I am optimistic about the technology by the virtue of the fact it exists. We need to ramp up its use, however, if we are to avoid a large scale crisis. I'm hoping humanity will impress me, but I'm not counting on it.
An EV hard to work? I know people that built them with their own time, labor, and money when they were still in highschool. These aren't long range cruisers, but they are entirely highway capable.
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/387.html
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/589.html
We have some of the leading executives in the auto industry saying this can't be done, when high school kids without degrees even, are doing it just fine.
Sure, they may not have the batteries for long range, as that problem lies in both production volume and on who holds the patents. Again politics comes into play. That $150/kWh NiMH battery that could allow 200 miles range? Chevron-Texaco bought the patent from General Motors, GM of which didn't want EVs to become mainstream and CT which didn't want EVs to become mainstream because that would mean less oil consumption and thus less revenue. Lithium ion batteries could allow 300-400 miles, but production volume is their problem. No major automaker wants to mass produce EVs, so without automotive volume production, prices stay above $500/kWh. To be economical, we need about $250/kWh, which mass production is more than capable of doing. But that mass production scenario is not the case we have today.
Keep in mind that Germany and Iraq as examples, are for the short term as in zero to fifteen years post peak. That fifteen years is shortened drastically with a steeper depletion curve. After that, it would be hard to fathom just how bad things could get, but it won't be pretty. It could mean a big dieoff, although that's no garuntee.
Biodiesel and celluoistic ethanol bost combined can meet 1/3 of our transportation needs @ 25 mpg. However, we need to use our farmland for food and other essentials like plastics, textiles, medicines. Basically hemp as a replacement for petrochemicals necessary to our current society. Electricity may not be practical for semi trucks, but biodiesel could have its uses there. Biomass might be too valuable to burn for common transportation, but it could certainly have a role if(very big if) there is enough spare biomass to go around without having to encroach on the environment for more farmland. Hemp has the added benefit of also restoring soil. It is a much needed plant in order to further lessen peak oil's effects. 25 mpg is not going to be sustainable, sad to say. We need to set our sights higher to consider biodiesel for transport, like 100+ mpg. That can be done. Opel's Eco Speedster sports car can get 110 miles per imperial gallon, and top 160 mph, doing 0-60 in under 8 seconds. Audi's A2 compact can seat five and get 90 miles per imperial gallon while topping out at 100 mph and doing 0-60 mph in 13 seconds. Niether of these are hybrids.
In order to change things, rejecting the current leadership and going after the executives of predatory companies may be necessary to get a sustainable society going. We're about to find out whether we waited too long to do anything or not. It certainly won't hurt to try to change things, but unlike you, I'm not one to gamble on an optimistic outcome. It may very well turn into a situation so drastic, that to fuel our cars on biofuels the poor will end up starving. Who knows. As a (hopefully)future engineer, I hope to do my part as an individual person to try to reduce my ecological footprint and overall impact on society before peak oil does it for me. I certainly have decided I don't need a degree to start now. First thing is first: successfully getting a job so I can pay for the parts I need to finish my project and get the house running on aeolic and solar.
My investment is relegated to myself only. I'm not rich. I'm a 20 year old college student seeking a degree in electrical engineering. I cannot afford to start my own business, as much as I'd like to. I'm worried about getting my electric car finished, house I live in going on alternatives, a big garden going, and my lifestyle less damaging both socially and ecologically before the shit hits the fan. In the meantime, if there's still spare time left or even if a crisis is averted, I'll at least be able to have my fun at the race track(or on our public roadways) as well.
PeakOil is You
Technology versus Doomology
by The_Toecutter » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 22:51:57
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
-
The_Toecutter - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
by Optimist » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 21:14:18
Well said.
Let me ask you this: Why is PO going to cause economic colapse in your mind? You seem to believe that at some point oil become so expensive that building plants to produce alternatives is unaffordable. I would argue the opposite, that expensive oil makes the alternatives more economical viable. The more expensive the oil, the more viable the alternative. No matter how expensive building say a coal liquification plant when oil is $200+/barrel, you are going to make a screaming profit @ $200+/barrel.
Tell you something else. Demand for oil is going to nose dive @ $200+/barrel. Sure, the current evidence does not show it - people driving like there is no tomorrow @ $60/barrel, as shown over the 4th of July weekend. But this is the early stages. The oil price is not yet hurting too seriously, much to OPEC's relief. Eventually that is going to change. I look at myself. At some point not driving will become a priority. Sure cycling the 30 odd miles to work will be inconvenient, but it can be done.
I don't see us planting energy crops in the future. To me the obvious future source of energy is waste. That is what I like about the TDP process I mentioned. Same thing with cellulosic ethanol. We will still be getting our energy via photosynthesis, but only from the inedible parts of the plant - there is plenty of that.
As for the inorganic elements you mentioned, these all (excluding nitrogen) remains as a solid product ("dry mineral" is what the TDP folks call it) after fuel production. Same principle applies. Fertilizer gets expensive enough, these solid products will be highly sought after.
That leaves nitrogen at the mercy of oil prices. Hey, some farmers are going to plant beans and peas to get the free nitrogen fixation going. Others will have to pay more. All will use more wisely.
BTW, you got a patent number on that $150/kWh NiMH battery? At some point that patent is going to expire. The alternative is to find a Chinese factory for building it
Let me ask you this: Why is PO going to cause economic colapse in your mind? You seem to believe that at some point oil become so expensive that building plants to produce alternatives is unaffordable. I would argue the opposite, that expensive oil makes the alternatives more economical viable. The more expensive the oil, the more viable the alternative. No matter how expensive building say a coal liquification plant when oil is $200+/barrel, you are going to make a screaming profit @ $200+/barrel.
Tell you something else. Demand for oil is going to nose dive @ $200+/barrel. Sure, the current evidence does not show it - people driving like there is no tomorrow @ $60/barrel, as shown over the 4th of July weekend. But this is the early stages. The oil price is not yet hurting too seriously, much to OPEC's relief. Eventually that is going to change. I look at myself. At some point not driving will become a priority. Sure cycling the 30 odd miles to work will be inconvenient, but it can be done.
I don't see us planting energy crops in the future. To me the obvious future source of energy is waste. That is what I like about the TDP process I mentioned. Same thing with cellulosic ethanol. We will still be getting our energy via photosynthesis, but only from the inedible parts of the plant - there is plenty of that.
As for the inorganic elements you mentioned, these all (excluding nitrogen) remains as a solid product ("dry mineral" is what the TDP folks call it) after fuel production. Same principle applies. Fertilizer gets expensive enough, these solid products will be highly sought after.
That leaves nitrogen at the mercy of oil prices. Hey, some farmers are going to plant beans and peas to get the free nitrogen fixation going. Others will have to pay more. All will use more wisely.
BTW, you got a patent number on that $150/kWh NiMH battery? At some point that patent is going to expire. The alternative is to find a Chinese factory for building it
-
Optimist - Lignite
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
by Ludi » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 21:40:23
Optimist, I'm wondering if there's any indication that alternatives will be ready to take up the slack after peak oil. The optimistic scenario points to about 2% decline in oil production annually, plus 2-3% additional demand, so let's be optimistic and call it 4% shortfall the first year. Alternatives, not counting hydro and nuclear, now account for about 2% of US energy production. Do we see alternatives advancing to make up 6% pf US energy production next year, if this year is peak (some think it is, some don't)? And of course that's just the first year, whatever year it is (could be 2007, 2010, 2030, depending on whose projection you choose to believe). Each year production will decline at least 2% plus demand going up 2-3%. This has been covered in numerous threads. Real doom projections see decline at 10% annually, or even higher. Will alternatives be ready for these sorts of declines? Is there evidence they will be?
- Ludi
by The_Toecutter » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 21:42:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')et me ask you this: Why is PO going to cause economic colapse in your mind? You seem to believe that at some point oil become so expensive that building plants to produce alternatives is unaffordable. I would argue the opposite, that expensive oil makes the alternatives more economical viable. The more expensive the oil, the more viable the alternative. No matter how expensive building say a coal liquification plant when oil is $200+/barrel, you are going to make a screaming profit @ $200+/barrel.
Since we don't have the alternatives going yet, we'll still be using oil to mine, transport, store, process, and construct both the raw materials for wind and solar generators, batteries, sustainable cars, ect. and the complete items themselves. Even with oil cheap, an electric car is cheaper along with wind energy cheaper than coal, but neither of these things are mainstream(politics). As oil initially gets more expensive, they are that much more cheaper in contrast. However, with all of our economy's functions linked to oil, inflation also goes up and soon after making the cost to implement these alternatives go up in value with oil. Our government is already in debt, as are most Americans, and even our large and small businesses are relying on debt-spending to keep afloat. How do you expect either the government, your average American, or the private enterprise to pay the upfront costs to implement alternative energy solutions when they won't have the money when peak shows its effects? They simply won't have the money to do it, and already debt ridden, they'd be hard-pressed to get the amount of start-up capital needed. Meanwhile, with inflation spiraling out of control, everything gets more expensive, including the alternatives to oil with the oil itself. Look to the 1970s and the rampant inflation that caused in just 5 years time. Think of what would happen with that inflation rate never abated due to oil prices not coming down, but only going up even more.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ell you something else. Demand for oil is going to nose dive @ $200+/barrel. Sure, the current evidence does not show it - people driving like there is no tomorrow @ $60/barrel, as shown over the 4th of July weekend. But this is the early stages. The oil price is not yet hurting too seriously, much to OPEC's relief. Eventually that is going to change. I look at myself. At some point not driving will become a priority. Sure cycling the 30 odd miles to work will be inconvenient, but it can be done.
Key word is not yet hurting. Even mainstream news sources along with the banks like Goldman Sachs are expecting $100/barrel this winter. That's certainly not out of the realm of possibility and even this recent jump from $35-60 a barrel in less than 2 years is a warning sign.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't see us planting energy crops in the future. To me the obvious future source of energy is waste. That is what I like about the TDP process I mentioned. Same thing with cellulosic ethanol. We will still be getting our energy via photosynthesis, but only from the inedible parts of the plant - there is plenty of that.
Without cheap petroleum, that waste is likely going to be needed to initially keep our soil capable of bearing crops. Once consumption is cut back, far less waste is going to be generated.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')TW, you got a patent number on that $150/kWh NiMH battery? At some point that patent is going to expire. The alternative is to find a Chinese factory for building it
Off the top of my head? No. That patent is pretty much in Chevron Texaco's hands until about 2020. Odds are, we don't have until 2010 to wait before we do anything about peak oil, let alone 2020...
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
-
The_Toecutter - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
And not even an accurate insult at that.