sag is a bummer. The stiffer springs in a PUT flex less and so fatigue less and even when fatigued still have enough stiffness not to sage. (ii) Over rough surfaces, soft springs and shocks more easily bounce around and bottom out -- not good. (3) In addition to the springs, PUTs have suspensions better able to take loads and bumps and, thus, last longer. E.g., in the front, passenger cars, again, emphasizing smooth ride, have soft suspension bushings, soft stabilizer bars and mounts for them, soft shocks, and struts instead of just A-frames -- the PUT suspensions last longer. In the rear the PUTs have leaf springs with extra leaves for heavy loads instead of coil springs common in passenger cars -- the stiff leaf springs last longer before sagging or actually breaking than the soft coil springs. (4) PUTs have more ground clearance. So, e.g., if there is a traffic jam, when in a PUT might just head for a curb or a ditch, cross some rough ground, head in a different direction, and avoid the jam. At times extra ground clearance is darned nice to have. (5) To exaggerate, PUTs are for people in work clothes with mud on their shoes, and passenger cars are for suits and evening gowns with spotless shoes. More generally the interiors of PUTs are more rugged, aimed at utility instead of luxury. (6) PUT brakes have to be strong enough to stop the truck when it also has a big load, say, 1000+ pounds. This means that with light loads, the brakes will last longer. (7) PUTs have more head room in the door openings and the interiors. Tall people have an easier time getting in and out. (8) PUTs are commonly well designed for towing; for most passenger cars, towing is less advisable. Towing requires, yes, a trailer hitch but also connections for lights and maybe brakes on the trailer, a stronger transmission, a larger engine radiator, etc. (9) A lot of small passenger cars have front wheel drive, and PUTs have rear wheel drive as the main drive with a solid axle which mechanically simpler, more rugged, and lasts longer. In short, PUTs emphasize utility and passenger cars, luxury. Similarly much of the US is big on blue jeans -- utility over luxury. Blue jeans are made of essentially the same canvas that was used for sails on sailing ships and, thus, is one of the toughest cotton fabric weaves there is; the seam sewing is very strong, and some stress points have brass rivets.
shmerl 7y ago
Shouldn't prices on electric cars fall enough eventually to produce affordable electric SUVs and pick-ups? Or that's too much into the future still?
UncleOxidant 7y ago
We need a $3/gallon gas tax in the US. And/or completely stop subsidizing oil production.
baron_harkonnen 7y ago
As long as we live in a global economy we will be hungry for oil. A global economy depends on shipping goods around the world, and for that to work you need a high energy density fuel source, and there is really no alternative nearly as good as oil. This isn't about SUVs or consumer air travel. The world will need oil for cargo transport to sustain the trade necessary to maintain our economic way of life. Hydrocarbons are high energy density which is an essential property because otherwise your fuel becomes your cargo. The problem isn't SUVs, it's the fact that your local grocery store has bananas shipped from 10,000 miles away for $0.59/lb. The only way you can make that happen is with oil. All the neat stuff you have shipped to your door from Amazon requires oil. Even if you buy your coffee from a local store and it's roasted by your neighbor it took oil to get it to you. We could have a 100% renewable grid and we would still need to use hydrocarbons to support global economy
- jlawson 7y ago
  Is there any technological reason we couldn't use nuclear-powered container ships? They're the same general scale as nuclear aircraft carriers. Trains can also be electric and powered by a third-rail type system. Trucks and drones can be electric. Obviously there are political barriers but if it really came down to this or the end of sea shipping I suspect those barriers could be overcome.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    Nuclear reactors on ships require bomb-grade uranium fuel and an elite crew of masters-degreed engineers to run them.
- 74ls00 7y ago
  Container ships can run on hydrogen
nardi 7y ago
- simultaneous shift away from coal+ nuclear, giving a huge boost to natural gas in the long term (LNG build-out is only now beginning) I have a feeling natural gas plants will not be built out to the extent you are imagining, because solar, wind, and lithium-ion storage are now competitive, and still getting cheaper very quickly.
- xbmcuser 7y ago
  Annually the world adds more power to the grid. Renewables are maybe 25-30% of it. We need to reach 120-130% where new demand is all met by renewables and we are shuting down coal and gas plants.
- ci5er 7y ago
  The thing about evil capitalists is that they like to have low cost equipment and operations and high price outputs. IF you exclude government subsidies, these evil capitalists that are out for a buck are not rushing into implementing what you are talking about. Which means that: It is not nearly as close to parity as you apparently believe that it is. I mean no insult, but: If evil capitalists are not rushing towards doing it without government subsidies - it isn't as close to parity as you think it is. YMMV.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Those evil capitalists are choosing to build offshore wind, without subsidy in the UK. Gas expansion has completely ceased, and based on the last auction round for offshore licences is nearing a point where building new wind is cheaper than keep running existing gas plants. So I expect to see the decline of UK gas start soon. Fossil simply cannot compete on price. It would be even more of a no-brainer price wise, if we didn't have a government stupid enough to cease onshore wind. Coal is almost completely out of UK generation - the single digit number of plants left spend almost all their time idling as source of last resort. Gas is next. It might survive a little longer as a fill in source used in lieu of battery and storage, again temporarily. TL;DR Gas is on borrowed time unless it has been given an artificial leg up, i.e. regulation or fossil subsidy.
pjc50 7y ago
Do you have projections that include the temperature rise as a result of this?

yters 7y ago

I thought the primary user of oil and gas is industry, not consumers.

mxschumacher 7y ago
I'm not sure the distinction matters, because all industry eventually serves consumers.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 7y ago
  The distinction is crucial with respect to regulating pollution standards.
  - appleiigs 7y ago
    Regulation isn't the answer. First, politics will never allow it. Look at the political environment in US, Great Britain... Then when regulation is put in place, it isn't effective. Loop holes, grand-fathering, unintended consequences, incompetent gov't agencies. And then even if one country goes green, it won't help if the rest of the world is spewing air pollution and dumping plastic into the oceans. The probability of all this getting aligned to make regulation effective is zero.
    - entropea 7y ago
      I'm sure the residents next to the Hudson river in Upstate NY would love more GE polychlorinated biphenyls dumped into their rivers. I think what you mean is that our current bought politicians don't have the guts to properly stand up to the people who pollute the environment.

Cshelton 7y ago

I completely disagree. While I do not believe we have hit peak oil yet, I do not believe we are far off nor will oil and gas demand continue to grow for "a long time". - The personal transportation industry will go through the biggest change it ever has in the next decade. Bigger than horse + buggy -> automobiles. An electric car will be cheaper to operate and maintain. Production of EVs will proliferate even countries like China (already happening), India (already happening), and others. Autonomous ride networks, especially in dense urban areas, will also take a massive market share. The need for individuals to own vehicles will decrease in urban and even suburban environments. Couple that with almost any good or service you need being delivered to your door "instantly", the vehicle is no longer needed. The rise of remote working will also contribute to this. Yes, some people like their SUVs/Trucks, but that will pail in comparison to the reduction elsewhere. - Air travel will grow, assuming economic stability of course. Towards the end of the decade, we will also have short length, all electric aircraft operating. That will shore up the growth of air travel in regards to the demand for more oil. - Natural Gas growth long term... no way. Not happening. Within this decade, we will see the price of solar and batteries drop to levels never before imagined. Production and efficiency will also greatly increase. We have only just begun. You will have distributed "grids", where many more people are generating their own power, and borrowing from their neighbor when necessary. BRIC countries will also be leading on adopting these types of grids as well, especially in areas where the grid is not stable/doesn't even exist. See Puerto Rico. They have only just begun. - Yes, the quality of life across the world is getting better. That means the demand for alternative energy and the Capability to pay for the infrastructure is ALSO increasing. This will move the growth needle forward for renewable energy. This will be your peak oil. Your peak oil will be in the past once you see entire areas of housing in BRIC countries running on Solar/batteries. Goodbye. Oil. Also, I think humanity will do the right thing as a whole. Governments will STOP subsidizing oil like they do today. It will become much more expensive. Peak oil will be in the past at this point as well. So go on, go invest in your oil companies and throw your arms in the air saying "yes, but it's not my problem, I'm just making money". War profiteers say the same thing. They never come out on the right side of the history book. Neither will you. Oil and Gas will NOT have growth for a long time.

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago

jliptzin 7y ago

Tesla is coming out with an all electric pick-up and semi. Hopefully others will follow. But at least a few years before mainstream uptake.

mxschumacher 7y ago
It's important to note that even with electric cars, it will still take a long time until most electricity is produced without the use fossil fuels. Getting all of the required cobalt out of the Congo to make millions of large batteries isn't exactly ideal either. Storage and long distance transport abilities make natural gas extremely attractive.
- alan 7y ago
  I never figured out why the cobalt has to come from the Congo. There are cobalt mines in North America that are sitting idle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt,_Ontario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt,_Ontario
  - nickserv 7y ago
    It's cheaper when you don't need to follow labor and environmental regulations.
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      Bingo, and when it becomes too expensive there, you just do your typical political corruption/bribery dance and get the rules to change here so you can continue to profit from environmental destruction.
      - WorldMaker 7y ago
        Besides, warlords often want lots of Nickel and other metals for projects. The Cobalt is "waste product" from what they were going to be mining for in the first place.
- deleted 7y ago

ben010783 7y ago

America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series! American's are going crazy for SUVs and pickups, but the F150 has been the best-selling vehicle for decades. Pickups have outsold passenger vehicles for a long time.

Animats 7y ago
Coming in 2021, the electric Ford F-150.[1] That should be a great truck. Empty pickups have poor weight distribution; not enough weight in back. With a giant battery pack under the pickup bed, traction is better. [1] https://youtu.be/bXFHgoon7lg https://youtu.be/bXFHgoon7lg
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  > Empty pickups have poor weight distribution; not enough weight in back. With a giant battery pack under the pickup bed, traction is better. The problem you're mentioning being solved by a battery pack could just as easily be solved by putting any random ballast in the back of the regular truck. I think electric will have other advantages (and disadvantages), but I doubt this is a big one for most people.
  - donkeyd 7y ago
    That ballast would then make the truck use even more fuel, which wouldn't make much sense.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      Sure, but it solves the problem of traction. The electric vehicle also reduces efficiency by adding weight to the vehicle - being electric doesn't change physics. And being able to remove weight is always preferable to not being able to remove weight.
      - jdietrich 7y ago
        >The electric vehicle also reduces efficiency by adding weight to the vehicle - being electric doesn't change physics. The battery adds weight, but that's more than outweighed by the tremendous efficiency of an electric drivetrain. The EV equivalent of a gas-guzzler (e.g. a Tesla Model X P90D) still achieves the equivalent of 90mpg.

Apocryphon 7y ago

It's insane that SUVs are back again, after their original wave during the Bush years.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
They're not really back. Station wagons have just grown into them to compensate for the compromises in features that modern sedans have suffered in the name of fuel economy and safety. People want something that's AWD, has a belt-line lower than your nose and a trunk that's integrated with the rest of the cab. In order to get that in a package that meets modern safety requirements it needs to be decently big and decently heavy. To make a decently big and decently heave vehicle comply with modern fuel economy and emissions rules you have to be able to call it an SUV with a straight face. Enter the "crossover". Sedans and compact hatches make great commuter cars but if you can only afford one payment at a time then you can only really justify buying a multi-tool of a vehicle. On the small end that gives us things like the HRV. On the large end that gives us crew cab pickups.
SI_Rob 7y ago
Self-reinforcing arms race to sit up high and see over the top of traffic. If people could be trusted to reliably signal, merge, etc. the perceived need to see 300 feet ahead to predict behavior of immediately adjacent drivers would diminish.
perl4ever 7y ago
SUVs were a thing during the Reagan years. Although they were mostly 2 doors and based on small pickups with body on frame construction and very little power by today's standards. In 1987 I remember you could get a 4Runner, a Pathfinder, a Cherokee, a Blazer, or a Bronco.

odiroot 7y ago

> SUV/pick-up boom Not sure why but I see the same here, in Berlin. There is even a meme circling about SUVs being just mothers (usually talking on a phone) driving their kids to school.

mxschumacher 7y ago
I've heard that consumers perceive SUVs as safer
- dfsegoat 7y ago
  Consumer Reports seems to back this up, but they cite an added rollover risk: > "In car vs. SUV head-on crashes, the study found that the odds of death were 7.6 times higher for the car driver than the SUV driver. In crashes where the car had a better front crash-test rating than the SUV did, the car's driver fared a bit better but was still four and a half times more likely to die than the SUV driver. " > "Choosing an SUV for safety isn't an automatic win, as their higher center of gravity makes them more prone to rollover, an often fatal event. " [1] - https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/suvs-are-safer-than-cars-in-front-crashes-but-there-is-more-to-the-story/index.htm https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/suvs-are-sa...
  - Faark 7y ago
    A criticism is this being at the cost of the other crash participant (due to mass), thus it being a spiral were everyone will drive military tanks a bit down the line.
    - munificent 7y ago
      > everyone will drive military tanks a bit down the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer
  - NickM 7y ago
    I would say CR doesn't back up the "SUVs are safer" argument; they say SUVs are safer in head-on collisions with smaller vehicles, but don't really indicate whether they're more or less safe overall.

FooHentai 7y ago

>SUV/pick-up boom (America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series!) My understanding is that this is a misleading fact - There are less models of SUV in the market than other classes of vehicle, so even if less SUVs, as a class, are sold than other cars, the lack of variance means the total number of a particular model is likely higher than sales of a model in any other class.

coliveira 7y ago
That might be true, but total volume of SUV sales in the US is giant. In fact, SUVs are now the standard car model, with sedans being left behind. This is the result of a strong push from auto companies in terms of advertisement and diversification of SUV offers.
- FooHentai 7y ago
  Crossovers apparently make up the bulk of it (40%), but yeah those plus pickups and SUVs combined eclipse small, medium, large, and luxury cars combined. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-demand-by-vehicle-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-...
  - elihu 7y ago
    It seems like Crossover is just a name for "I can't tell if that's a bulky sedan, a minivan with slightly bigger tires, a small SUV, or a short station wagon." I think statistics that classify them as SUVs are a little misleading because the distinctions are blurring.
    - FooHentai 7y ago
      It's a platform difference. The starting point for a crossover is a car chassis, whereas SUVs are derived from a truck.
      - perl4ever 7y ago

irrational 7y ago

Why are pick-ups so popular? I can understand if you are a construction worker, farmer, etc. that actually needs a pickup truck; but why are they so popular for other people? The vast majority of pickup trucks I see have beds that are so clean that it is obvious that has never been used to haul even one bag of cement or load of dirt.

pm90 7y ago
In the South (especially in Texas, where I lived for a bit) they're considered a symbol of rugged manliness, which is the main reason why they're so popular among city dwellers. They're also nice to go off-road in areas with not good roads. I've driven a few and they also offer a different perspective when you're driving (you feel "taller"). Also, they might be safer than tiny sedans (although not sure how they compare with the German ones w.r.t safety). If you live in Suburbs, its also nice to have one for the occasional lugging around of furniture or moving heavy stuff.
- graycat 7y ago
  Here are some points about pickups that appeal to me and maybe to others: (1) Bumpers. Pickup trucks (PUTs) tend to have actual, steel bumpers (often chrome plated which indicates that they are steel), both front and rear. Passenger cars have, instead, plastic over some structures for crumple zones or some such. So, if run into something, say, a deer crossing the road in the middle of the night, then are better off with the bumpers; the plastic and crumple zone is less rugged and more subject to expensive damage. Bumpers can be useful otherwise, say, wrap and hook on with a steel cable and pull or be pulled. (2) Passenger cars emphasize smooth ride. So, the springs and shocks tend to be soft. On PUTs, the springs and shocks are stiff enough to do well carrying heavy loads over rough ground. So, (i) the springs on both passenger cars and PUTs are usually spring steel with a not very long fatigue life, say, under 100,000 miles. Having the springs suffer from metal fatigue and sag is a bummer. The stiffer springs in a PUT flex less and so fatigue less and even when fatigued still have enough stiffness not to sage. (ii) Over rough surfaces, soft springs and shocks more easily bounce around and bottom out -- not good. (3) In addition to the springs, PUTs have suspensions better able to take loads and bumps and, thus, last longer. E.g., in the front, passenger cars, again, emphasizing smooth ride, have soft suspension bushings, soft stabilizer bars and mounts for them, soft shocks, and struts instead of just A-frames -- the PUT suspensions last longer. In the rear the PUTs have leaf springs with extra leaves for heavy loads instead of coil springs common in passenger cars -- the stiff leaf springs last longer before sagging or actually breaking than the soft coil springs. (4) PUTs have more ground clearance. So, e.g., if there is a traffic jam, when in a PUT might just head for a curb or a ditch, cross some rough ground, head in a different direction, and avoid the jam. At times extra ground clearance is darned nice to have. (5) To exaggerate, PUTs are for people in work clothes with mud on their shoes, and passenger cars are for suits and evening gowns with spotless shoes. More generally the interiors of PUTs are more rugged, aimed at utility instead of luxury. (6) PUT brakes have to be strong enough to stop the truck when it also has a big load, say, 1000+ pounds. This means that with light loads, the brakes will last longer. (7) PUTs have more head room in the door openings and the interiors. Tall people have an easier time getting in and out. (8) PUTs are commonly well designed for towing; for most passenger cars, towing is less advisable. Towing requires, yes, a trailer hitch but also connections for lights and maybe brakes on the trailer, a stronger transmission, a larger engine radiator, etc. (9) A lot of small passenger cars have front wheel drive, and PUTs have rear wheel drive as the main drive with a solid axle which mechanically simpler, more rugged, and lasts longer. In short, PUTs emphasize utility and passenger cars, luxury. Similarly much of the US is big on blue jeans -- utility over luxury. Blue jeans are made of essentially the same canvas that was used for sails on sailing ships and, thus, is one of the toughest cotton fabric weaves there is; the seam sewing is very strong, and some stress points have brass rivets.

shmerl 7y ago

Shouldn't prices on electric cars fall enough eventually to produce affordable electric SUVs and pick-ups? Or that's too much into the future still?

UncleOxidant 7y ago

We need a $3/gallon gas tax in the US. And/or completely stop subsidizing oil production.

baron_harkonnen 7y ago

As long as we live in a global economy we will be hungry for oil. A global economy depends on shipping goods around the world, and for that to work you need a high energy density fuel source, and there is really no alternative nearly as good as oil. This isn't about SUVs or consumer air travel. The world will need oil for cargo transport to sustain the trade necessary to maintain our economic way of life. Hydrocarbons are high energy density which is an essential property because otherwise your fuel becomes your cargo. The problem isn't SUVs, it's the fact that your local grocery store has bananas shipped from 10,000 miles away for $0.59/lb. The only way you can make that happen is with oil. All the neat stuff you have shipped to your door from Amazon requires oil. Even if you buy your coffee from a local store and it's roasted by your neighbor it took oil to get it to you. We could have a 100% renewable grid and we would still need to use hydrocarbons to support global economy

jlawson 7y ago
Is there any technological reason we couldn't use nuclear-powered container ships? They're the same general scale as nuclear aircraft carriers. Trains can also be electric and powered by a third-rail type system. Trucks and drones can be electric. Obviously there are political barriers but if it really came down to this or the end of sea shipping I suspect those barriers could be overcome.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  Nuclear reactors on ships require bomb-grade uranium fuel and an elite crew of masters-degreed engineers to run them.
74ls00 7y ago
Container ships can run on hydrogen

nardi 7y ago

- simultaneous shift away from coal+ nuclear, giving a huge boost to natural gas in the long term (LNG build-out is only now beginning) I have a feeling natural gas plants will not be built out to the extent you are imagining, because solar, wind, and lithium-ion storage are now competitive, and still getting cheaper very quickly.

xbmcuser 7y ago
Annually the world adds more power to the grid. Renewables are maybe 25-30% of it. We need to reach 120-130% where new demand is all met by renewables and we are shuting down coal and gas plants.
ci5er 7y ago
The thing about evil capitalists is that they like to have low cost equipment and operations and high price outputs. IF you exclude government subsidies, these evil capitalists that are out for a buck are not rushing into implementing what you are talking about. Which means that: It is not nearly as close to parity as you apparently believe that it is. I mean no insult, but: If evil capitalists are not rushing towards doing it without government subsidies - it isn't as close to parity as you think it is. YMMV.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Those evil capitalists are choosing to build offshore wind, without subsidy in the UK. Gas expansion has completely ceased, and based on the last auction round for offshore licences is nearing a point where building new wind is cheaper than keep running existing gas plants. So I expect to see the decline of UK gas start soon. Fossil simply cannot compete on price. It would be even more of a no-brainer price wise, if we didn't have a government stupid enough to cease onshore wind. Coal is almost completely out of UK generation - the single digit number of plants left spend almost all their time idling as source of last resort. Gas is next. It might survive a little longer as a fill in source used in lieu of battery and storage, again temporarily. TL;DR Gas is on borrowed time unless it has been given an artificial leg up, i.e. regulation or fossil subsidy.

pjc50 7y ago

Do you have projections that include the temperature rise as a result of this?