Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 3, 2016
Driving to the end of the Oil Age
The $8 trillion energy industry is about to be turned on its head, says a futurist and tech pioneer.
Ramez Naam, who is heading to the SingularityU summit in Christchurch later this year, says that by 2030 the world’s oil consumption will have peaked and time is running out for coal as a viable fuel.
While his predictions differ markedly from the views of organisations such as the International Energy Agency, he says solar, batteries and wind generation are getting cheaper every year and will come to supplant fossil fuels.
“The big message is that energy is an exponential technology. The price of that technology is plunging.”
At the same time, political momentum is building around the world to tackle climate change and the businesses that adapt will thrive.
The head of the country’s biggest fuel retailer, Z Energy’s Mike Bennetts, expects big changes too, but says his company regards the move away from fossil fuels as an opportunity, not a threat.
Naam spent 13 years at Microsoft, where he led teams developing early versions of Microsoft Outlook, Internet Explorer and the Bing search engine. He holds 19 patents related to search engines, information retrieval, web browsing, artificial intelligence and machine learning.
He says around the world there is a willingness to make clean energy cheaper than dirty energy.
“Our only chance to beat climate change is through technological innovation. People will buy energy they find the cheapest and we’re on a path to doing this.”
He says the energy market will be upended and players in the industry will be “incredibly disrupted”.
While the price of coal recovered slightly in the first part of this year, its value is down dramatically from its historic highs, mines and export terminals in Australia are economically “under water” and the largest coal companies in the US have lost most of their market value in the past few years.
Naam says most oil consumption will have peaked within 15 years because of the penetration of electric vehicles. They will get cheaper and be powered by longer lasting, more robust batteries.
It is peak demand – not peak oil – that will end the oil age, he says, referencing a famous quote from a former Saudi Oil Minister, Sheikh Zaki Yamani, in the 1970s: “The Stone Age did not end because of a lack of stones and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.”
While Naam acknowledges the number of electric vehicles (EVs) on the road now is minuscule – just over 1 million in a global vehicle fleet of more than 1 billion – the growth rate off this low base is about 60 per cent.
A decade from now about three to four per cent of cars will be electric, he forecasts. Light trucks will steadily be brought into EV fleets and then heavy trucks that could be charged up from wireless pads.
Naam lives in the US, where just 15 per cent of power is generated from renewable sources (in New Zealand it has been up to 90 per cent at times this year) but even there, he says EVs are still more environmentally friendly.
“Even if you fuelled up with coal generated electricity, it’s still better than burning petrol. If you buy an electric car it gets cleaner as the grid gets cleaner.”
If current trends hold, EVs will be the cheapest cars on the market.
Through a package of measures, the New Zealand Government wants to double the number of electric vehicles in this country each year, to reach 64,000 by 2021.
While Energy Minister Simon Bridges is enthusiastic about encouraging EV uptake, he also promotes this country as a good place for oil companies to explore and hopefully discover large fields, this week saying the transition to a low-carbon economy needs to happen in an “orderly” way and petrol will be needed for many years to come.
The big message is that energy is an exponential technology. The price of that technology is plunging.
He’s said in the past that this country could be like Norway – an oil exporting giant but with 100 per cent renewable power and a high number of EVs. Bridges reckons New Zealand, too, “can chew gum and walk at the same time”.
Naam says the transition to clean energy will be long and hard.
But coal workers can be retrained to work in the solar industry, and could earn more there.
During this transition fortunes will be made, and lost.
“Over the next 50 years US$200 trillion will be spent and the leaders in deploying these things – solar, wind, batteries and EVs – are going to be gigantic winners.”
Z’s Bennetts has spent more than three decades in the fossil fuels industry, once an oil trader for BP and for the past six years in his current role.
He’s as prepared as he can be for what’s around the corner.
“Whatever anyone says about the future, we’re probably all individually likely to be wrong. We work more in the realm of scenarios.”
Bennett’s doesn’t expect the service station industry to be disrupted overnight.
“We see ourselves as being able to take advantage of the opportunities, not the threat, of moving away from fossil fuels,” he says.
Z is “agnostic” about what sort of energy is flowing in the forecourt. “We’re in the energy business so we’re somewhat agnostic about what we sell. We don’t go around drilling for oil and gas so we have no upstream investment.”
His company is about to start producing commercial scale biodiesel, has tendered for a jet biofuel project for Air New Zealand and dipped its toes in the EV charging market in a handful of sites.
However, Bennetts says he is not keen on launching a headlong push into charging stations.
“As much as we’ve invested in some EV charging stations, I’d be reluctant to put in 210 of them across our network.”
It’s not just a question of will my business be a winner or a loser, but how do we train people, how do we educate our kids.
He says it could be like investing in VHS video technology at the point MP3 technology arrived. The future of charging could be swap-out batteries or charging pads on the road.
Z is the summit’s big backer. Bennetts says the decision to sponsor the conference was driven by the hope that small businesses will be able to share in some international thinking on exponential tech.
While he says the “big end of town” could get to technology hotspots like Silicon Valley, smaller firms couldn’t afford it.
“New Zealand suffers from being at the bottom end of the world and that’s why we’re sponsoring the summit.”
Bennetts says the gathering will also hear about the consequences of rapid technological change.
“Artificial intelligence is replacing professional jobs – it’s not just robots replacing manufacturing jobs.
“There’s a social perspective on this. It’s not just a question of will my business be a winner or a loser, but how do we train people, how do we educate our kids.”
Singularity summit
• SingularityU New Zealand Summit is a 3-day conference, hosted by Singularity University in tandem with NZ organisations and companies.
• The summit will be held in Christchurch on November 14 to 16.
• The goal is to uncover cutting edge, “exponential technologies” in New Zealand and how they can be used to create positive change and economic growth in the region.
• The conference will hear from experts in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, energy, self-driving cars, crime, technology and public policy, medicine, strategic relations, bioengineering and the future of work and education.
• It will look at how to create “exponential” organisations or adapt our existing corporations and organisations to work best in this new, evolving environment.
• Singularity University (SU) is a benefit corporation, headquartered in Silicon Valley, with alumni in more than 110 countries.
62 Comments on "Driving to the end of the Oil Age"
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 6:02 am
“Oil consumption will peak within 15 years because of the penetration of electric vehicles, according to a futurist.”
A futurist is somebody who makes usually irresponsible statements about the future, when he will no longer be around. And if he is still around, he is fully covered by an insurance company called “Free Speech Inc.”. Ask Richard Heinberg.
Where will the electricity come from to power these EVs? Certainly not from renewables, not in 15 years.
Out of the top of my head power usage of diverse items:
iPad – 5W
Fridge – 6W [*] (the latest A+++)
Big freezer – 20W (the latest A+++)
Light bulb – 12W (the latest)
Router – 30W
Desktop+monitor – 120W
TV – 120W
Washing machine – 1000W
Car – 20,000W [**]
So you see that normal household appliances pale in comparison to a car. And a washing machine you use perhaps 1-2 hours per week, a car often 1 or more hours per day.
[*] Recently bought the latest A*** fridge with an annual consumption of 60 kwh. You can’t get them with more efficient:
http://www.mediamarkt.nl/nl/product/_liebherr-tp-1720-21-1306350.html
[**] Dutch government statistics:
– average family electricity consumption 3300 kwh/year.
– average consumption EV: 3000 kwh/year
shortonoil on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 7:21 am
“The $8 trillion energy industry is about to be turned on its head, “
When they can’t even get the first line of an article correct, it sort of makes one wonder about the rest of it? Crude production is now about $1.5 trillion per year, and the cost of the crude is about 68 – 72% of the finished wholesale product. That is a long way from $8 trillion.
As far as Watts for Belgium refrigerators:
“iPad – 5W”
A watt is not an energy unit, it is an energy transfer rate. One would need watt*hrs for an energy unit, which gives Joules or BTU. To compare refrigerators to a car one would have to know how long each one operated. If the car ran for 1 minute and the refrigerator 24 hours the refrigerator used more energy than the car. The chart above is useless!
marmico on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 7:30 am
Only an idjit (the ETP Fuctard Formula dude) would maintain that a moonshiner (refinery) would expend 8.29 times the energy in 2012 relative to 1960 to heat mash (oil) to make whiskey (gasoline).
JuanP on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 8:09 am
“The big message is that energy is an exponential technology. The price of that technology is plunging.”
Energy is not a technology. I am amazed by supposedly intelligent and educated people who don’t understand this. This guy may have worked wherever but he is still nothing more than an ignorant fool. It is precisely because of retards like this one that humanity is doomed. He is a very clever monkey but he is not really smart.
Sissyfuss on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 8:10 am
Smarmy, you are definitely in your area of expertise, heavy drinking.
shortonoil on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 8:11 am
“Only an idjit (the ETP Fuctard Formula dude) “
For someone who has to take off their shoes and socks and drop their pants to count to 21, that is quit the statement!
Davy on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 8:16 am
The price of energy technology is plunging for a variety of reasons. I would prefer to see examples of the plunging technology cost. Thinking this is part of a revolution is using the data loosely. Using price within repressed and manipulated markets is dangerous if you are claiming a solid energy revolution. What happens in an economic depression environment? We all know that question. What happens when rates go up to 4%? We know how that changes the dynamics. What about all the government subsidies? Plenty to make that statement suspect and purely for hopium purposes. Articles like this are divorced from reality. This is the sensationalism we need to avoid with a crisis in the vicinity.
The only way to beat climate change? There is no beating climate change especially using technology. We may be able to use technology to reduce the rate of increase in climate change but that is doubtful. The degree of change through technology is miniscule compared to the rate of change of climate change. We lost that battle. Technology can help mitigate and adapt to the worsening effects of climate change for a while until climate change destroys our global system. The talk of technology and climate change in the same breath does not add up. If we peruse alternatives to the extent needed to become a transition energy source then the carbon budget is blown away and we are fast tracked into extreme climate change. If you want to solve climate change initiate a die off and the resulting population must use very little carbon. In fact I imagine the resulting population would need to produce negative carbon for 1000 years by being plant like.
This article then talks about a decade from now 3-4% of cars will be electric. That again assumes normal economy. What is a normal economy? What we have today is a new normal economy that is likely a second generation new normal economy. What is happening is the continued use of repression and easing efforts by the global central banks. That is heading one way and that is “MOAR” of the same. The problem is we are nearing limits of these effort with the direct give away of cash to stimulate demand. I cannot see how that kind of direction can correspond to what would be needed to power an energy revolution. A healthy growing economy is not one needing direct cash injections by the central banks.
Peak demand is peak oil in my opinion. Why do we have peak demand? Don’t you think the type of oil being produced and how much has something to do with macro systematic demand issues? Likely. When central banks create a bubble in the oil industry that points to more than just efficient economic oil production in a resulting oversupply. The gas fracking revolution is killing coal but how long will cheap gas last? We have an oil based economy facing various effects of depletion and other adverse peak oil dynamics that is surely affecting demand. This cumulatively over time is surely a negative influence on the global economy. You cannot decouple from the effects of depletion and the decline in the economic value of oil. Today we see this decouple so often when we have articles claiming the drop in energy demand is from efficiency and better technology. Sure some of it is but I suspect a significant amount is not to make those claims absurd. It is a declining real (physical and traditional) economy that is producing this drop. We are painting numbers of a global economy in growth but I would challenge anyone to explain a physical drop across the board in a broad range of resources and industries. Look at China’s heavy industry as just one example. We can cover up these declines nicely with digital growth. We can massage the number a variety of ways. We can consider bartenders and waitresses with the same economic impute as manufacturing jobs. This game goes on and on.
As I write this I felt an earthquake from Oklahoma. Nice to see the reality of oil hitting home “HA” what a pun. That 5.6 quake is surely related in some way to the fracking business down there.
marmico on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 8:16 am
Hill, you are so full of still gas, it is beyond belief. Take your bull shit to an accountant at a refinery who combs the energy bills and you will be lucky that her belly laugh won’t throw an abdominal hernia and knock your teeth out.
The ETP derived curve fails empirical data. Ask the moonshiner the next time you make your purchase.
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 8:20 am
“A watt is not an energy unit”
Straw man, nobody says it is.
The intention of the table was to compare the energy consumption for each item (obviously per equal time unit), to make the point that the energy consumption of a car is of a total different order than the other electricity consumers.
eugene on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 8:59 am
Far as I’m concerned, we live in the period of dreams and schemes. Meantime, reality rolls on.
dennis on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 9:01 am
I’m sure that all of you are more intelligent then me on this subject but I have some practical experience to share. I have driven a chevy volt for 3 years and am presently getting 224.6 mpg of gas. It is a fantastic car , quick and handles very well. I understand that on a cost to return basis I have a ways to go to break even. The old generic argument against these cars is slowly falling to the wayside. A lot of ICE cars are now being sold in the $30- 35,000 range. If I have a choice to buy a car for $35,000 that I have to put $40 of gas in a week or a $35,000 car that uses $25 of electricity a month , I’m choosing the EV. A recent study found that 87% of the daily trips made in the US could be fulfilled by electric cars with a range of 80-100 miles. You can listen to the same old generic arguments against EV’s but I can tell you from a real life situation that EV’s are the future. Renewable energy is being created everywhere from wind , solar , under the sea turbines and including the age old hydro electric. Unlike some I also think nuclear has it’s place in commercial generation. Oil is on it’s death bed. It may be a long slow death but that day is coming.
peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 9:10 am
Glut or no glut – the pressure on oil reducing consumption is increasing all the time – not the opposite. It heralds the peak and decline of this energy source.
Wether the pressure is on the production side, forced by governments, or lack of purchasing power is irrelevant.
Its going away and we still do not have a viable replacement.
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 9:22 am
“Its going away and we still do not have a viable replacement.”
We have it, but not yet installed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Denmark
The European Renewables Directive set a mandatory target at 20% share of energy from renewable sources by 2020 (EU combined). In 2012 the Danish government adopted a plan to increase the share of electricity production from wind to 50% by 2020 and to 84% in 2035.
Danish electricity generation:
http://tinyurl.com/hnvezaq
It is a matter of policy choice and nothing else.
J.D. on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 9:46 am
Articles like this all seem to make the extrapolation mistake. The price of renewable energy has been dropping, so they assume it will keep dropping forever.
More likely, the price will start to level off as technology becomes established and low hanging fruit innovations are incorporated. Then when fossil fuel prices start to rise sharply, renewable energy prices will rise too, and may never fall below fossil fuel prices.
Davy on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 10:01 am
Dennis, my Jetta TDI is going to be bought back by VW this fall because of the emissions scandal. I am planning on buying a Volt. Thanks for the good reviews. From what I am reading this latest generation is a step up across the board.
While I appreciate your review. I do not agree with the MPG figure. Power is likely coming from the grid to charge those batteries. The grid is expensive and generally fossil fuel driven. If you were one of the few to have a grid free setup which my research shows to be expensive you still have the renwable payoff to consider. The real fuel economy is probably around what my Jetta is at 40-50. I am buying a PHEV for doom and prep reasons not because I think it is an energy revolution.
joe on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 10:24 am
The great thing about plans and ambitions is that they can be used to ignore facts. We live with the eduring fallout from one of the greatest get rich schemes in history. Iran, Iraq and Russia were taken out by Bush and hist neocon chums. Then America and the Saudis pillaged until they could hide one of the biggest scams in history, the oil price spikes of ‘peak oil’.
A new industry got started as a result and tight oil will keep a lid on prices, and now the Saudis are probobly very sorry they backed Bush and his rape of Iraq. Its costing them 6bln a month!
Oil is not going anywhere.
peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 10:37 am
@cloggie: I live in Denmark. I am a Danish citizen – I have lived here my entire life – I have always been interested in solar and wind power – I know what is going on in Denmark.
peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 10:44 am
Please stop using Denmark as an example. It is just as far fetched as using France as an example that the whole world could go Nuclear.
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 10:45 am
“Please stop using Denmark as an example.”
Why?
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 10:52 am
You should be proud of the achievements of Denmark. I am embarrassed to the core that the Netherlands is almost last in Europe with renewable energy (thanks to a large natural gas field).
peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 10:57 am
Because it is one of the richest countries in the world. Far from everybody has the ability to invest in the same way. The geology of denmark – coastline to landmass is also very favorable to off-shore wind.
Then there is the scale. Denmark is very very small to scale up to the amount that needs to be done worldwide is unrealistic.
Besides Denmark has not solved the real problem: Energy for transport and food production.
To solve a very small part of a very big problem is not a solution.
Besides the installations has stagnated dramatically since the government has started to feel “poor”. It does not look like there is installations exceeding the replacement rate anymore.
And the danish people are increasing seeing unreasonable government taxation. The government promises one thing and the next year they break that promise.
Same thing happened in Spain, Italy.
rockman on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 10:58 am
Just some more spin to correct:
“Coal…its value is down dramatically from its historic highs,” Yes but the world today is still burning more coal then anytime prior to 2013. And is burning twice as much as it was in 2000. A very minor decline in consumption after a tremendous and unprecedented growth spurt does not constitute a “dramatically” significant change in the dynamic.
“But coal workers can be retrained to work in the solar industry, and could earn more there.” If the EIA’s prediction of a significant growth in coal consumption proves correct coal miners won’t be unemployed. In fact there may be a shortage.
“Our only chance to beat climate change is through technological innovation. People will buy energy they find the cheapest and we’re on a path to doing this.” Which explains the surge in coal consumption over the last 15 years and the future prediction.
“It will look at how to create exponential organisations or adapt our existing corporations and organisations…” Seems like most of the “exponential” growth may be in unrealistic expectations of the world abandoning fossil fuels anytime soon. At least soon enough to significantly change the climate change dynamic.
peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 11:01 am
I was optimistic – not anymore. The current government is the blackest in history. The environment and renewable power is not mentioned with ONE word in their plans for the future.
The current government party has a history of being against renewable power and for fossil fuels and destruction of the environment for immediate profits.
Besides our current prime minister is not only corrupt – he only focuses on profits – and primarily his own profits. He is an embarassment to everybody – His party was the biggest loser at the election losing most votes and then he becomes prime minister?? WTF?
Right now the prime directives in his plan for the future is to prevent young people from taking an education while giving tax breaks to the richest 1%.
shortonoil on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 11:16 am
“Straw man, nobody says it is.”
You are, you are comparing an Iphone to a refrigerator. This may be news to you, but they aren’t the same thing?
“Oil is not going anywhere. “
That’s right, at $44 per barrel, and undeveloped it will stay right where it is; in the ground. Almost no one is bring new oil on line; oil is no longer worth the investment. The price of oil reflects its value to the economy, not some hypothetical value placed on it by an oil company or economist. When oil can no longer power an amount of economic activity equal to its cost, they will stop using it.
That is except of Smarmy, who will sell his grandmother’s kidneys to pay for his.
Boat on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 11:41 am
short,
“Almost no one is bring new oil on line; oil is no longer worth the investment.”
The middle east and Russia grew production over 1 mb/d in the last year. In shorts mind that’s “almost no one”
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 11:44 am
@peakyeast – sorry to hear that. Well at least you should be proud of the cumulative achievements in the past.
On the other hand I can’t recognize your bleak assessment in articles like these:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3ccfc36-3a06-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz4JD8Cq66j
http://www.offshorewindindustry.com/news/danish-dominance
http://euanmearns.com/wind-power-denmark-and-the-island-of-denmark/
Naturally the low oil price isn’t very helpful but can be expected to pick up again in a few years.
shortonoil says “You are, you are comparing an Iphone to a refrigerator. This may be news to you, but they aren’t the same thing?”
I was comparing the power consumption of an iPad with that of a refrigerator.
Furthermore I am aware they are not the same thing; I don’t store my strawberries in my iPad and when I hear a ringtone I don’t pick up my refrigerator.
No idea where this discussion is going or the point you are trying to make.
The only point I tried to make was that a car consumes orders of magnitude more energy per unit of time. Next I did introduce the time factor by providing government statistics about the average household electricity consumption versus the EV electricity consumption, both on a yearly basis.
Much renewable electricity will come from private persons will solar panels on their roofs. They will first power their lights, gadgets, fridges etc before they will contemplate to power their EVs.
Northwest Resident on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 11:53 am
“The middle east and Russia grew production over 1 mb/d in the last year.”
A tiny, nearly miniscule fraction of the total. And that nearly imperceptible growth was enabled by how much debt and energy input?
Anything to hang on to “the way it is” for a little longer, I guess.
In the meantime, I read that gas prices this Memorial Day weekend are the lowest they have been in 12 years. What’s up with that? Could it be that the general population doesn’t have enough money to spend on leisure driving? Or is it because the oil being produced is insufficient to power its own consumption as shortonoil consistently points out. Both?
Michael on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 11:56 am
A simple Toyota with a pull-out choke in the northeast. Nothing fancy … abused when my brother got his driver’s license, and neglected on the maintenance by my mother. That damn thing ran forever on fumes.
.
Fast forward – the Chrysler K-car post bailout.
.
Prior to – the V.W. bug and the “Thing.”
.
Hell, mate the V.W. bug to the E.V. and generation X,Y, and Z have a viable car that runs reliably so they can get to all those interview’s for jobs that no longer exist.
.
Just sayin.
Apneaman on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 11:56 am
J.D. brings up yet another example of the optimism bias run wild.
“The price of renewable energy has been dropping, so they assume it will keep dropping forever.”
I can think of plenty of examples of this mentality becoming the basis for future pain in my lifetime.
In the 80’s Japan and the other “”Asian Tiger economies”
Dot com bubble
US housing bubble
Chinese economy today
Many resource booms & busts in my half century.
It’s always the same shit. The cheerleading and the never ending growth mentality and the shouting down of anyone not on board. Then when it stops or pops the excuses and blaming come out – somebody done somebody wrong. Over and over and over and most of the humans will go their entire lives and never clue in. Methinks it’s evolutionary. Evolution made humans to ignore facts/risks in their reward seeking. Not a choice and it’s why the humans came to dominate the planet……….but only for an evolutionary blink of an eye. Yeast dominate the petri dish for a while too.
shortonoil on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 12:07 pm
“before they will contemplate to power their EVs. “
A $40,000 EV requires the energy equivalent of 37 barrels of oil to build; or 68 barrels after the energy needed to produce the oil is added to the total. To replace 10% of the US auto fleet would require the equivalent 1.43 Gb of oil. So, your suggestion is that everyone should stop eating for a year so that we can build EVs.
Are you planing on replying to all the crying “mommy, I’m hungry” in person?
Davy on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 12:25 pm
I appreciate your realism Peaky. You have an exceptional country but there is the other side of the story also. I listen to people when they talk with balance as you did above.
OldDane on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 12:30 pm
This site show in real time the production of electricity in Denmark.
http://energinet.dk/Flash/Forside/index.html
Translation:
(Centrale Kraeftvaerker = central power station – mostly coal)
(Dencentrale Kraeftvaerker = small power station – Ng or biomass or garbage)
(vindmøller = wind power)
(solceller = solar)
(nettoudveksling = import/export)
(elforbrug = consumption)
Nothing talks like reality.
Boat on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 12:39 pm
short,
New cars are already being produced, like 20 million plus. To exchange them with an EV is not a big deal. ROI is. When the EV becomes cheaper over the lifetime of ownership, that’s when sales will explode.
“So, your suggestion is that everyone should stop eating for a year so that we can build EV’s.
Are you planing on replying to all the crying “mommy, I’m hungry” in person?”
Your an idiot shallow short.
Outcast_Searcher on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 12:59 pm
Shortonoil said:
‘“before they will contemplate to power their EVs. “
A $40,000 EV requires the energy equivalent of 37 barrels of oil to build; or 68 barrels after the energy needed to produce the oil is added to the total. To replace 10% of the US auto fleet would require the equivalent 1.43 Gb of oil. So, your suggestion is that everyone should stop eating for a year so that we can build EVs.
Are you planing on replying to all the crying “mommy, I’m hungry” in person?’
So in your world there is no such thing as substitution?
Are you going to pretend to build an ICE takes zero oil?
Or that with a modest (under 10 KWW) battery, a PHEV will take as much energy to build as 2 ICE cars, or even 1.5?
Or that as the grid gets greener, PHEV’s and BEV’s can’t get energy savings cost wise, compared to ICE’s burning gasoline over their entire useful lives?
When you pretend that in order to substitute BEV’s and PHEV’s for ICE’s, fairly gradually, that a bunch of people have to starve (or even go hungry), you have zero credibility.
So why should we believe your ETP model, given zero credibility?
…
I liked the fact that this article didn’t over-reach. I think expecting 3 or 4% EV penetration in a decade is conservative — especially if you include PHEV’s in the mix — PHEV’s which can often get 50% or more of the miles in their useful life in pure EV mode, saving burning a tremendous amount of gasoline.
shortonoil on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 2:14 pm
“I think expecting 3 or 4% EV penetration in a decade is conservative “
When you get a PHEV with an energy density of 19, 461 BTU/ lb let us all known. In the meantime you are a used battery salesmen. Only used on Sunday by a little old lady to go to church. When we see PHEV powering a D9 CAT, a tans Atlantic freighter, a Boeing 757, or a locomotive pulling 100 cars, there may be something to it. In the meantime it will do nothing to stop the descent of modern civilization.
More pipe dreams.
rockman on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 3:11 pm
I don’t think you meant it the way it could be read: it wouldn’t be a huge deal for those folks to get rid of the 20 million cars they just bought and replace them with alt vehicles. So maybe you meant the next 20 million new vehicles buyers would go with the alts instead of the ICE’s.
Not a very likely “what if” IMHO given those new 20 million ICE’s were purchased when fuel prices were a tad higher then they are today. It really doesn’t matter what numbers (real or theoretical) anyone tosses out. The reality is simple: the vast majority of new vehicles bought in the past and CONTINUES to be bought today are ICE’s. IOW it matters not how many alt vehicles are bought this year, next year or for many years in the future: a great many more ICE’s are being added then alts. Alt sales might be increasing but they are still constantly losing ground to new GHG emitting vehicles. Alt vehicle aren’t making the climate situation better. They are making the situation (to a rather small degree) not quite as bad as it would have been without them.
rockman on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 3:30 pm
NR – “Could it be that the general population doesn’t have enough money to spend on leisure driving? Or is it because the oil being produced is insufficient to power its own consumption as shortonoil consistently points out. Both?”
You seem to be equating lower motor fuel prices with expectations of less driving this holiday. AAA and and the feds appear to disagree with you:
“The Federal Highway Administration said that we set a record for road travel last year in the United States of more than 3 trillion miles,” he told 1010 WINS. “This year we’re doing about 280 billion miles a month, and in fact that was the number for June, which was 5 billion more miles than June of the previous year. So we’re driving a lot and certainly we see no reason why it shouldn’t continue over this holiday weekend.”
So to answer your question: no…folks appear to have no problem coming up with “enough money to spend on leisure driving”.
Also the other answer is no: oil being produced easily has sufficient energy to “power its own consumption”. Although I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say. As pointed out many times the energy needed to produce the existing oil wells is very small compared to the energy they yield. Or if you’re referring to the energy content of today’s motor fuels that has remained constant for decades.
drowan on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 4:48 pm
I drove the last 3 yrs EV. It is by far the least expensive transportation I have ever had. I buy wind power from PA wind farms currently but I am putting up PV in a month. 2KW installed will power my EV 12,500 mpyr for the next 25 yrs at a cst of .02/mile. PV to EV is five times more energy efficient than oil to gas to ICE.MY EV will go 3000 miles before needing new batteries. Then the replacement batteries will be about $3000. The ICE (internal combustion engine) companies know their tech is antiquated and inferior, but they aare the dominant automotive species. But not in two decades. Their reign is over for inferior performance, less safe, inefficient energy supply chain, inefficient use of energy, undependable (compared to EVs which require 40% less repairs and maint. Switching from foreign OIL to domestic electricity saves oil ‘bribery’ and defense costs. The oil companies know all this which is why their propaganda barrage is so rampant.
There is enough renewable energy in every state in the US to fuel all lightweight vehicles for the next billion years. And to fuel them a lot less expensively. Utility sor is now about 1.3 million per MW installed which leads to an energy cost/mile of less than .03 /mile compared to a Prius which costs .06/mile at $3/gal.
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 4:58 pm
“2KW installed will power my EV 12,500 mpyr for the next 25 yrs at a cst of .02/mile. PV to EV is five times more energy efficient than oil to gas to ICE.MY EV will go 3000 miles before needing new batteries. Then the replacement batteries will be about $3000.”
So PV will supply power for 2 cent/mile and battery replacement for $1/mile.
Ouch.
And assuming 1000 charge/discharge cycles it would mean the range is 30 miles.
Ouch.
drowan on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 5:10 pm
(correction from previous post)My EV will go 300,000 miles before needing new batteries. Over the last 11,000 miles I averaged 5.2 miles/kWH, an MPGe equivalent of 170 mpg. 2000 kWh to go 11,000 miles IN PA 2KW produces 2500 kWh/yr at an annualized cost of $200/yr. With my home solar PV costing $150/WT installed there will be virtually no transmission or distribution losses. With my re’cycled Nissan Leaf batteries used as home storage I can store PV energy for rainy days. Emerging microgrid technology will make IC engines obsolete even faster, as ICE engines can not be ‘networked or aggregated to do load shifing, ancillary services, peak shifting, emergency energy. An EV like a smart phone can do many things, Like a smart phone if all you do is ‘make calls’ you are not utilizing many of the ‘phones’ capabilities. If you are going to do a critique of the EV you have to look at the system it is ‘connected to, the same as with the ICE tech you have to look at the inefficient highly subsidized oil cartel. The oil cartel is one of the most powerful ones in the world, but IT titans like TESLA, Google, Apple, IBM, Siemens, Amazon who are all working on transportation ‘aggregation, digitization, and connected’ cars will be an adversary that will decimate ‘analog oli’ over the next three decades.
So much of this ‘component’ analysis is wrong, because it does not look at system benefits of EVs and renewable energy integrated in microgrids or macrogrids. I remember millions of folks being wrong when they said the internet would never amount to much and was a fad. Millions more are wrong with systemized EV, Renewable integration in smart grids. This means trillions of profits for the prime movers of systemized grid integrated EVs.
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 5:20 pm
And what is the range on a single discharge?
Sissyfuss on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 5:31 pm
I deign to request that we prune some Danish off this site before we are overrun.
peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 5:42 pm
@cloggie: Even though “times are tough” now – at least according to the government(s) – we are in reality still in the best of times ever.
Even then the transition to renewable power or other alternative are not taking place.
Soon it becomes: Shall we have food in our mouth or make a new windmill/solar farm.
What do you think will win then? Take a guess. I know what my bet is on.
That choice has already been made in many places that are poorer than Denmark – and they are not going to have a better time next year.
Now… Lets assume 30% of electricity is met by renewable power. I find it unlikely to continue given that the “low hanging fruits” are taken first. – And they have been.
How much of the total energy mix is that?
How will we replace the rest?
As mentioned (the nuclear france argument), but overlooked, how is it scaled up to the entire world?
Now it is not so easy to find a total for everything used in Denmark, but my findings so far is
“Forbrug af vedvarende energi 13 068”
Consumption of renewable energy:
“I alt opgjort i brændselsækvivalenter 73 078”
Total consumption: 73078
So we have covered some 17% of our energy consumption.
This is the best we can do in the best of times using about 20 years? And then you want me to feel happy for the ENTIRE world?
Please tell me how this is going to scale – in time?
And do remember we also have all those other problems that need fixing at the same time. YES – AT THE SAME TIME..
Btw.@olddane: yes energinet is very pretty.. but it only covers electricity.
ghung on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 5:58 pm
drowan said; “2KW installed will power my EV 12,500 mpyr for the next 25 yrs”
Not sure who’s been blowing smoke up your ass, but I guarantee it won’t even come close, especially in PA.
Farther down you said; “Over the last 11,000 miles I averaged 5.2 miles/kWH…”
12,500 / 5.2 = 2404kWh (rounded up)
2404 / 365 = 6.586 (kWh) per day. A 2kW array WILL NOT produce that amount (average per day) in PA, especially into a battery bank. Conversion losses, etc. will eat about 20% of whatever your calculations are. Figure 10% for grid-tied.
Our home system in North Carolina currently has 6.6 kW installed and 3.2kW of that is on tilt/roll trackers. This year’s daily average production is 13.24 kWh per day into a 52 kWh battery bank and a 450 gallon hot water dump load (when batteries are fully charged). Highly-efficient Outback controllers. All data logged via Righthand Engineering software from Outback Hub10/Mate. I have years of data.
You’re gonna need more panels. Good news? Panels are really cheap these days. (www.sunelec.com),, and I hope you meant $1.50/watt installed. What will you do for storage when you’re driving during the day? Gridweenie?
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 6:19 pm
@peakyeast – “How will we replace the rest?”
Not.
Have a look at this and sort on the 2nd column (click on the header until largest consumer on top):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
Next go down the list and halt at a “shabby country that isn’t exactly stone age”. Well, none of them is but anyway…
I pick Croatia, total energy consumption per capita of 1932 units. I was there this summer and I liked it. The country is a little backwards but the atmosphere is fine. It’s a bit like the French riviera in the sixties. No stress. People are content, look happy. Wifi everywhere, no grid malfunction, public viewing on the market squares… I watched Croatia being beaten by Spain in Zadar. Never have I seen a market place, filled with hundreds of supporters being emptied in a minute.
Zadar: http://tinyurl.com/zvhx7ld
Let’s compare Croatia’s energy consumption with other, big countries as well as home countries of some forum dwellers:
Canada 7380
USA 7165
Holland 5021
Russia 4943
France 4031
Germany 4003
Denmark 3470
China 1807
Uruguay 1241
Philippines 434
Compare that with 1932 of Croatia.
Morale: we can all live reasonably well, even if our energy consumption is slashed to 1/2 or even 1/3 of our old amount. Like in Croatia nobody flies any more, only a fraction of the population has a car, nobody goes on holiday abroad. There are no big supermarkets or department stores. Bread you get from the bakery and fruit you buy in the street. Haven’t seen beggars, let alone tent cities. Life in the slow lane.
makati1 on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 6:28 pm
Drowan, does your EV require tires? Headlights? Lubricants? Brake linings? Electronic fuses? Etc. ALL of those items will disappear when the SHTF. They are not manufactured locally from local materials.
Tires certainly will not last even 20,000 miles on PA roads that will exist a few years after the SHTF (without maintenance after a few freeze and thaws).
You will own a useless museum piece. Enjoy.
JuanP on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 6:41 pm
Peaky, The same thing goes for my country, Uruguay. We produce a lot of hydroelectric and wind energy but growth in these fields is mostly in the past. We are also a very small country with an abundance of water and wind, and this cannot be scaled up at other places or globally. We still import all our oil and gas and transport is almost exclusively oil based. It is the same in Costa Rica, too, for example.
And, just like in your country, in spite of this abundance and good soils, temperate weather, and technological advances, the quality of life for most of the population has been deteriorating for decades and crime, which used to be almost nonexistent, is rampant and getting worse. No place will be spared.
peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 7:31 pm
@cloggie: I agree that we could do a great power down to for example the level of Croatia or even lower and in SOME places keep a reasonable lifestyle. – IF that was our only problem. And that is what I personally has done. I even think it is desirable to live like this.
So you fail to include ALL the other problems in your happy future.
Remember? The energy is a SMALL problem that we have not even solved.
Please explain to me why you are focusing on ONE tiny part of a BIG problem and thinking – OK we can just power down a little and everything is fine.
peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 7:50 pm
@Juan: Denmark still produces about the same amount is consumes.
But I remember my discussions with my cousin in the oil biz back then. Oh – Denmark has plenty of oil for 30 years.
Ok – so after those 30 years what then? Everybody thinks that 30 years is so far away that it will never become reality. Well now it is 25 years later and reality is very close. Now it doesnt feel like 30 years is forever.
People must understand that it is not about there here and now. It is about long term planning. And when civilisation is burning through vast amounts of the biosphere and resources at a staggering rate – then it spells disaster. Maybe not for them – but for their children. So why doesnt it matter to them?
Because they are at their core: egocentric morons that only care about immediate pleasure – at the expense of everything else in the future.
They hope that someone or something will save them and that is enough to risk everything.
We as a species should have lined all those defective fuckers up on a line and shot them first time we got aware that that “stereotype” COCKroach existed.
But noooo… we are sooo humane – let us all die together instead slowly and miserably while taking everything else living with us to the grave..
peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 7:54 pm
@all: Yeah well ok.. sometimes I do get a little emotional. Personal attacks and squabbles mean nothing to me, but the eradication of all Nature does.