Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 13, 2016
Why I Am Skeptical Of Electric Vehicles
Before you start furiously typing out a retort, hear me out. First, I want to make it clear what I am not skeptical about. I am not skeptical about electric vehicles (EVs) continuing to grow rapidly for the foreseeable future. Indeed, I believe that will happen — although growth has slowed in the U.S. in recent years.
I am also not skeptical over the fact that EVs make sense for many people. Indeed, I would buy one myself if I could justify it economically. I have only put about 5,000 miles on my car in the past 2 years, so it’s hard to justify any sort of premium that could be paid off by fuel savings.
I am also not skeptical that EVs will get cheaper, and that improvements in batteries will extend their range. I believe tomorrow’s EV will be much better than today’s.
So far, so good. On these three points, I am on the same page with the most rabid EV enthusiast. But I am extremely skeptical about one thing.
I am skeptical that EVs are going to make any dent in our oil consumption in the foreseeable future.
Let me explain why by first examining global crude oil demand growth over the past three decades. In the 32 years since 1984, global crude oil demand has increased by 36 million barrels per day (bpd) – an average annual increase of 1.1 million bpd per year:
Year-over-year crude oil demand declined in only 3 of those 32 years, and in each case bounced back to the historical growth rate very quickly. Further, the average annual increase since 2010 has been well above the historical average at more than 1.5 million bpd per year.
Of course that’s history, which merely gives us an indication that the long-term trends for oil consumption have been up for a long time. The reason they continue to grow is that growth is being driven by developing countries. Demand in developed countries has been falling (although U.S. gasoline demand is at a record high this year). But that graph admittedly doesn’t necessarily tell us about the future. So we have to look for examples that may give some insight into the future.
I first give you Norway. Following years of very generous subsidies for EVs, Norway has the largest fleet of plug-in EVs per capita in the world. Norway’s growth rate for EVs has been higher than that of any other country, averaging an amazing 110% per year for the past seven years:
One would expect a decline in Norway’s oil consumption given those trends. After all, Norway is surrounded by members of the European Union (EU), where demand for oil since 2008 is down 14% (primarily in response to much higher oil prices). Nearby countries like Denmark (-14%), Sweden (-16%), and Finland (-21%) all had big declines.
But not Norway. Norway’s consumption has trended slightly higher while all the countries around it experienced double-digit declines in petroleum demand since 2008.
Some may immediately note that Norway’s consumption has been relatively flat for several years, but keep in mind that demand was declining across the developed world in response to $100/bbl oil. So what happened in Norway? Shouldn’t demand there have declined at least as much as in countries that didn’t have explosive EV growth?
The reason the huge growth in electric vehicles didn’t translate into a reduction in demand in Norway is because it is set against a backdrop of a rising population and a growing fleet of vehicles on the roads (as is the case worldwide). The problem is that the conventional car fleet is adding cars faster than EVs are adding cars:
Also important to note that Norway is adding a lot of diesel engines to the fleet, another factor that helps explain the flattening in their oil demand. But, as the graph shows since 2008 they added about 300,000 diesel and gasoline cars to the roads, but despite the explosive growth in EVs the total over the same time period is only about 80,000 cars. And Norway’s explosive EV growth rate is starting to slow as the country scales back its generous subsidies.
Consider that in the U.S., from 2014 to 2015, new car sales of conventional internal combustion vehicles increased from 16.5 million to 17.5 million. Yet EV sales in the U.S. actually decreased from 122,438 to 116,099. In other words, they have a very long way to go to even dent the growth in conventional new car sales, much less make an actual reduction in the fleet.
This is essentially the problem with most projections that assume that EVs will soon take a big bite out of oil consumption. The world currently consumes over 90 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil. That number is growing by more than 1 million bpd each year, yet most projections fail to account for this growth that is due to growing population, more people driving, etc. Like what happened in Norway. A recent Bloomberg article made this very mistake by assuming that fantastic growth rates in EVs could globally displace 2 million bpd by 2023, and that could crash oil prices. The only problem is that even in the unlikely event that EVs displaced 2 million bpd of petroleum demand by 2023, then global crude oil demand may only be 5 million bpd higher than it is today instead of 7. They assumed it would be 2 million bpd lower than today, again ignoring growth (and the reasons for that growth).
In any case, according to data at Inside EVs, in the U.S. 2016 EV sales year-to-date (YTD) are only about 16% higher than YTD sales a year ago. That would project to maybe an additional 20,000 EVs sold in the U.S. to reach nearly 140,000 for the year. Again, that’s against the backdrop of 2015 sales of 17.5 million conventional cars, which was up a million cars from the previous year.
Globally, EV sales are running 43% ahead of last year’s pace. That’s far behind Norway’s blistering pace that failed to reduce oil consumption, and well behind the 60% growth rate assumed by the Bloomberg article to cause a 2 million bpd drop in demand by 2023. If they assumed a lower growth rate of 45% — still unreasonably high in my view — they don’t impact 2 million bpd of demand until 2028. That’s another 5 years of demand growth for oil, but also importantly another 5 years of depletion of existing fields. Oil demand won’t continue to grow forever, because ultimately depletion will catch up and force prices much higher. In that case, what will happen isn’t the price crash that Bloomberg predicted, it’s the exact opposite.
We certainly need EVs, but I haven’t seen anyone put together a credible mathematical case that they will even arrest the growth in oil demand over the next decade. Inevitably, they rely on faulty assumptions of fantastic EV growth rates and zero growth for oil — which is contrary to our observations. That’s why I am skeptical. If you project out far enough then indeed you can see EVs making a dent, but that’s far further into the future than proponents like to admit, and oil prices are likely to be much higher — not lower — when that happens.
Consumer Energy Report » R-Squared Energy Blog by Robert Rapier
38 Comments on "Why I Am Skeptical Of Electric Vehicles"
Anonymous on Sat, 13th Aug 2016 10:55 pm
Again, what we have in EV’s, is proponents focusing solely on the very narrow range of operational issues, where EVs are ‘better’ than oil burners. And they do exist. EV’s, arguably are superior to oil burners in some respects. But, if you zoom out, and look at all huge list of problems cars create, not oil, or electric cars, but CARS create, you find the the EV leaves *almost* every single problem cars create, un-resolved. But proponents are so enamored with the no direct tail-pipe emissions, and that, along with a few other minor EV benefits they also like to highlight, and that is where they stop.
If you made a chart and examined all the issues and problems private cars create, and put EVs in one column, and oil powered shit boxes in the other, you would quickly realize, EVs don’t really solve anywhere near as much as their proponents like to claim.
Or put differently, just what problems do people think EVs will solve? Urban air pollution-nope. Traffic deaths, nope. Distracted driving-Nope. Save drivers money? Doubtful. Reduce congestion? LOL, no. And so on. Private mass-commuter 1-2 passenger EV’s few tangible benefits do not outweigh their downsides, and provide no net benefits to society, or the environment as a whole.
EVs are trying to solve the wrong set of problems, with the wrong tool. Its that simple really.
surf on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 2:17 am
Diesel cargo trucks typically are used every day and drive more mile than the family car. most oil demand based on your graphs is from the trucks.
The EV on the road only account for 3% of all of them. Due to the short range of most EVs on the road, most replaced cars that were not driven much and didn’t use much oil. They are just replacing Cars that didn’t burn much gas to begin with. You only have about 5 years of EV data and the yearly fluctuations in oil use during that period are much larger than the signal you are looking for.
Anything you find will be so deep in the noise that that it becomes useless data.
The biggest cuts in oil use today are coming from countries that burn a lot of oil to make electricity. A Diesel power plant will consume a lot more diesel than any truck. With solar and wind growing rapidly around the world that is definitely going to reduce Diesel consumption. The signal is probably there but I don’t know where to get diesel electric power production numbers for the world.
With oil wells constantly being depleted, and no significant new oil being found cost for fuel will continue to go up and eventually it will not be affordable.
Davy on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 7:07 am
First nothing is going to scale in time nor volume to make a difference. Nothing can bridge that unbridgeable gap. Not even many things together can bridge this existential chasm of a civilization hitting a cliff and falling into the abyss of collapse. Limits and diminishing returns are going to affect anything modern. Postmodern and premodern is a different story but this is an individual affair. It will do little good for our modern civilization because postmodern and premodern will not scale in time or volume. Going anti-modern also spells the end of modern so modernism will never embrace that. Modernism will always look to solve problems the modern way. This is a catch 22 situation with no solution only worse choices. EV’s and PHEV have a future while there is a future. They are a great technology but only a niche. They will never make much of a difference. Greenies who are sold on an alternative transition are delusional and in denial of basic physics and ecology. Yet, their delusions are good ones so let them knock themselves out like they think they know what they are doing.
I am buying a Chevy Volt. I want versatility as part of my doom and prep. I would not buy a new car other than I must give my 6yr old Jetta TDI back to VW because of the emissions scandal. They are giving me a good settlement so I am going to buy a Volt. I need the range of a PHEV Volt over a dedicated EV. I want to get enough solar panels to charge it someday. I have done my research and a grid tied system is the best way to go because EV’s need so much more power than most systems offer. Getting your home solar system big enough is not cost effective. I don’t drive much but I need to get my kids every other week and they are 80 miles away. I need to go to the big city on occasion to see family. Until shit hits the fan I will need a vehicle. Personally I don’t ever want to leave the farm but I am stuck living in the status quo with status quo family and friends.
If you want to be green don’t drive period. Learn to live local. Drive as little as possible. Ideally society would be spending money on localization and simple not alternatives and transition technologies dedicated to the status quo of fast, far, and complicated. It is our lifestyles and attitudes that are the problems. We could be embracing collapse differently but society is not capable of it because society will never embrace something it is in denial of.
EV’s and alternative energy should be embraced by individuals who can. From the standpoint of society in the bigger picture we should be diversifying our energy sources as much as possible. None of this is going to matter eventually because collapse will take us bellow a level of complexity that can support any of it. The big question is how fast will we descend into the postmodern? EV’s have a place in that question. They are not an answer but they are part of the question.
Kenz300 on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 7:52 am
The Kochs Are Plotting A Multimillion-Dollar Assault On Electric Vehicles
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-electric-vehicles_us_56c4d63ce4b0b40245c8cbf6
Inside the Koch Brothers’ Toxic Empire | Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924?page=2
Koch Brothers Continue to Fund Climate Change Denial Machine, Spend $21M to Defend Exxon
http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/22/koch-defends-exxon/
Big Coal Funded This Prominent Climate Change Denier, Docs Reveal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-spencer-peabody-energy_us_57601e12e4b053d43306535e
Koch Brothers EXPOSED: 2014 • FULL DOCUMENTARY FILM • BRAVE NEW FILMS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N8y2SVerW8&spfreload=10
onlooker on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 8:04 am
So true Anonymous. I would add that the infrastructure/accessories accommodation requisites would remain the same for EV as regular cars. Paved highways that are cleared and well maintained. Car parts which in many cases involve complex long supply chains. Deeper issues of trying to maintain suburban sprawl in times to come when land is needed for food production. And of course the assembly and retrofitting for EV’s would involve extensive Oil use. All in all a great example of the delusional thinking that we can somehow maintain even somewhat modern Industrial Civilization. Not happening which may save some of the habitability of this planet for complex life and maybe even our own
rdberg1957 on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 9:34 am
Electric vehicles will be part of an energy use solution if we have a major paradigm shift. Individual ownership of cars will be a thing of the past. Cooperative ownership, sharing of vehicles + massively better public transit would result in the reduction of energy consumption we need.
There are so many problems to be solved with this concept I don’t know where to begin. The economics are against a limited production of electric vehicles because mass production is what lowers costs.
rockman on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 10:11 am
“…am not skeptical about electric vehicles (EVs) continuing to grow rapidly for the foreseeable future. Indeed, I believe that will happen…” Interesting optimism given that he follows up with all the VALID REASONS why he would never buy an EV. It’s as if he thinks he rarely unique in the world of drivers when, in fact, he seems rather typical. And while the EV cornies harp on the % increase in EV’s the desperately avoid the fact that, according to the IEA EV’s make up about 0.2% of the current rolling stock. “Rapid growth” in EV’s is only a function of the comparison to existing EV’s and not compared to the existing ICE’s.
IMHO it isn’t important to point out that expanding EV’s will require expanding electricity production in a world that’s already very taxed. The small demand from any reasonable EV expansion won’t add very much electricity demand.
Nothing has change regarding the EV dynamic and I doubt it will in the future: all hype with little or no substance.
Boat on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 10:53 am
Anonymous,
“Or put differently, just what problems do people think EVs will solve? Urban air pollution-nope.”
Why wouldn’t it solve urban air pollution pollution? Why wouldn’t EV’s cut imports of oil and dependence of FF change geopolitics?
“Private mass-commuter 1-2 passenger EV’s few tangible benefits do not outweigh their downsides, and provide no net benefits to society, or the environment as a whole”.
Congestion is a result of poor city planning and overpopulation.
Self driving cars may impact traffic deaths.
“What you call EV’s few tangible benefits” is a gross understatement of the impact they may make over the next 30 years.
Outcast_Searcher on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 12:05 pm
A good piece. It’s nice to see someone using logic and math instead of emotion — whichever side of the issue they are on. It’s nice to see someone look at the pros and cons in a reasonably objective and balanced way, overall.
I may be missing something obvious, but one point I think nearly everyone, including Robert Rapier is missing or glosing over, is that a pure BEV is NOT the core issue in the short term.
What will be key over, say, the coming decade is the percentage of pure EV MILES will be DRIVEN — not by which specific kind of vehicle will produce them.
Thus, the PHEV, a transitional vehicle which I think will become mainstream in the next decade, as the pure BEV matures and the infrastructure is built out, to make it economically competitive with the ICE — is key. And unless I missed it, Robert (and many, many of his peers) didn’t even mention PHEV’s.
For the rest of the decade, it looks like a significant number of very interesting PHEV’s with a pure EV mode of 20 to 30 (or more) miles will be coming out.
I’ll use the 2017 Toyota Prius Prime as an example here, because I know the most about it, about Toyota, and because the Prius has a good background and reputation overall, and has a successful model with a pure EV mode (but short range).
Toyota claims that with the Prius Prime and its 22 mile pure EV range, just over half (51%) of the US commuting by car can be done in EV mode (both ways). If there were consistently available chargers people could use at work to recharge their cars, this number would jump to 80%, according to Toyota.
The Prius Prime will have a combined EV and hybrid range of over 600 miles. It will likely get 50 mpg or more, based on Toyota’s stated goals and the 2016 Prius stats, in the hybrid mode. And with only an 8.8 KW hour battery, it will fully charge in under 10 hours on a normal 120 volt plug — so no need for expensive modifications at home to charge the car. That seems to be true for every car in this class I’ve checked on aside from the battery-centric Volt.
So these PHEV cars with pure EV mode will be available, be practical, and cost (before credits and options) roughly what an average car costs. So all the driver is giving up is some size, to gain the benefits of EV more for in-town driving, without putting up with ANY of the other disadvantages of a pure EV.
IMO, this isn’t too big a bridge to cross to significantly reduce gasoline demand for cars in the first world over the next decade. The reason such cars are now arriving in lots of models by numerous manufacturers is the economic and legal pressure that higher mileage standards like the US CAFE standards are putting on car manufacturers. Those standards will trend toward being more rigorous.
And if you like performance and/or luxury cars, it appears that both BMW and Mercedes have significant plans in this area, including cars that will do 0-60 in about 6 seconds in hybrid mode, for those who refuse to drive something with “golf cart” performance.
Now, this doesn’t solve the fact that the electric grid isn’t yet green, and that will take time.
But it certainly is a good start, and it does it in a way that isn’t a big economic or cultural or even inconvenience shock to the public.
As long as the reliability looks consistent with the current Prius family and Toyota delivers what it is promising as far as capabilities and price range — I’m real excited about this. I drive about 50% more annually than Robert Rapier, and yet I predict that this technology will reduce my need for non-EV mode driving down to under 300 miles a year. Perhaps to under 200, if I can talk my sister into letting me plug in at her place when I visit her family.
Now, obviously first world governments could help incent this with higher gasoline/diesel taxes, carbon taxes (to help incent greening up the grid faster) etc. But even the PHEV transitional vehicle should greatly accelerate the number of pure EV miles being driven in the next decade, IMO.
Boat on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 1:11 pm
Outcast_Searcher
EV’s and PHEV’s will have to contend other types of FF vehicles.
https://www.eliomotors.com/
Kenz300 on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 2:25 pm
Electric cars, trucks, bicycles and mass transit are the future….
fossil fuel ICE cars are the past…………..
The Netherlands’ ban on gas-powered cars ‘likely to become law’, all new cars electric by 2025
https://electrek.co/2016/08/14/netherlands-ban-gas-powered-cars-likely-law-all-new-cars-electric-2025/
Scotland blows away the competition – 106% of electricity needs from wind – joins select club
https://electrek.co/2016/08/14/scotland-electricity-needs-from-wind/
Rick Bronson on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 3:00 pm
The author wrote “although growth has slowed in the U.S. in recent years.”
Please read this. Except for May month when the sales went down by around 117 units, it has increased in all other months.
http://insideevs.com/july-2016-plug-electric-vehicle-sales-report-card/
And look at the EV sales in China
http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/
They sold 33,976 vehicles which is more than USA & EU combined. As the price of battery is declining, the sales are rocketing off.
Wait until Dec, when the Chevy-Bolt, Prius-Prime and Hyundai-Ioniq is launched, sales will be raising like a rocket.
By the way, Volkswagen has stopped selling all its Diesel vehicles.
rockman on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 3:25 pm
And look at ICE sales in China: in the month when 37k EV’s were bought in China about 2 million ICE were sold. Offhand I would say the EV’s are badly loosing the race. That is if one wants to consider it a race at all.
As I’ve said before: every little bit helps. Even if it’s a rather insignificant bit.
Boat on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 4:22 pm
rock,
The race will start when EV’s are as cheap and practical as many ICE vehicles. They will quickly spread after that due to less moving parts/maintance.
JuanP on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 5:57 pm
EVs will never make a big difference. Today they are an insignificant percentage of the transportation systems.
frankthetank on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 6:08 pm
Too expensive. If I had an ev i would drive MORE not less. Just get a bike and a boosted board.
Rick Bronson on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 7:10 pm
How many EVs did Chinese buy 2 years ago. Hardly 5,000.
From 5,000 / month to 34,000 / month is a big jump. And this is only the private vehicles. If you add the public vehicles, it will take the total to 44,000. Imagine how much will be the sales in the next 2 years.
Easily above 100,000. This is what is growth.
After all, EV is just 6 years old compared to 125 years for gasmobiles.
Rick Bronson on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 7:14 pm
Back in Year 2000. OPEC said $25/barrel is a fair price. Later they increased it to $45, then $75 and then $100.
Everyone were expecting $130 to be the next stop. But how come it crashed to $40/barrel.
Every Oil man will point to the Shale / Sands Oil. But how much demand is being destroyed because of this increased price.
100 Million AFVs are on the road today.
JuanP on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 8:50 pm
Rick “After all, EV is just 6 years old compared to 125 years for gasmobiles.”
You have no idea what you are talking about. Electric cars have been around since 1834. They were invented long before ICE cars. In 1890 electric cars outsold ICE ones 10 to 1. There have also been electric trains and trolleys since the mid 19th Century. Maybe you discovered EVs six years ago but they have existed for 182 years!
http://www.electricauto.org/?page=evhistory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle
http://energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car
beingfrank on Mon, 15th Aug 2016 4:48 am
My mother, born in London(1910), first saw the sea(40 miles away) on a Sunday School trip in the mid 20’s. My father didn’t go anywhere much until 1939- you can all guess where he went then! Me? I’ve travelled all over the world.
It’s clear to me that this constant movement is a very new thing and yet seems completly normal to very many people. But of course it is nothing more than a tiny little blip. My 17 year old daughter is off to New York this autumn on a school trip, her children may never leave Gloucestershire.
Best Regards Paul
Cloggie on Mon, 15th Aug 2016 5:14 am
In the Middle Ages people on average never travelled further from their cradle than 10 km during their entire life time.
My father never had a car and his record, paid from his own purse, was Switzerland by train, until I gave him and my mother a ticket to the Levant, paid with yuppie money, so he did fly at least once in his life.
My personal record: Holland-Mauritius.
My young nephew recently finished his education. Before beginning a career he made a world trip lasting half a year to India, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
When I was his age, I travelled through Europe for amonth with a Eurail pass for $150,-
I first flew (from Holland to Oxford) to present my work at an international solar energy conference.
Oil made the difference.
The Arab proverb…
“My father rode a camel, I drive a car, my son flys a jet plane, his son will ride a camel?”
…willl mutatis, mutandis, not only apply to Arabs.
Boat on Mon, 15th Aug 2016 11:25 am
Rick Bronson on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 7:10 pm
I get your point that biofuel, electric, nat gas etc. has made some impact. But remember new vehicle growth is around 22 million per year and rising. This is still what drives world oil demand.
Boat on Mon, 15th Aug 2016 11:25 am
Rick Bronson on Sun, 14th Aug 2016 7:10 pm
I get your point that biofuel, electric, nat gas etc. has made some impact. But remember new vehicle growth is around 22 million per year and rising. This is still what drives world oil demand.
rockman on Mon, 15th Aug 2016 11:46 am
Rick – “Easily above 100,000. This is what is growth.” From 2008 thru 2015 the sale of passenger ICE’s increased from 6.8 MILLION per year to 21.2 MILLION per year. IOW during that 8 year period 100 MILLION new ICE’s hit the road in China. That’s also what many might characterize as much greater “growth”.
“But how much demand is being destroyed because of this increased price.” Demand destruction??? The world is essentially consuming as much or more oil then ever before in history.
Simon on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 7:11 am
This article seems to be saying, not that there is an intrinsic problem with EV but that there are simply not enough EV’s to make a big difference, odd title for an article.
For me the only problem with EV is the fact that they are (in EU) leased, which means that you are limited in KM’s so you would be hard put to save any money.
Davy on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 7:34 am
The reason I am buying an EV is resilience. My VW is in a mandatory buyback with a nice buy back price. I have decided on a Chevy volt that offers me range and plug in advantages. I am going to beef up my solar system to charge it. To do it efficiently I will have to grid tie it but I also want to figure out how I can slow trickle charge it over a long period if the grid goes down. I want to be able to get around when fuel shortages start and having the ability to use electric or gas is a big plus. I also like the idea of using the volt battery to power items. It is easy to draw power off the batter to run lights and small devises.
I do not see EV as reducing carbon because they are powered by a dirty grid generally. Where they are powered by renewables then I see a great combination. The problem is we will likely never see a critical mass of EV’s combined with renewable energy to make a difference. EV’s production is not green and I would venture the idea it may be greener to just drive less and use the existing fossil fuel driven fleet over building out an expensive new fleet of EV cars with supporting renewable infrastructure. This is especially true if you accept the case that we are near a collapse.
Overall I am happy to see any renewable and EV build out. Anything is better than the traditional shit that has no future like more fancy highways, new passenger jets, and new Olympic stadiums as a short list of many. This shit is what we are wasting our precious last resources and productive capacity on. A point will be reached where we will look back as a global people and say “why didn’t we build things that were “lifeboat” oriented”. Instead of high tech fast trains we could have built slow trains that will operate in a collapse. We could have develop ways to grow food without heavy industrial support. There is a long list of things that will make a difference in collapse that we are neglecting. EV’s and renewables are a bridge to collapse. They offer something once collapse comes so I am all for them even though greenies and industry are promoting them for delusional reasons.
Cloggie on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 7:54 am
Car transportation: a 90 kg individual in a metal harnass of 1200 kg, going places.
Most of the time this harnass is standing idle by by the road side.
An average car consumes perhaps 60 kW or 60 kWh per hour driven. One hour driving 60 miles, that’s the energy equivalence of 60 mandays very hard labor. If you would walk these 60 miles it would take you two mandays, but thanks to nature’s gift, the travel time is reduced to one hour.
And it doesn’t matter if it is a diesel or an EV, powered by electricity, generated by fossil fuel in the power station, adding extra efficiency losses in the process, making an EV even dirtier than a normal car.
The question is: is it necessary to drive? Well, yes, if you want to maintain your garden like Davy or have to travel to your manufacturing job.
However, if you have a white collar job, like perhaps 60% or more of the workforce, that necessity no longer exists. With new cloud-based IT-infrastructure around and camera’s (skype) the necessity of car ownership/usage no longer exists, opening up the possibility for vast energy saving potential and still maintain the same economic processes.
Cloggie on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 8:06 am
And then there is the possibility of the self-driving car, eliminating the need for car ownership. Instead you can order a car from the pool with your phone.
Every plane, train or bus company tries to keep its vehicles moving as many hours per day as possible to increase return on investment.
Example Holland: average yearly driving distance 13000 km. Assume average speed of 60 khm –> 200 hours driving/year. A year has some 8700 hours, meaning 98% idle time. Oh, and 1.25 seat occupancy rate.
Now, you can’t go to your work in the middle of the night, but you can considerably spread travel time. Furthermore, smart algorithms can combine desired individual trajectories and significantly increase occupancy rate.
Currently this is not an attractive prospect. In the West people simply have too much money not to prefer a car of their own.
But the scenario sketched above could be implemented if society has far less resources to consume than now and many people no longer can afford private car ownership.
In this way you can produce the same amount of travel miles with perhaps 5-10 times less cars, and hence 5-10 times less embodied energy.
PracticalMaina on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 8:31 am
Cloggie, an advocate of renewable power such as yourself is calling an ev dirtier than an ICE, how do you figure? Regenerative braking ect, goes quite a ways with todays stop and go overcrowded urban and suburban areas.
Cloggie on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 8:43 am
As long as EVs are not powered by renewable energy, which is not yet the case, they are dirtier than normal cars mainly because of efficiency losses in batteries and conversion losses in the power station. Today in essence EVs are 100% powered by fossil fuel, except perhaps in places like Denmark, Germany or Texas.
PracticalMaina on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 9:19 am
My state falls into around the 50% renewable category I believe, strong hydro base, wind being quickly built up along with rooftop pv, air source heat pumps are popping up everywhere, unfortunately our percentage is subsidized with diesel burned in the pursuit of wood chip biomass…
PracticalMaina on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 9:22 am
Also a couple large scale bioreactors just opened (large scale for a lightly populated state) I think this is one of the most important techs we can work on right now, because fracking for natgas is extremely damaging to our climate, and these bi-products of fermentation are going to exist anyway, mine as well use them…
GregT on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 9:37 am
Where I live, we have 100% hydro electric power generation. Without fossil fuels for maintenance, repairs, and upgrades, hydro electric is dead in the water. Literally.
PracticalMaina on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 10:10 am
Upgrades shouldn’t really be necessary unless we disrupt the hydrologic cycle. Which we have, but if it were not for climate shift, most of these hydroelectric facility’s wouldn’t need much at all in terms of maintenance and repairs… I mean, I believe the center of the hoover dam just stopped curing…
It is incredibly resource intensive to build these structures, but they should still be standing when much of our other infrastructure has been wiped off the face of the Earth.
GregT on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 10:13 am
Also, without healthy functioning economies of scale, and an industrial manufacturing base ( much of which is powered by coal burning in China these days), in a relatively short period of time, there would be little use for that electricity anyways. It would be much more prudent to focus on water security, and food production. Both of which will become problematic in the not so distant future.
Cloggie on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 10:24 am
“Where I live, we have 100% hydro electric power generation. Without fossil fuels for maintenance, repairs, and upgrades, hydro electric is dead in the water. Literally.”
How much of Canadian national oil consumption is used for hydro plant maintenance? 0.0001%?
There will always enough fossil fuel around for that. And if not in 10 centuries, use biofuel.
PracticalMaina on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 10:27 am
GregT, true, but its a lot easier to cut firewood with electric assist than by hand, ditto for running some low power leds than constantly making candles or getting lamp oil, ect.
GregT on Wed, 17th Aug 2016 10:35 am
Before one attempts to find solutions, it is better to identify the problem first.
If the problem is running out of fossil fuels. Not to worry. We have more than enough to kill our species off.
If the problem is climate change, loss of biodiversity, ocean acidification, or arctic amplification, then the continuation of modern industrialism and population overshoot are adding to the problem, not solving it.