digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at gas2.org

MIT Says U.S. Could Cut Fuel Use 50% by 2035

gas2.org — A new report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Energy Initiative predicts that a 30-50% reduction in fuel consumption is possible in the US over the next 25-30 years.

Who dugg this? Made popular Aug 28, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

143 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • fr0ng, on 08/27/2008, -9/+54Will there even be any fuel left in 2035? I don't understand why we keep revolving everything around fossil fuels. Water and sunlight are enough to power a lot of things.

    BUT OH NOES, THE INDUSTRY!!!!!!!!
  • SilverBlade2k, on 08/28/2008, -4/+44Digg - Solving the energy crisis since 2005.
  • jimcherylhall, on 08/27/2008, -0/+22Short and sweet article with a lot of ifs.

    I wonder how much fuel will be saved if fuel prices drive people out of the suburbs and into the city centers?
  • MWeather, on 08/28/2008, -0/+16No, this is America. We'll have 50% more powerful cars that get the same gas mileage.
  • drewfer, on 08/28/2008, -1/+13Good. Do it then.
  • Electricpigdigg, on 08/27/2008, -2/+14Part of me thinks this is a no-brainer, given the way car companies are pushing for efficiency anyway (BMW leading the way with the car that only uses fuel when it needs to). Better aerodynamics will make a difference too. Getting 50% savings over the course of 20 years shouldn't be difficult. That's an annual reduction of about 2%. The best thing the government could (but never will) do is stop people driving their cars!
  • JeremyKrins, on 08/27/2008, -0/+9There are so many articles coming out lately about new innovations in fuel efficiency. It will be interested to see the wheat separate from the chaff in the next few years...

    (see the Atlantic piece on termites)
  • HHP2K, on 08/28/2008, -3/+13Certain things that power industry need a lot more energy than that provided by the sun and water. Oil is popular because of the energy that it can produce - pure raw horsepower. Try running a crane, or a mobile mining fleet, or a mack truck on sunlight.

  • eeemart, on 08/28/2008, -1/+10Caltech says 75% by 2015, just because they're better.
  • giggity, on 08/28/2008, -4/+12Is that the role of government, telling people to not drive their cars?

    Why not just have the government tell people who to marry, where to live and work?
  • johnsna2, on 08/28/2008, -2/+9Obama said 5 to 10 to get off of foreign oil, not oil completely.
  • cowsgonemadd3, on 08/28/2008, -0/+7How about just get more jobs that allow work at home options. Even if its 1 day a week...Almost all desk jobs could be done at home in a home office.
  • Nerys, on 08/28/2008, -0/+7Let me dictate ONE action that will cost the US Government NOTHING and I can reduce US fuel usage (not counting military) by 90% in 10 years.

    This decision is EASY. Revoke the NIMH battery patent that chevron is using to prevent mainstream adoption of affordable electric cars.

    Done.
  • philhatesyou, on 08/28/2008, -1/+8HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -0/+6(use the "reply" button, it works, I swear)
  • Ajajadude, on 08/28/2008, -1/+6America needs some sort of public works project to build up public transportation throughout the country. It's sad how the oldest cities have the best public transportation compared to the relatively newer cities in the country.
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -1/+6Why are the US car companies the last in the world to push for fuel efficiency though? Most of the world is way ahead with this, and the US is just learning to walk right now.
  • fuzzynyanko, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5That's changing now that gas isn't $0.99/gallon anymore.
  • jimbowf, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5we could cut down on all these emissions with cars powered by ZPMs
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -2/+6Why so long?
  • catcher6250, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4Keyword:

    Could
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4I wonder what it would take for all the rich douchebags to move out of the city core to make way for affordable housing? It's trendy now and that has made the prices for downtown living skyrocket in a lot of big cities. Warehouses converted into multimillion-dollar lofts and yuppies willing to eat $2k per month in rent to live in a place with exposed brick walls and concrete floors. It's a developer's dream but a detriment to the rest of us.
  • llbbl, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4FOR FRAK SAKE DO IT
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Well Europe started taxing fuel heavily decades ago, so European companies picked the cheaper fuel (diesel) and started building efficient cars to get around the tax. Japan had the same problem, gasoline cost them a ***** ton.

    Americans, on the other hand, had a glut of cheap fuel for decades. This led to more powerful, heavy cars. If there's no real reason to conserve, nobody conserves. However the OPEC oil crisis spanked American manufacturers (which then turned out some nasty, terrible cars and let the Japanese establish a foothold).

    It's finally, finally turning around after all this time. Cheap oil seems like a distant dream for Americans. Even China and India cut down subsidies recently.
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3and curing cancer twice a month
  • Nerys, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4How quaint you really thing our fuel economy or fuel supply has anything at all to do with Supply and Demand.

    Supply and demand ONLY work where there is alternative supplies or the demand is optional.

    Imagine if we had to BUY our air. Do you really thing supply and demand would have ANY say in the price? Seeing as how you DIE without it I would say NO.

    Similar with fuel. Fuel for most of us is not OPTIONAL. I know for example that well my life as I know it ENDS if I do not have a minimum of 8 gallons of gasoline a week. Period. without that 8 gallons I do not go to work I stop earning money and my life is over. Period.

    There is no supply demand ratio there of a "normal" sort. NOW if there were MULTIPLE FUELS and MULTIPLE SOURCES

    THEN you might see a working example of Supply and demand. but if you can MANIPULATE the available fuels and sources you can artificially generate demand.

    I CAN NOT CHOOSE to use less gasoline because there is no other equivalent to it for me to use. WELL there is but I can not USE them such as electricity since chevron will not let me have the batteries.
  • marx2k, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4" In the longer term, the study concludes that plug-in hybrids and, later, hydrogen fuel cells may begin to have a significant impact on fuel use and emissions."

    THIS JUST IN: ELECTRICITY AND HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS ARE NOT FUEL! News at 11.
  • Melinda38, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4The subsidies we pay to the oil companies (in one form or another) could be used to get real alternatives up and going. I agree that there is a cover-up or at least the suppression of technology!
  • peccadillop, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3I seriously thought it was an onion news article.... who the hell need MIT to figure that out???
  • regeya, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3McKay keeps hording the Zed PMs. Arrogant Canadian bastard.
  • arkboysooner, on 08/28/2008, -0/+350% by 2035 is not good enough.
  • Rahodeb, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3trees love CO2.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4good luck riding a bicycle when it's -35 C outside.
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Huh? Care to explain scientifically how you get energy from nothing?
  • cheezintern, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4septicman -are you serious? "just not economically" is a pretty important statement as we live in a capitalist nation. As far as I know, as a student in economics, if a company is going to lose money on an investment, they usually don't do it. It's totally possible with current technology to power the entire world using heat from volcanoes and the earth. However since it ISN'T economical, we'll never see it.

    Nerys- do you realize the amount of power those diesel generators produce? The GE locomotives use electric engines because they produce great amounts of torque at low rpm, (more efficiently than diesel engines), but they also use great amounts of electricity. Throwing a solar panel on the roof just wont do it.
  • doshindude, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4A digg submission doesn't mean we did the research....
    MIT - Solving the energy crisis since 2005.
  • Nerys, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3The idea is that on the quantum foam scale matter is created and destroyed simultaneously constantly even in a pure vaccum.

    THe concept is to "swipe" some of this energy when its created and before it goes away again. IE free energy from nothing IE Zero Point energy.

    Technically its not "free" but its "effectively" free to us.

    Possible? I have no idea and do not care short of a miracle its not going to happen in my lifetime.
  • protyus, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Or...just cut off gasoline now and see how it plays out. I can see the headline:

    U.S. Cut Fuel Use 100% by 2008
  • cygnus2112, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3You're right. There's absolutely no reason why any programmer, customer support, tech support, digital graphics designer, etc etc should have to come into the office. Most areas of our nations have broadband and VOIP. Why do our employers keep insisting that we come in when it would benefit us all to work from home?
  • lamiaconfitor, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4How many tools with digg accounts does it take to make ***** up and pretend like its true?
  • Nerys, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4I do not want public transportation. I do not want to drive less and I do not want to give up my car.

    I also do not want to pay for it (fuel) and I do not want to dirty the environment or our air we breath.

    HEY what do you know I CAN in fact have my cake and eat it too. ITs called the battery electric car.

    Compared to what we have now? Almost ZERO downsides.

    ALL upsides. Unless your a major auto maker or oil company that is.
  • jitjit, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2Fossil Fuels are used for more then just petrol. About 15%? of fossil fuels are used in industries such as the manufacturing of plastics etc
  • jmpeagle, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2of course we could....we could eliminate 100% use or we could double it. What's actually going to happen though is most likely very different and dependent upon a lot of unforseen factors.
  • twigboy, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2MIT plan to hack the rail system nation wide so everyone would be getting free train travel instead of driving!
  • TheMachine1, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_U ...

    303 million people in US in 2007 and a projection of 400 million in 2039. Good luck trying to even break even on energy consumption much less reductions.
  • CMuffa, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3I thought MIT students were smarter than that. I bet a community college student ***** around in his/her garage/basement will figure out something much sooner. The 35 years is needed for the rest of us dummies to accept that alternative method.
  • Nerys, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2I think even olympic grade athletes would frown on my 54 mile commute (each way)
  • palehorse864, on 08/28/2008, -2/+4They prefer to be called "standup philosophers"
  • doshindude, on 08/28/2008, -0/+21. your grammar sucks.
    2. use the reply button.
  • statuescrumble, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3Twenty years ago, scientists predicted that earth's oil supply will completely run out by 2030.

    By that definition, I bet I can cut fuel use by 98% percent by 2035... all I need is some just a little government funding....
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.