Temukan Tumbuhan Aneh di Hutan, Orang Ini Kaget! Pas Dibelah Isi Dalamnya Ternyata

Trends in the sales shares of new light-duty vehicles by vehicle type have continued as the crossover utility vehicle (CUV) share of light-duty vehicles has increased, largely at the expense of cars, despite increases in gasoline prices over the previous two years. In each month since September 2017, sales of CUVs have exceeded those of cars, a class that includes sedans, hatchbacks, and sports cars. CUVs, which typically have ride height and interior space similar to truck-based sport utility vehicles (SUVs), are built on more fuel-efficient, car-based platforms and often have fuel economies that are only slightly lower than comparable cars. Vehicle sales shares for pickups, SUVs, and other vehicle types—which typically have much lower fuel economy than sedans and many CUVs—have remained relatively constant in recent years, with pickup shares showing comparatively modest gains. Although CUVs and cars are built on similar platforms, CUVs often have slightly lower fuel economy than their comparable sedan counterparts (for example, the Toyota RAV4 CUV versus the Toyota Camry sedan), even when they are equipped with the same engine and transmission. However, the change in vehicle shares from cars to CUVs had less effect on fuel consumption compared with other historical shifts in sales, such as the shift from cars to SUVs in the 1990s and early 2000s. The relatively small variability in annual fuel costs has not been enough to change purchasing trends in the same way that consumers exchanged low fuel economy SUVs for cars and CUVs in the peak of the recession in 2009. At that time, replacing a 20 mile-per-gallon (mpg) vehicle with a 30-mpg vehicle would save an annual 250 gallons when driven 15,000 miles, at a cost savings ranging from $500 ($2/gallon) to $1,000 ($4/gallon). CUVs often have fuel economy ratings that are more comparable to cars than to the fuel economy ratings of SUVs or pickups. Also, as fuel economy increases, cost savings from fuel consumption reductions decrease. For example, a consumer who drives 15,000 miles per year using a 35-mpg sedan consumes about 429 gallons of gasoline annually, while a 30-mpg CUV traveling the same distance would consume 500 gallons, a difference of 71 gallons. That difference in gasoline consumption would cost $143 to $285 annually with gasoline prices in the range of $2/gallon to $4/gallon. U.S. exports of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a motor gasoline additive, totaled 38,000 barrels per day (b/d) in 2017, primarily to Mexico, Chile, and Venezuela. MTBE was once commonly used in the United States but was phased out in the late 2000s as a result of water contamination concerns. Since then, fuel ethanol has replaced MTBE as a gasoline additive. MTBE is a fuel oxygenate that boosts octane ratings and helps achieve more complete combustion in gasoline engines. Since 2005, most U.S. exports of MTBE have gone to Mexico and Venezuela, with increasing exports to Chile. In 2017, Mexico accounted for two-thirds (66%) of U.S. MTBE exports. Economic instability in Venezuela may have contributed to the decrease in U.S. exports of MTBE to that country in recent years. Overall, MTBE accounts for a small portion of total U.S. petroleum product exports, averaging 0.7% of the total in 2017. MTBE is used as an oxygenate instead of fuel ethanol in those countries, in part, because it has lower evaporative emissions, can be shipped in pipelines alongside finished petroleum products, and does not require the kinds of infrastructure investments specific to ethanol. Virtually all U.S. MTBE exports originate from the Gulf Coast, where production is concentrated. MTBE can be blended with motor gasoline blendstock in the United States to produce a finished product that is subsequently transported to destinations in Mexico. MTBE was once a common fuel additive in the United States. U.S. blending of MTBE into motor gasoline peaked in 1999 at 260,000 b/d. In that year, the volume of fuel ethanol added to motor gasoline totaled 38,000 b/d. However, between 2000 and 2007, 23 states instituted a partial or complete ban on MTBE blended into motor gasoline because of groundwater contamination concerns. The result was an eventual phase out as a fuel oxygenate in the United States and a decline in domestic MTBE consumption that was replaced with ethanol. In contrast to MTBE, the use of fuel ethanol has been supported by tax subsidies such as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit and by the Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates the use of biofuels in the nation’s transportation supply. As a result, almost all motor gasoline in the United States contains 10% fuel ethanol blends.

EIA’s latest Short-Term Energy Outlook noted that the probability of the regular-grade retail price of gasoline reaching or exceeding $3.00/gal declined from 36% on May 22 to 7% on June 7. These probabilities are calculated using price data from the July gasoline futures contract along with the implied volatility of the corresponding gasoline options contract. In the five trading days ending June 7, the July 2018 futures contract for reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB, the petroleum component of gasoline used in many parts of the country) averaged $2.11/gal. Options prices and implied volatility during that time imply that this contract had a 7% probability of exceeding $2.30/gal. Futures prices at that level typically lead to a retail price of $3.00/gal at the contract’s expiration, based on the average retail gasoline markup that occurs at that time of year between futures contract prices and regular-grade retail gasoline prices. The probability of reaching $3.00/gal was 36% on May 22, when the RBOB price reached the highest level since late 2014. The U.S. average regular-grade gasoline price as of June 25 was $2.83/gal, but U.S. gasoline prices in certain locations have already surpassed $3.00/gal. In states surveyed for EIA’s Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update, prices range from an average of $2.55/gal in Ohio to $3.56/gal in California. Autonomous vehicles are one of the main sources of uncertainty in the future of U.S. transportation energy consumption, as autonomous vehicle technology has the potential to change travel behavior, vehicle design, energy efficiency, and vehicle ownership. Analysis in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2018 (AEO2018) shows that the widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles could increase overall light-duty vehicle travel and, depending on how those vehicles are powered, lead to slightly higher transportation energy consumption. On-road vehicles, including light-duty vehicles, buses, and commercial and freight trucks, are significant consumers of energy in the United States, accounting for 31% of all delivered end-use energy. Light-duty vehicles alone account for 21% of total delivered end-use energy consumption. EIA projects that light-duty vehicle travel will continue increasing in the future. By 2050, light-duty vehicle miles traveled will reach 3.3 trillion miles, or 18% higher than the 2017 level. In two AEO2018 sensitivity cases that assume more widespread use of autonomous vehicles—and that these vehicles are driven more miles per year than non-autonomous vehicles—than in the Reference case, overall light-duty vehicle travel demand increases 14% higher than Reference case levels by 2050, reaching 3.8 trillion miles in that year. One case assumes the increasing adoption of autonomous battery electric vehicles; another case assumes the increasing adoption of autonomous hybrid electric vehicles. Both cases assume that autonomous vehicles as a share of overall light-duty vehicle sales increase from 1% percent in the Reference case to 31% in the sensitivity cases in 2050. In the AEO2018 Reference case, autonomous vehicles are powered by conventional gasoline internal combustion engines. Despite the relative fuel efficiency of battery electric and hybrid electric vehicles compared with conventional gasoline internal combustion engines, more energy is consumed in both sensitivity cases (up to 4% more) compared with Reference case levels in 2050 because of increased light-duty vehicle travel. In all three cases, however, conventional gasoline engines remain the most common technology powering light-duty vehicles. Future transportation energy demand in the Reference and both sensitivity cases is still lower than in 2017, largely because of Corporate Average Fuel Economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards on light-duty vehicle energy consumption. In the two sensitivity cases with greater autonomous vehicle adoption, transportation energy demand is slightly higher than in the Reference case, as the improved fuel economy associated with battery electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles only partially offsets the increase in travel demand. In the sensitivity case with more hybrid electric vehicles, gasoline consumption is slightly higher than in the Reference case. In the case with more battery electric vehicles, electricity consumption is slightly higher than in the Reference case. In both cases, diesel consumption is virtually unchanged. In both sensitivity cases, fuel use in public transit modes is affected by assumptions about how they could interact with autonomous vehicles. Large fleet long-haul commercial trucks are assumed to start using automation technology to improve fuel efficiency through platooning, where groups of vehicles travel in a tight formation to reduce aerodynamic drag. However, the energy consumption effects of these changes for commercial trucks or other modes such as mass transit are relatively small compared with the consumption changes in light-duty vehicles. The full Issues in Focus article Autonomous Vehicles: Uncertainties and Energy Implications provides additional discussion of definitions of autonomous vehicles, potential benefits and obstacles, uncertainties related to energy consumption, and scenario assumptions and results.

Electrified vehicles (hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and battery electric) have been sold as high fuel economy alternatives to conventional gasoline vehicles for a number of years but collectively have been slow to gain market share in the United States. From 2012 through 2017, electrified vehicles consistently accounted for between 2.5% and 4.0% of total light-duty vehicle sales, even as the number of available models increased from 58 to 95. Hybrid electric vehicles accounted for the largest share of electrified vehicles, but their share of sales has fallen as plug-in hybrid electric (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicle (BEVs) shares have slightly increased. The BEV share of total light-duty vehicle sales has grown the most since 2012 but only accounted for 0.6% of 2017 sales. The PHEV share grew from 0.1% to 0.5% and non-plug-in hybrid electrics declined from 3.0% to 1.9% of total light-duty vehicle sales between 2012 and 2017, based on Wards Automotive sales data. Several factors may account for the limited growth in these vehicles. Gasoline prices have remained relatively low in recent years, and the fuel economy of conventional vehicles has increased—factors that diminished the potential fuel savings of switching to electrified vehicles. Initial purchase prices for many electrified vehicles remain relatively high, especially for several PHEV and BEV models, despite federal and state incentives. Also, in most locations, limited charging infrastructure for plug-in vehicles has hindered wider adoption. Data from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation offers insight into the use and ownership of electrified vehicles. Households that own BEVs and PHEVs tend to have more vehicles per household, owning 2.7 vehicles compared with the household average of 2.1 vehicles. BEVs and PHEVs also tend to be used about 12% less than other vehicles in terms of annual mileage per vehicle. About one-third of all households have annual incomes higher than $100,000. However, about two-thirds of households with BEVs or PHEVs have incomes higher than $100,000. Households with annual incomes lower than $25,000 account for about 16% of all households but about 3% of BEV- and PHEV-owning households.

Electrified vehicles (hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and battery electric) have been sold as high fuel economy alternatives to conventional gasoline vehicles for a number of years but collectively have been slow to gain market share in the United States. From 2012 through 2017, electrified vehicles consistently accounted for between 2.5% and 4.0% of total light-duty vehicle sales, even as the number of available models increased from 58 to 95. Hybrid electric vehicles accounted for the largest share of electrified vehicles, but their share of sales has fallen as plug-in hybrid electric (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicle (BEVs) shares have slightly increased. The BEV share of total light-duty vehicle sales has grown the most since 2012 but only accounted for 0.6% of 2017 sales. The PHEV share grew from 0.1% to 0.5% and non-plug-in hybrid electrics declined from 3.0% to 1.9% of total light-duty vehicle sales between 2012 and 2017, based on Wards Automotive sales data. Several factors may account for the limited growth in these vehicles. Gasoline prices have remained relatively low in recent years, and the fuel economy of conventional vehicles has increased—factors that diminished the potential fuel savings of switching to electrified vehicles. Initial purchase prices for many electrified vehicles remain relatively high, especially for several PHEV and BEV models, despite federal and state incentives. Also, in most locations, limited charging infrastructure for plug-in vehicles has hindered wider adoption. Data from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation offers insight into the use and ownership of electrified vehicles. Households that own BEVs and PHEVs tend to have more vehicles per household, owning 2.7 vehicles compared with the household average of 2.1 vehicles. BEVs and PHEVs also tend to be used about 12% less than other vehicles in terms of annual mileage per vehicle. About one-third of all households have annual incomes higher than $100,000. However, about two-thirds of households with BEVs or PHEVs have incomes higher than $100,000. Households with annual incomes lower than $25,000 account for about 16% of all households but about 3% of BEV- and PHEV-owning households.

Estimated ethanol production margins at U.S. corn ethanol plants averaged 22 cents per gallon (gal) in 2017. Last year was the fifth consecutive year that margins have averaged more than 20 cents/gal, which has helped drive consistent ethanol production growth over that period. U.S. ethanol production averaged an estimated 1,032 thousand barrels per day (b/d) in 2017, marking a fifth consecutive record level of annual production. Increases in ethanol supply have outpaced increases in domestic demand in 2017, which have contributed to relatively low spot prices and margins that are about 20 cents/gal lower than the previous four-year average but still largely in line with levels in the previous two years. Ethanol producer margins are estimated by EIA for a dry mill corn ethanol plant of average capacity located in the Midwest, a region that is home to more than 90% of domestic fuel ethanol production capacity. EIA estimates these margins by taking the sum of revenue generated from the sale of ethanol and co-products, such as distillers’ dried grains with solubles (DDGS) and corn oil, and subtracting variable and fixed costs. Variable costs include expenses such as the cost of corn and natural gas, along with a fixed operating cost of 35 cents/gal. The price of corn is the largest variable cost associated with a dry mill corn ethanol plant, and profits are generally highest when corn supply is plentiful and demand for ethanol gasoline blending is high. U.S. corn production has been at record high levels in recent years, which has kept corn prices generally stable, ranging between $3.40 and $4.00 per bushel since 2015. A period of drought in 2012 and 2013 led to corn prices greater than $8.00 per bushel, resulting in one of the least profitable periods for ethanol operators. In the United States, ethanol is primarily used as a blending component in the production of motor gasoline and mainly blended in volumes up to 10% ethanol, known as E10. Ethanol demand is highly dependent on motor gasoline consumption, and ethanol production has been driven higher in recent years because of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that mandates the blending of biofuels into the nation’s fuel supply. Although demand for higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85 remains limited, low ethanol prices and increasing RFS targets have created favorable blending conditions for these higher ethanol blends. For most of 2017 and the first two months of 2018, ethanol production, net inputs, and inventory levels have been near or above average levels in the previous five years (2012–2016). During December 2017, fuel ethanol production set a four-week record high, averaging 1.09 million b/d, while ethanol blending into gasoline, measured by net inputs, was nearly unchanged from the previous year. Despite record-high domestic gasoline demand and record-high ethanol exports in 2017, ethanol production exceeded consumption, which led to end-of-2017 inventories that were four million barrels higher than at the end of 2016. In its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA forecasts that continued growth in ethanol production and limited export growth through 2019 will lead to increases in domestic consumption of ethanol by way of limited higher-level ethanol blend growth beyond E10. U.S. ethanol consumption, which increased by 1% in 2017, is expected to increase by an average of 1% through 2019, resulting in an estimated ethanol blend percentage of gasoline that increases from slightly more than 10.1% in 2017 to about 10.3% by 2019.