Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 27, 2017
Oil barons face a slow death by electrification
Opec, Russia and Big Oil thought they had half a century to prepare for the end of the internal combustion engine. At best they have a decade before the threat turns deadly serious.
The twin announcement by France and Britain – within two weeks of each other – to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040 is an earthquake in the energy world.
Others are moving in parallel. A non-binding resolution of the German Bundesrat has called for a prohibition by 2030. Norway already has such a target by 2025 and the catalytic effect is spectacular: sales of electric vehicles (EVs) reached 42 per cent of all cars in July.
France is to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2040.
China’s new plan stipulates that zero-emission vehicles must make up 8 per cent of total sales next year, rising to 10 per cent in 2019, and 12 per cent in 2020. This is an even bigger earthquake. Those German and Japanese manufacturers that do not yet produce EVs – or not enough – face being shut out of the world’s largest car market.
READ MORE:
* The future is electric cars?
* UK to ban petrol-fuelled cars from 2040
* Dude, where’s my Tesla?
* How do I refuel my car?
* US eye fuel efficiency standards
Tesla Motors’ mass-market Model 3 electric cars are imminent.
Once governments reset policy in this fashion, markets rush to take advantage. They accelerate the timetable. The inevitability factor turns against the status quo and shifts with pent-up force in a new direction.
Morgan Stanley expects EVs to capture 70 per cent of the European market by mid-century. On the one hand it costs ever more to develop fossil-fuel cars that meet tightening rules on CO2 emissions and particulates (NOx). On the other, the cost of electric batteries keeps falling. The scissor-action is remorseless.
In Britain and France we will start to see charging outlets appearing rapidly as they have in Norway, instantly located when we need them on iPhone apps. The utilities are already locked in a battle for mastery of this electric revolution, fighting for control of lucrative plug-in posts expected to jump from 100,000 to 30 million within three decades.
Electric cars are seen at a parking lot of an automobile factory in Xingtai, Hebei province, China.
My guess is that petrol stations will go into run-off and become scarce in culturally-green hotspots relatively soon. Spare parts for fossil-fuel cars will be less easy to find. As these supply risks seep into public consciousness, the switch to EVs will turn into a stampede. The National Grid estimates that there could be 6 million EVs in the UK by 2030 under its “Gone Green” scenario.
Tesla’s mass-market Model 3 will be launched this Friday at a starting price of US$35,000 (NZ$446.,578) and a battery range of 215 miles (346 kilometres), with a target of 1 million sales annually within three years. In China, the Chery eQ already sells for under US$9000. Even without subsidies it would be less than $15,000.
There will be 20 models with a 200-mile (321-km) range in the US market alone by 2020. Sweden’s Volvo will by then have stopped producing petrol cars entirely, citing a customer revolt against petrol vehicles.
In Britain and France they will start to see charging outlets appearing rapidly as they have in Norway
The argument at the big global banks has shifted from whether peak oil demand will occur to how soon it will occur. Goldman Sachs said this week that it could hit by 2024 in “an extreme case”. That is not extreme enough for Tony Seba from Stanford University and RethinkX.
He says the technology is moving so fast that the British ban will be overtaken long before 2040 by pure market forces. Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, might just as well ban horse-drawn carriages. There won’t be any petrol or diesel cars left on the road anyway. Prof Seba thinks EVs will reach cost parity by 2022 as prices fall below US$20,000 (versus US$24,000 for the average oil-based car today). Thereafter they will sweep the field on cost alone. With far fewer moving parts and a potential lifespan of half a million miles, they will render the combustion engine obsolete.
It is what happened to Kodak when digital cameras appeared. The end was swift and brutal. Opec will hear none of this. It allows that renewable energy may be a threat to coal but insists that it cannot seriously menace transport fuel. It says fossil fuels will make up 77 per cent of world energy supply in 2040, exactly the same share as today, and the Paris Agreement be damned.
Cars drive along a street in smog during a polluted day in Beijing, China.
Its World Oil Outlook estimates that crude demand will rise by a further 16.4 million barrels per day (b/d) to 109 million b/d by then, supposedly driven by economic booms in China and India. The global fleet of passenger cars will rise from 1 billion to 2.1 billion but Opec is adamant that only 6.7 per cent of these will be EVs.
It is still an article of faith that haulage and trucking cannot be electrified at viable cost, but this too is absurd. Of course it can. Nikola Motor Company in the US has already unveiled an 18-wheeler with a Tesla battery that can run for 1200 miles (1931 kms) with the help of a hydrogen fuel-cell generator.
Dirty bunker fuel for the 700,000 ships afloat is next in line. Scandinavia already uses electric ferries for short trips. Diesel-electric motors driven by liquefied natural gas are expected to capture a chunk of the market. Boeing is even working on electric aircraft for short-haul commuter flights. One by one, the arguments are crumbling.
My own view is that we now have an unstoppable confluence of market forces, new technology and green policies that are reinforcing each other and cannot be stopped even by US President Donald Trump.
The latest climate research suggests that ocean acidification is worse than feared and that the world’s safe carbon budget is less than supposed in the Paris Accord. It is a near certainty that some form of carbon tax or pricing will become a global fact of life.
For Opec and the petro-powers it has turned into a running three-year disaster.
Not only do they face slow death by electrification, they face a nimble US shale industry in the short run that seems able to turn on production almost at the flick of a switch whenever crude pushes back above US$50 a barrel.
Recoveries are quickly capped at half previous price levels, and at levels far below the fiscal break-even cost needed by Saudi Arabia and most Opec states to maintain their cradle-to-grave welfare systems and patronage machines.
Little wonder that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is so determined to sell off the crown jewels of Saudi Aramco and reinvest the proceeds in an industrial and economic reinvention designed for life after oil. The window is suddenly closing very fast.
The British and French announcement that they will not require a single drop of crude must have sent shivers through a lot of mid-East spines.
Which begs a question: why would anybody purchase shares in a company like Aramco that was valued at US$2 trillion in an old energy order that no longer exists?
– The Telegraph, London
53 Comments on "Oil barons face a slow death by electrification"
Davy on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 6:28 am
“The twin announcement by France and Britain – within two weeks of each other – to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040 is an earthquake in the energy world.”
Stupid people, we don’t even know if we will be alive or have a functioning global system in 2040 WTF. On one level they are making a good prediction because it will take that long to eliminate ICE under the best of conditions.
Makati1 on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 6:28 am
Hahahaha! Nice fantasy piece. Who expects BAU to continue after the SHTF? Only those who have not thought out the event to it’s logical end. Electric replace FF? Not in this life time. FF may disappear, but so will all alts because they are nothing more than FF extenders and cannot exist without FF energy input in massive amounts. The world is changing, but not in the direction these dreamers hope for.
At current total worldwide car production per year of about 20 million vehicles and a world car population of over 1 billion, it will take over 50 years to replace the FF cars on the road, even if ALL car manufacturers switched to alts today. Do the numbers people. Think for yourself. LMAO
Antius on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 6:32 am
Well that’s one way to relieve traffic congestion – making sure that poor people cannot afford cars.
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 6:39 am
2040 is ridiculously unambitious. It should be 2030 for big countries and 2025 for smaller ones.
Norway already has such a target by 2025 and the catalytic effect is spectacular: sales of electric vehicles (EVs) reached 42 per cent of all cars in July.
People are listening very well to the signals their government is sending. Nobody wants to be caught holding the bag.
The last 70% still driving on gasoline will be despised and regarded as retard Hillbillies. A bit like loud burpers and stinking farters in civilized company.
Expect an avalanche effect, a run on e-vehicles.
dissident on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 6:59 am
The usual, masturbatory drivel of “we better than them” from the western fake stream media. Electricity does not come from nowhere. The UK will need to make up its mind on its nuclear power plants ASAP and actually build new ones to replace the crumbling ones it has now. France looks to be in better shape, but actually also has a nuclear supply crisis since its building program is behind the curve and it will face decommissioning of plants by 2040.
Kenz300 on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 7:02 am
The sooner the world goes all electric the better.
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 7:34 am
Well that’s one way to relieve traffic congestion – making sure that poor people cannot afford cars.
For them we have the rent-a-self-driving-car option on offer.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/by-2030-you-wont-own-a-car/
Same transportation result, against much lower cost and a little extra inconvenience (waiting and sharing a car/van with others).
UK consultancy firm Rethinkx says so, so it is true.
Hubert on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 7:53 am
World economy will be dead by 2040.
eugene on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 7:55 am
As the old saying goes: if wishes were fishes we’d all have some.
Davy on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 8:06 am
“For them we have the rent-a-self-driving-car option on offer.”
Sure thing clogster, we can rent all kinds of free stuff with enough imagination. Cornucopian techno optimist are big on ideas and fancy lifestyles but short on reality testing.
cam on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 8:08 am
I think somebody should figure out where the electricity will come from. Electricity is a carrier of energy, not a source, and has its own inefficiencies (power loss) in transmission, storage, and charging. Vast new sources of electrical power will be required as well as vast new grid infrastructure. Solar seems totally insufficient especially in the time frames mentioned. In the US solar has provided only .6% of total power for the last two years running according to the EIA. So it will either be coal or gas, or we will return to opening up oil fired electric generation.
Makati1 on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 8:19 am
Shhh Cam, you’re destroying the techie’s illusion of a bright new world. LOL
just do it on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 8:20 am
The interesting possibility lies in the explosive nature of change, I can see the 2040 deadline moved up to 2030 and even sooner, such like has been done in the past, WWII changed everything in 6 years, once the tipping point is past, there’s no turning back, we are soon at that point, good riddance to petrol, thanks for the ride.
deadlykillerbeaz on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 8:30 am
A friend of mine owns a junkyard. He has not bought any gas in years. The gasoline is free with every car sold for junk or any wrecked car hauled in for parts.
Electric cars will all be headed for the junkyard too!
Especially Teslas since they have a propensity to burn but good.
There will be trucks and trucks need diesel at 150 gallons per fill-up. The trucking industry will increase as time goes by.
Tractors and combines will be needing diesel too.
Farmers like oil too much to switch to anything else.
Oil consumption will increase, not decrease.
Nice try, electricity, not quite though, not even close.
joe on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 8:32 am
Shouldn’t Iter, tell everyone what government’s are pinning their hopes on? This project which is bigger than the Manhattan Project but more public is supposed to compensate us for the loss of oil AND gas. Does it work? Who can say, it’s not even finished being built yet. No doubt if it does, then combined with the advancements in quantum computers, a.i and genetic code manipulation then there is no reason to suspect any reasons to fear for humanity. A super-quantum computer in 50 years could easily trial out all combinations of dna to create any proteins to find ways for plants and animals to survive the harshest climates. New and better energy is always needed to bring forward human development. Human power gave way to animal power which gave way to coal which has powered us to today combined with oil and gas we have reached a point of being within grasping distance of controlling our own destiny. But only if we can make fusion work. If we can get iter to work we will understand how to confine plasmas in magnetic feilds, armed with that knowledge we could create machines that could burn all kinds of elements and even at various scales. IF Iter works then everything falls into place like dominos. If we are forced to stick with fossil fuels then we will become fossils very soon.
Norman Pagett on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 8:41 am
the transition away from fossil fuels misses the point.
our problem is not in making journeys (on wheels) but having a purpose for those journeys.
We live in an industrialised infrastructure that requires us to commute vast distances to obtain our sustenance—work, food and so on. But that sustenance is itself the product of fossil fuels.
well before 2040, our fossil fuel energy source will be gone, and we will have no journey-purpose. Certainly not to the distances we currently indulge in.
having an electric car will make no sense if there’s no reason to go anywhere.
We have deluded ourselves into thinking that wheels have made us rich–therefore as long as we go on rolling, wealth will continue to accrue. It won’t.
We demanded more, and expect wheels to provide more. Switching to batteries won’t do that.
This book, “The End of More” (Pagett Amazon) explains why there is no more to be had
the oilparty is over–but not in the way you might think
bobinget on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 8:53 am
My teenage years were (wasted) racing automobiles. First ‘hot rods’ then ‘sports cars’.
My parents were always sending friends to our back-yard to see my latest project. One WW2 vet told me, one day I would want a quiet automobile.
I refused to believe him.
Sixty five years later, I must admit, I do love my
electric Golf. Men who knock EV’s have never driven one. Reviewing a movie or book without
seeing or reading that book is the same.
bobinget on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 9:05 am
Norman,
Keeping active is my secret to managing advancing age. This month my EV proved invaluable fixing up a rental house. Normally, I use the e-Golf to get groceries and trips to the gym.
Range becomes much less important as one ages.
When I turned eighty a celebration trip to Utah almost ended there. A fifty or sixty year old can drive two hundred miles nonstop. Eighty, not so.
Davy on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 9:08 am
Makati, you and bob need to swap notes on being old.
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 9:25 am
You still run the 100m under 10 seconds, Davy?
20 seconds?
30 seconds?
Can you find the finish line without glasses?
Lucifer on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 10:24 am
Why do you lot even bother commenting on rubbish articles like this? Most of you on here should know the truth about the future, even with your eyes only half open.
Davy on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 10:45 am
As a matter of fact I lift weights twice a week and run 2mi twice a week. This is in addition to the physical activity required to take care of 500 acres. I do use reading glasses. If sometimes I have poor grammar and spelling part of it may be I didn’t have my glasses on. Otherwise I see fine. I have no health issues at the moment other than I have lots of aches and pains I have learned to live with. I took a bad fall in November and I am having rotator cup problems. The weight lifting is helping that problem. Yes Cloggie, I am getting old but you, makati, and bob are there.
joe on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 10:53 am
The real issue I have with this ban though is that it applies to cars. Nothing about trucks which is about 25% of road transport emissions.
However all of this is just academic fluffy, as transport is only 15% of of the emissions pie in total.
http://www.responsiblebusiness.eu/download/attachments/1605650/CO2+EMISSIONS+FROM+TRANSPORT.jpg
At most cars are a small part of the small part of the pie, yet most people are stupid enough to think that in 23 years the world will be saved if we get rid of evil petrol cars. Maybe if we closed all MC Donalds, KFC and outlawed steakhouses we might have a better symbolic gesture of our love of the earth. Of coarse the biggest part of the pie is energy supply. We could start saving the earth by restricting energy use essential things only.
https://www.teachengineering.org/content/cla_/lessons/cla_lesson7_household_energy/electricity_use_lesson1_activity4_image1.jpg
If we turned up the thermostat on the air conditioning and tried to cook things that could be preserved we could probobly cut down enough co2 to pay for lots more driving. But the real question is this, do you want government to tell you what to eat and heat, or what to drive.
I find it funny to look at these idiot liberal fools cycle to their local whole foods to buy ‘organic ‘ and ‘locally produced ‘ food only to go home and do as much damage to the environment with their electric oven and microwave in an hour as they could with a car
https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/index.html_p=186.html
I in fact suspect this petrol ban has little to do with saving the earth as much more drastic action is required, however the economics of the world has forced more than 50% of the world’s people to live in cities,c thus cars are not required in the way they once we’re and in fact clog up cities and make life harder, they also pour oceans of cash into the coffers of nations that use that money to buy death in the west and fund extremist religious fundamentalists.
Antius on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 10:59 am
In my opinion this is a retarded policy. It demonstrates just how unprofessional and PR obsessed western governments have become.
If emission reductions are what are needed, then legislation should focus on that goal. They should not tell car manufacturers how to do it, what solutions to use or not use. Battery electric vehicles have become intellectually popular of late, but may not be the optimum solution when weighing capital cost, operational performance and environmental impact. There are other possible solutions, such as compressed air, compressed natural gas, liquid air engines and dual stage IC engines. Politicians are basically lawyers and should stay out of engineering that they do not understand.
Apneaman on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 11:53 am
Fossil Fuel Use is Rising Like There is NO Tomorrow
“If YOU think that 25+ years of global climate change policy meetings (IPCCs & COPs), and today’s much discussed growth in clean energy and efficiency are reducing global fossil fuel usage and thus greenhouse gas emissions then YOU are sadly mistaken.
No sugar-coating. The cold hard data, displayed in charts for you and discussed in this video is brutal, but you need to see it for yourself. Fossil fuel growth is backed by enormous government subsidies and the emissions are climbing like there is no tomorrow. No tomorrow, not just for your grandkids but for your kids, and even for YOU.”
https://paulbeckwith.net/2017/07/26/fossil-fuel-use-is-rising-like-there-is-no-tomorrow/
“To address the twin threats of climate change and ocean acidification, nearly every nation has promised to reduce fossil fuel burning.
But so far, humanity keeps burning ever more. Last year we did it again, burning an all-time record amount.
That’s according to data compiled from the latest “BP Statistical Review of World Energy.” This annual report is one of the most widely used and referenced around the world. It’s big and comprehensive with fifty pages, thirty-three spreadsheets and forty charts. The report highlights most of the important trends in global energy.”
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/13/analysis/these-missing-charts-may-change-way-you-think-about-fossil-fuel-addiction
The human die back/off will be well underway by 2040 and anyone still alive then who once thought this shit mattered, won’t anymore.
Dredd on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 12:42 pm
They bought enough time to kill us all.
So, they go another decade beyond that … whoopie do.
deadlykillerbeaz on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 1:18 pm
Lucifer, I will see you in hell!
Cheers!
penury on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 3:20 pm
I think that the annual increases in the use of fossil fuels should at least merit some thought from the alt fuel folks. But hope and dreams seem to be the only evidence that a lot of people need to convince them that their opinions are in fact the only correct ones and they trump science and facts and they will defend their position until the bitter end.
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 3:48 pm
“Oil-barons-face-a-slow-death-by-electrification” latest:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/2-gw-windfarm-to-be-built-in-oklohoma-in-a-red-state/
Oklahoma to built 2GW wind farm; largest in the US, 2nd largest in the world.
Now you’re talking.
In a red state.
In the old days, energy news was some oil major finding 80 million barrels of oil in some God-forsaken ocean at a depth of a trillion miles.
No more.
No more dry holes.
No more depletion.
No more suffocation.
Fresh air!
dave thompson on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 4:41 pm
Burning coal produces 30%-40% of electricity in the US. Natural gas is at about 30%. Saying that driving an EV will cut CO2 emissions is just plain deceptive if not delusional.
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 5:02 pm
Saying that driving an EV will cut CO2 emissions is just plain deceptive if not delusional.
That 2 GW Oklahoma wind park would suffice to power all 8 million Dutch cars, provided they were e-vehicles.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/wind-power-and-electric-vehicles/
Antius on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 5:08 pm
‘Burning coal produces 30%-40% of electricity in the US. Natural gas is at about 30%. Saying that driving an EV will cut CO2 emissions is just plain deceptive if not delusional.’
And that doesn’t include the embodied energy of the lithium battery, equivalent to about 8 years CO2 emissions from a normal car was the estimate I remember. And then there is the environmental impact of lithium mining.
There are of course no perfect solutions in this world. But I suspect that there may be better solutions than this.
Harquebus on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 5:08 pm
Those making the rules are those least likely to possess the necessary survival skills for a post oil world.
Antius on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 5:15 pm
‘That 2 GW Oklahoma wind park would suffice to power all 8 million Dutch cars, provided they were e-vehicles.’
No it won’t. Wind power is intermittent, both on a daily and seasonal basis. To make this work would require a combination of storage for short-term intermittency and back-up (natural gas) for long-term intermittency. That means three powerplants instead of one – and then some more wind turbines on top to cover the storage losses.
Ka ching ka ching! Lets hope those Dutch EV owners have lots of spare cash.
Mark on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 5:35 pm
Thermodynamics, it doesn’t work well for EV’s at all. But it sounds good to the masses.
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 5:47 pm
No it won’t. Wind power is intermittent, both on a daily and seasonal basis.
Yes it would, read my post and the link. 1.5GW nameplate would suffice. Please show me where I’m wrong. This Oklahoma setup will be 2GW.
A storage system would obviously be part of the setup, although the combined batteries of 8 million cars would in itself contribute considerably to the evening-out of intermittent supply.
Cloggie on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 5:54 pm
And that doesn’t include the embodied energy of the lithium battery, equivalent to about 8 years CO2 emissions from a normal car was the estimate I remember.
Was that from Chinese or US batteries? They differ a factor of 3 in embodied energy. The US ones are far better:
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/4/504/pdf
p7/12
Bloomer on Thu, 27th Jul 2017 9:22 pm
Electric cars can be powered with lithium batteries charged with hydroelectric or thorium based nuclear energy…cleaner, safer and more abundant.
But go ahead drive your gas guzzlers, frack, mountaintop mine, and keep burning your coal if that’s what floats your boat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
joe on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 12:01 am
The elephant in the transportation room here is air-travel which is the biggest polluter by far. It pumps way more damaging gases directly high up in the atmosphere. Grasping this nettle would help way more than the gesture of banning petrol engined cars in 2 decades. With the quality of modern communication technology there really is no reason to use airplanes. With advancements in A.R we will not even need many experts, so these changes can and probobly will happen.
rockman on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 12:17 am
“The twin announcement by France and Britain – within two weeks of each other – to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040”. A couple of notable points. First those in power declare no ICE sales in 23 years won’t be around to actually impose that mandate. Second, it refers to sales, not ownership. Again it will take some very brave politicians to force folks to give up their existing ICE’s. Which probably means that won’t and they have to wait for the existing fleet to wear out. Also, did the details say ICE’s couldn’t be bought in other countries and shipped in.
And then there’s the question of energy source for that huge surge in electricity demand. Norway is unique given that 98% of their electricity comes from hydro. But Britain is already a tad shakey of electricity capacity field by NG. So they’ll need to ramp up alts big time or find more NG source. Maybe even switch back to coal if alts and NG can’t deliver.
But it’s all theoretical speculation so there really any meat to chew on IMHO.
energy investor on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 12:22 am
Global debt is rising and it already in the hundreds of trillions of USD.
The sunk cost of oil infrastructure is so huge, what will happen to all the pension and money market funds if or when electric cars do become material to the equation and assets have to be written off?
Who will meet the cost of the infrastructure for EVs? Not just the generating capacity but the charging stations?
Where will we get viable batteries from? The Li-ion ones don’t last and newbie battery companies – trying to develop something new – go broke one after the other.
Moores’ law seemingly doesn’t work for new energy storage systems.
There are seemingly those who look at renewables and EVs with rose-tinted glasses and those that don’t. Even so, the more that Governments mandate EVs, the more we sheeple will be forced into them.
By 2040 North and South Korea could be happily united as one country, or the world economy could have crashed and burned.
So who worries about some bigots in positions of power mandating a change for 22 years into the future when they don’t even understand that you cannot have continued exponential growth in a finite world?
In reality they govern for the length of their term in office and nothing else – unless they are in Russia or China.
Much as I want to be a believer, I don’t really take much notice of articles like this as a result of the hopium they espouse.
sinnycool on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 1:26 am
2040 eh, a date plucked out of the sky just like that.
That only leaves 20 odd years for a change of mind.
Oh, and you can bet the decree does not apply to military use, it will be quite nice for the military to have a bit of oil up their sleeves.
And of course we wouldn’t want to have an oil import dependency during any sort of major conflict, what with the shipping lane dependency and all.
Mmmmmm….
superpeasant on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 2:49 am
The economics of the private car are changing dramatically. At one time people ‘saved their pennies’ until they could buy/replace their car. Then came the monthly payments we have seen for decades where the driver eventually becomes the owner of a greatly depreciated asset. Now we have personal leasing where the driver never actually owns the car, simply paying each month for its depreciation, then handing it back after 3 years. This is all part of the gradual decline in the affluence of the average person. The next step is going to be where the driver (or occupant?) just rents the car for the journey he/she needs. This is where the autonomous/almost maintenance-free electric car will fit in. Just imagine how fantastic our cities will be with silent electric cars cruising the streets and all of those parking spaces occupied by cars for 90% of their expensive lives growing trees and grass.
Cloggie on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 3:04 am
@superpeasant – exactly right. The self-driving e-vehicle means:
– clean air
– no congested cities with these ugly cars parked all over
– silence; it is hell to live next to a motorway used by gasoline cars
– relief of the burden on your family budget; hire a car/van when you need one with your smart phone and leave maintenance, fueling, tax, insurance to the car renting company, with much lower per mile cost, because the car is used most of the time rather than 2% of the time like with private ownership. The car becoming a taxi/public transport without expensive driver.
– smart algorithms can combine transport demand trajectories and transport several people in small vans, increasing transport efficiency.
Cities with no cars:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2auj29fR2E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MORxE-v1Y_w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY9KrY0pvw
Cloggie on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 3:11 am
And I forgot another important item: with car-on-demand you can finally send a mini-car if somebody is travelling alone, which it is in most cases and vastly reduce energy cost/mile.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/?s=carver#jp-carousel-62217
joe on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 3:58 am
Great and all but what about the environmental impact (other than noise) petrol cars are being scape goated. Beef production causes more pollution and thus climate change. A few countries banning a product they don’t have and probobly won’t afford to get is not a solution, not even the begining of a solution. There is only one advantage. Out of sight, out of mind. It’s a PR stunt.
Davy on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 5:15 am
“And I forgot another important item: with car-on-demand you can finally send a mini-car if somebody is travelling alone, which it is in most cases and vastly reduce energy cost/mile.” Cloggie, this is a niche template. This scenario works in some of the wealthier mega urban areas but it is not practical on a mass scale to make a difference with energy and transport issues.
The real revolution would be to end private automobiles altogether by eliminating choice and restricting discretionary use. That is what is needed but instead we will see talk like you make with “let’s turn the ICE world electric” and do more of the same. Which is another way of saying “Let’s believe in a fake green world with happy endings”. The predicaments ahead can only be faced with behavioral changes. Attitudes must be changed and to do that optimism must be tempered. People can’t be believing fake green promises. They need the cold hard truth of a budding existential crisis ahead. We likely have the technical means we don’t have the human means and we likely will never have that so an energy transition is faux.
deadlykillerbeaz on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 6:08 am
If you have an EV, more power to ya.
Using the mid-point of that emissions range and the typical battery size of a Nissan Leaf (30 kWh) and a Tesla Model S (100 kWh), these cars begin life with a CO2 legacy of 5.3 metric tons (MT) and 17.5 MT, respectively. Applying the carbon intensity of gasoline (8,777 grams of carbon per gallon), the fuel efficiency of an average car (21.6 miles per gallon), along with the typical number of miles driven annually (11,400 miles), all measurements used by the Environmental Protection Agency, the average car generates 4.7 MT of CO2 emissions per year. Thus, the Leaf’s CO2 legacy would need 1.1 years of driving an ICE to neutralize its emissions legacy, while it takes 3.7 years to offset the legacy of a Model S.
https://www.masterresource.org/electric-vehicles/norway-ev-subsidies/
Liquids consumption increased after EVs in Norway were subsidized so Norwegians would buy them.
More oil will be consumed even after EVs are bought and sold. They’re the third and fourth car. Cars 1 and 2 and 3 will still use gas and oil, the owners won’t replace them with an EV.
EVs are a niche car and oil consumption will continue as such and increase as time goes by.
If wind and solar weren’t manufactured and built for operation, plenty of fossil fuels would go unused until needed for gas, diesel and oil.
Wouldn’t have to use fossil fuels for useless pursuits like a wind turbine.
It is more important to restrict the use of fossil fuels where they do the most good.
Wind turbines are a waste and destroy habitat, cause harm to ecosystems. Nothing but a complete waste of resources. Animal life suffers where wind farms are sited. Them wind bird choppers are a blight on the earth and prove that humans could care less how anything gets done. Your home is worth much less if you are surrounded by 90 wind turbines, guaranteed.
Solar is probably worth it for certain applications.
Battery-powered forklifts for indoor use make sense.
An EV makes sense if it replaces the ICE. Apparently, that is not what is happening.
It takes about ten minutes to fill the tank with gas. You can go a good three hundred miles, plenty of gas stations along the way.
You take your Tesla to the polo grounds and then back home to your mansion.
We all deserve the hell that is coming for us.
Friday today, so the lake goers will be hoofin’ it to the lake with their 100 hp boat motors. Even more gas burned.
The ineluctable conclusion: We’re doomed.
Makati1 on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 7:47 am
Chevy Volt = 52 miles until dead battery.
Mitsubishi electric gets you 62 miles before you are walking. Neither one would get me from my sister’s to Hershey Park and home again. LOL
Dredd on Fri, 28th Jul 2017 8:13 am
They also face disgorgement (Oilfluenza, Affluenza, and Disgorgement – 2).