by Tanada » Sun 19 Jun 2016, 08:40:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'p')usher - They can by all the Teslas they want in CA and it won't change a thing nationally: the per capita gasoline consumption there is already the lowest in the nation. In fact it is only 10% of the national weighted average.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_ga ... per-capitaNotice how a number of New England states are 10X or more higher then CA. Even the NY consumption is 7X greater. And it of course Texas is more then 11X higher.
Well, I tried to post a detailed comment about this, but the site seems to have lost it via the Captcha check thing, so I'm not doing all that work again.
The gist is:
The figures for the bottom five states make NO sense to me. The gasoline consumption suddenly falls off a cliff relative to the other 46 listed states (DC listed as a state). Yet, the basic make-up of the states like CA and OH, with lots of cars, drivers, roads, cities, rural areas, traffic jams, etc. isn't REMOTELY different enough to make anything like a 10Xish difference vs. the average states.
So I'm calling "bogus data reporting" here, unless someone can enlighten me.
And I checked things like BEV sales in CA, and the numbers are well over an order of magnitude too small to cause that effect vs. the average state. And notice for the 46 state group, the range of figures isn't much over 2X.
If someone can explain what I'm missing here, I'm all ears.
A lot of it is the whole per capita trick where you divide the consumption by the population, which makes an over populated state like California look much better. Try this graph from the same page but set to total gasoline consumption by state instead of per capita,
On that graph California ranks # 28 and there is no huge drop in a group of states compared to the average.