Comments not related the oil or natural gas in this thread please.
86 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, November 15, 2021”
What seemed common sense in the last decade is no longer relevant now- Over and over we have heard about the death of the suburbs once crude oil products for transport becomes more expensive, as scarce/depleting resources do.
Now the scenario is different. Simply its all about electricity, batteries, and electric vehicles. Now a delivery van or a personal vehicle can be electric with a dozen choices, soon to become dozens of choices. By the end of this decade the vehicle landscape will not be recognizable from the perspective of someone who last checked in in 2015. You will measure a vehicle capability in battery pack size [kWh] and electric efficiency [in miles or kilometers/kWh]. These measures will be familiar to you, or you will be left in the dust.
And many people will no longer go to a gas station, and many young people will not even know the smell of gasoline. They will know all about plugs and charging. The local grid will matter more to them than OPEC. Solar on their roof will give them a sense of transportation independence, security, and cost saving- if they live in an area that is not heavily clouded or shaded.
Being 30 miles from the city center is not going to be a transportation cost nightmare as people recently envisioned, particularly if the regional grid operator is competent and the populace takes an active role in empowering the utility to be successful.
Suburbs and small satellite cities will also have an additional advantage over city centers- being close to farmland. Especially if local land use policies are in place to protect the lands with better soils.
This posting is not so much about the specific topic- its bigger message is to remind yourself to be open minded about how things may progress/digress. Which of your current assumptions/preconceived notions are or will be best placed in the bucket of falsehoods? I’m sure we all have some.
And just what do we take for granted, besides readily available fuel and Democracy, of course?
That brings two thoughts to mind:
-Maybe Yogi Berra said “Predicting is difficult, especially about the future”.
I’m pretty sure it is true that in about 1965 the Post company, that supplied the engineering industry with equipment, was given a government grant to explore the future of engineering technology. They apparently got a lot right except for one minor omission. They missed the advent of the pocket calculator which destroyed the market for slide rules which were their most profitable product.
Suburbs, electric cars, roof to solar all seem to be on an obvious path towards more of them and less of gasoline. However I wonder if some serious out of context issues in the future will make these concerns all moot and create some entirely different realities for commuters and homeowners. After the miserable failure of any meaningful action at COP26 (to quote Greta Thunberg “blah, blah, blah”) the likelihood of climate change creating massive disruptions in economies, forced migration, food supply problems and likely large scale military action seeking control over finite resources these issues may all be changed beyond recognition.
“these issues may all be changed beyond recognition.”
Absolutely. I’m sure in many, or most, places they will.
Urban sprawl may not be limited by fuel in an electric society, but it seems that paving over lots of land is not such a great idea anyway. In a way though one would want to have a larger footprint – a larger roof allows for more energy capture, and that is pretty much the opposite of a more compact lifestyle that is more energy / resource efficient. Even if energy is not the limiting factor, resources in general are a huge limiting factor. Plus, is more better?
Regarding democracy, not so sure if it can survive in a system where you can legally buy your representatives.
I am not an advocate of sprawl- quite the opposite. Strict land use regulations.
Even if it costs a lot more for humans to do their thing.
It’s worth mentioning that a lot of urban sprawl happens because it is mandated by law, not because the “free market” demands it.
It’s particularly bad in America, where massive overspending on road widening together with mandates for single family units and parking minimums have gutted cities.
Agree. Europe (at least the northern countries) are much stricter with respect to sprawl with decent sucess.
On the question of using rooftops for solar: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25720-2
How much surface would be needed: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/
somewhere between 10k and 20k square miles, depending on efficiency. A lot but not a crazy amount Just roads take up around 17k square miles.
The power generation issue is solvable but the political willpower needs to be in place for it to happen because a some of it will need to be either mandated or on public land / roads.
IMHO it’s energy to a fair degree is a political issue rather than a resource issue (puts on flame resistant suit).
Rgds
WP
Weekend peak,
Solar can be ground mounted where there are no buildings or parking lots, also as we move to transportation as a service, with the potential for autonomous vehicles to do the driving there will be fewer cars owned and less need for parking lots, it reduces the amount of paving. Also it would be pretty easy to build an app that puts more riders in each vehicle which would reduce road congestion and require fewer lanes on the roadways.
So I would agree less is more, smaller houses, fewer cars, narrower roadways, fewer parking lots, fewer children born per woman, and fewer people. We are moving in that direction. We do need more educational opportunities and more knowledge, more art, more beauty, more kindness. So in some cases more is better, in my opinion, but more in the spiritual world and perhaps less in the physical world (especially for the wealthy).
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is relevant here:
“Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid, with the largest, most fundamental needs at the bottom, and the need for self-actualization and transcendence at the top. In other words, the idea is that individuals’ most basic needs must be met before they become motivated to achieve higher-level needs.[1][9]…Maslow also coined the term “metamotivation” to describe the motivation of people who go beyond the scope of the basic needs and strive for constant betterment.[11]”
I do not think the world as a whole is approaching the sunlit uplands of happy electric motoring to the sprawling suburbs. It is slowly stepping down the hierarchy of needs as the limits to growth digs its claws deeper into the fabric of societies. The US (or at least its wealthier half) is increasingly in a bubble of privilege and exceptionalism where the ecotechnical future is still glorious. Trump is still riding his wave of prejudice and ignorance and hate and as the poor find themselves hungrier that wave will grow in the coming decade.
Here in Europe we have rising inflation as too much fiat currency chases too few physical resources. Electricity in the UK is 35c a KWh – a price that makes electric cars not so much cheaper to run than diesel, even with the massive taxes on the latter. New car sales are falling sharply, as supply dries up, and used cars are going up in value. The UK is particularly hard hit by Brexit but global trade is still well down, with widespread power cuts in China and India vetoing the phasing out of coal at the COP meeting. Europe is increasingly besieged by migrants fleeing war and hunger in the middle east , Afghanistan, Africa, and terrorist attacks have not gone away, the last one on Sunday in the UK as the Muslim extremists feed off that hunger. Putin is pushing to expand his territory back into the Eastern Europe.
Many countries in Europe are moving back to right wing governments as they reflect the increasing xenophobia as the poorer strata see their living standards fall.
The limits to growth is here and higher culture and peace and good will are close their peak
Ralph,
“Limits to Growth” isn’t the explanation for every problem. In fact, it doesn’t look like the explanation for any of the problems you’ve mentioned.
Some of what we’re seeing is a sharp recovery from the Covid recession, and an increase in economic activity which was unexpected, causing massive production and transportation (aka “supply chain”) problems.
Some of what we’re seeing is massive income inequality. That’s a big problem, but it has little to do with basic resource limits.
High income folks don’t get happiness from that money. Warren Buffet knows that: he lives on relatively little money and advocates for higher taxes on high income folks. I think he’s sincere but not willing to really fight hard enough for those ideas…
I think we are unlikely to agree on this one. Obviously money beyond a basic standard of living is not essential to life, but it provides comfort, convenience, the service of others, and, at least in the minds of many, power over and the respect of ones peers. Yes it is very satisfying to grow and cook your own food, dig your own latrines and prove you could survive in your natural environment with nothing more than the shared work and skills of your tribe, but as you grow older and weaker, it is far easier to let machines or other people take a larger burden, and leave you time for the higher things of life, like music or procreation. Human nature is not going to change because evolution has honed us to be greedy and controlling, because it is the greedy and controlling that produce more offspring
Unfortunately this planet is not big enough to sustain 10 billion people at even a basic level of food and culture. Over 90% by weight of the mammalian, avian and fish life on this planet is now human beings and our direct food supply. We are destroying our wild food species and ecosystems at an accelerating rate and the carrying capacity of the planet is declining rapidly. This when less half the global population has what we would consider a basic lifestyle of adequate food, clean water, housing, education, health services etc. Yes the top billion (including us) are using far more than the global average, but even if we suddenly became Buddhist monks, there are too many of us. The limits to growth are as much about saturating the sinks of our waste streams as it is about the sources of resources. Near infinite renewable energy sources are technically possible, and we can mine lower and lower quality minerals with more energy, but we cannot replace a single extinct species and as long as we keep growing our economy, we will never control our carbon , methane, microplastic and other waste streams to a level that the planet can absorb and reprocess.
There are too many of us and we have left it too late. Human nature will not change at the population level even if we do as individuals
I drive an electric car, but not for much longer. (My eyesight is deteriorating).
The current shortages and inflation is part of the larger disconnect as nation states start to relocalise and reverse global trade in an attempt to placate their own populations as standards of living fall .
Ralph,
I’m not suggesting a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, or subsistence farming. I’d say the median European lifestyle is perfectly achievable across the planet.
There are a lot of points to discuss in your comment, too many to answer. One struck me, though, the idea that “Over 90% by weight of the mammalian, avian and fish life on this planet is now human beings and our direct food supply. “. I’d say that’s far from the mark. Take a look at the following, which gives a different perspective. Humans are only .01% of all life on the plant, and fish have 10x the mass of humans: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/all-life-on-earth-chart-weight-plants-animals-pnas
Clearly humans have reduced some categories of wildlife sharply: “The authors of the PNAS article estimate that the mass of wild land mammals is seven times lower than it was before humans arrived (keep in mind it’s difficult to estimate the exact history of the number of animals on Earth). Similarly, marine mammals, including whales, are a fifth of the weight they used to be because we’ve hunted so many to near extinction.” But keep in mind that we’ve severely cherrypicked the forms of life we’re including, and still the levels are 15% to 20% of pre-human levels, not the 2 or 5% sometimes implied.
I agree this is a tragedy. But do we know that this threatens human survival?
If the whole world were converted to an English garden with no wild large mammals, as humans have certainly been prone to do historically, what is the evidence that this would doom humanity?
I absolutely agree it’s a bad idea to take such a risk. But, certain collapse? I’d like to see actual evidence for such an idea.
All of the large mammals were killed in the UK centuries ago. Their ecology didn’t collapse. Bees are a good example of an important species that is at risk. On the other hand, we’re talking here about large mammals, not insects.
I think large scale species extinction is a very bad idea: an emotional tragedy, and a risk to the ecology which supports us.
I agree that Climate Change is a big risk: I think we should transition away from FF ASAP. But, does civilization face certain collapse due to Climate Change? I don’t see the evidence, in part because of the likelihood that humanity will respond to CC by reducing FF. Not as fast as we should, but we are doing it.
So, does civilization face certain collapse due to extinctions? I’d like to see at least a little evidence.
Income inequality has actually been falling globally for decades, this has been down to between countries inequality falling, but the developed nations facing much higher inequality as consequence of falling energy per capita.
This is a statistical function that no amount of political tinkering will eradicate, and especially not going into an exergy crisis as we are. You’re always going to have inequality, however, it is especially hard to ignore when the gulf rapidly widens in places where it was much less prevalent and a de facto state of progress was expected in perpetuity.
An economically ravaged populace lashes out. They will lash out at the Out Group du jour, and especially at renewables if they see they have to not only pay vastly more for energy the elites can easily afford, but also suffer rolling blackouts and economic insecurity as consequence. Pielke’s iron law is still in play.
OMG!!
Inequality has very little to do with energy costs! Where the heck did this idea come from??
The most recent wave of inequality in the US started with Reagan’s tax cuts and attacks on unions, and continued with long-term Republican attacks on unions, racial and gender pay equality, and minimum wages. The biggest problem is taxation, with reliance on regressive payroll and consumption (sales) taxes combined with reductions in taxes for higher incomes & capital gains and reduced wealth taxes (estate and property).
The problem here is that “capital” has grown too powerful, lately. By that I mean that income received by the owners of stock, bonds, real estate etc., has been growing much faster than wages for roughly the last 50 years. Wages are stagnating while profits, dividends, rents etc., are taking almost all of the increase in income. Income inequality is growing sharply within the US and many other countries (though income growth in developing countries is reducing overall global income inequality).
Owners of capital have been waging a successful PR campaign to support this distortion, through Fox, Murdoch, Koch, etc.
Good lord, blaming energy costs is the biggest red herring ever!
Nick G: The data supports what I said. If you take issue with this, I’d probably go let Carey W. King know, among other physics based economists. Energy absolutely has an impact, and your points about inequality only further prove that. Or did you think the well to do with capital doing well off reduced remuneration to the labour force was just a coincidence?
You seem rather blinkered to the concept that physical resources have any impact here, which is… odd. Did you think the Industrial Revolution just happened to coincide with the largest prosperity increase in human history through sheer luck?
For all the German Energiewende fans and solar enthusiasts – here a chart from last week:
As you see, all conventional power plants inclusive the peakers burning now exensive gas are at full load. This week is even worse so far. Not much wind and the sun isn’t visible.
There are no storages beside a few pumped hydro from the 80s, and there are even no big plans to build some. So this Energiewende only works with all the conventional plants still in workable condition. Ah, and the red bars will be gone end of this and next year. So more coal for you …
I don’t see a possibility for a faster fossil exit without massive pushing nuclear – and newer nuclear concepts of 4th genertation plants. The battery production will be needed the next 20 years for vehicles from an ebike to a truck – no spare capacity to build terawatthours for sun and wind backup.
It’s easy (and good) to save some fossile energy by wind and solar – but it’s difficult to set all energy usage on it.
When heating with gas or oil will be forbidden, the load on the grid will increase even more – especially on these cold no wind days.
It is not an easy situation when also nuclear power is being phased out. I don’t see how you are going to avoid energy poverty one way or another going forward. There are all kinds of deals going on to increase energy imports to Germany or even out electricity supply when the “wind is not blowing”: interconnector cables, utilising pumped hydro in Switzerland, Austria and even Norway, import of more biomass, the offshore wind power islands proposed in Danish waters, import of hydrogen using ships, utilise natural gas cables even more etc.
It is very difficult to transform from a industrial society based on coal power to renewables. Be happier with less seems to be a mantra a lot of places going forward. And hope that the fossil fuel tail is going to be a long and not a too steep one.
The competence when it comes to engineering and technology will always be valued, so I guess Germany can rely on a lot of countries to export energy if possible for a long period of time. In Europe more, but also elsewhere if commodities can be produced cheap.
The Swiss or Austria won’t flood their valleys with pumped hydro for us – we could do this perfect on ourselfes.
Additional, how big this should be? A calm summer night without wind needs round about 500 GwH – a current pumped hydro has a few Gwh. Interconnectors? – in a low wind scenario no country in middle Europe has extra wind. For example the today low wind low solar weather includes France, Germany, Danemark, Norway and Sweden.
Perhaps we get the “We save the world” and “We are holier than you” solution. We shut down coal, gas and nuclear in the next 10 years – and all neighbors build coal and nuclear round us to sell energy for good money to us.
Import of hydrogen would help – but this is still science fiction. As fusion plants – it will be a hard race which is faster. At least fusion plants have already some test ignitions, and liquid hydrogen has some container sized test plants.
Generation 3+ atomic plants are no science fiction, geothermic power plants are real (Many great locations in Germany, I sit literally on one. Here is cooking water in 1500 meters depth, going hotter when you get deeper).
On the science fiction scale there are:
– 4th generation atomic breeder plants (some test installations)
– Thorium reactor (some prototypes)
– Liquid hydrogen mass import (some small test installations up to the megawatt scale)
– Fusion plants (some test ignitions)
Battery mass storage is kind of science fiction because of the pure mass of battery cells needed to get into the TWH range – before this all these cars busses and trucks have to be build.
Those are all great ideas. They would have been better in the ’70s.
To paraphrase Neil in Tenet: Energy isn’t the problem, producing it in time is.
We’ve been riding down a problematic road since the end of Les Trente Glorieuses. It’s a bit late to envision the brave new world of not being reliant on fossil fuels at the same time they’re declining rapidly and we need them to bootstrap literally a whole new global infrastructure. It’s impossible with this economic and political system.
It is definitely possible to define a reliable floor to electric grid output. The floor is much higher when fossil fuels comes to the rescue, than if renewables are to dominate. The dreaded traffic light system for electricity would in the absence prevail (red-turn off, yellow -sometimes on, green – always on)
Many uncertainties going forward, but there are a lot of livable solutions too going long into the future (not trying to give a reply to your input right now; maybe later).
Most people, even the ones so well informed as the members of this little forum, seem to be incapable of thinking about the future except as fantasy land or the Stone Age.
Eulenspiegel is right about the impossibility ( as a practical matter within the next few decades ) of building enough battery or pumped hydro storage to keep Old Man Business As Usual staggering along as he has been for the last few decades.
We can’t continue as we have been, by substituting renewables for fossil fuels on the grand scale, because as he points out, the job is just too damned big in relation to the time frame and the resource depletion problems involved to succeed.
But we don’t have to go back to the Stone Age, lol.
I’m quite flexible enough to get by with hardly any electricity between dusk and dawn, already.
Two hundred watts is enough for me…. that will keep a couple of led’s on and my computer lit up. I can have timers on my refrigerator and freezer, and I can heat the house up nicely, or chill it somewhat before dark, and be comfortable all night.
We farmers have been making hay when the sun shines, and only when it shines, since the invention of farming, lol.
It’s going to be hard going, but there aren’t all that many things that NECESSARILY have to work twenty four hours around the clock around the day around the calendar.
We sure as hell can smelt all the steel we HAVE to have on an intermittent basis using wind and solar electricity. We sure as hell can get by doing half as much driving, or even a quarter as much, in cars that are half or less the size of the ones we drive now.
We can go back to making things to last, rather than to be thrown away. Most of my furniture is hand made from nice thick solid wood harvested locally. It’s expensive to make furniture this way, for sure…….. but it will last indefinitely, hundreds of years unless it’s lost in a fire.
There’s no real reason cars and trucks can’t be built to last fifty years. I used to drive old Chevy trucks that could be economically repaired more or less forever… for a lot less money than it would have taken to buy a new one. The only real reason these trucks were scrapped is that newer ( but still used) ones could be bought dirt cheap because so many people were buying new ones.
If we actually do succeed in lowering the birth rate to the point our population starts dropping, here in the USA, we won’t be needing hardly anything at all in the way of new roads, new water reservoirs, or major new infrastructure. Nearly everything we have now can be refurbished and or upgraded, and doing this will mostly involve skilled labor rather than lots of raw materials.
There are entire cities in Europe where most of the houses are at least a hundred and even two and three hundred years old, or even older.
Almost everybody loves to talk about how shoddily present day houses are constructed, but the truth of the matter is that most of them, nearly all of the many I ‘ve looked over, are well enough built to last at least a couple of centuries….. if they’re properly maintained.
The first house I ever bought was a cracker box tract house built in the late forties or very early fifties.It’s better now than it was then, and it’s good for another century……… assuming it’s well maintained, and maintenance is mostly about skilled labor rather than materials.There’s no reason to think we will be short of skilled labor.
Austerity is about feeling deprived because you don’t have as much stuff as you used to.
My nieces and nephews don’t feel deprived because they live in apartments or tract houses.
They CAN’T miss what they have never had.
BUT I felt deprived when I left the farm for the first time to live in a dormitory, and then in an apartment in the city, without even enough space outside to enjoy a private outdoor meal. It was tough, going from owning everything within a hundred yards to that little PRISON, lol. I couldn’t even change the oil in my car. I couldn’t sit down anywhere outside my walls without being expected to pay for the privilege, except a nearby city park.
A lot of us, barring the worst kind of bad luck, are going to continue living a dignified, reasonably secure life without worrying too much about the real necessities……. food, medical care, a roof over our head, friends and family.
A lot of us aren’t.
My advice to anybody young enough to do some serious thinking followed by serious action is to find a place where he or she can be reasonably self sufficient, where the climate will still be at least bearable, where riots and looting are unlikely,where food is produced locally, where clean water is abundant.
Whoever gets my little farm will have such a place.
“It’s easy (and good) to save some fossile energy by wind and solar – but it’s difficult to set all energy usage on it.”
Your argument is not convincing because you sell lack of reliable power as lack of energy. Lack of energy can easily be solved with more RE generators. Lack of reliable power does, however, require other approaches.
This issue has beenn discussed in many studies during the last decade in Germany, please keep up. We have on average 14 days without sun and wind in Germany per year, 8 can be in a row. This is a decade old stuff.
What is your issue with (as very unelegant scenario) cheap back-up generators like open NG turbines or diesel generators that run for a few days per year, still cheaper than baseload power plants like NPPs or CCNG power plants?
What is your issue with more transborder transmission lines that connect uncoirrelated generation of huge hydro storage in Scandinavia?
Great posts, every one of them, so far.
Remember the farmer’s perspective.
We see collapse on a regular basis in my field.
I can’t remember a particular year when I didn’t hear about droughts, floods, extreme cold or heat, insects, blights, misguided public policies, or SOMETHING that didn’t more or less wipe out the farm economy someplace.
Global collapse is a real possibility, but local and regional collapse events are many times more likely to dominate over the next few decades in my own humble opinion. I come by it having observed the local, national and world scene since I was a kid back in the sixties.
Some places will thrive, some people will thrive.
Some will die hard and fast. Others will die hard and slow.
The better educated and the more prosperous people and countries have it within their power to adapt to just about anything short of catastrophic climate runaway scenarios or a flat out WWIII.
The price of ONE new car in Western Europe or the USA is enough to upgrade the construction of a typical new house to net zero standards. It’s enough to upgrade an existing house to close to net zero in a lot of cases.
Countries and people that are supposedly broke somehow suddenly find it within their means to raise armies when it’s time to go to war, lol.
Most Western countries, and a number of Asian and African countries have more than ample resources to deal with problems such as peak oil, peak metals, peak timber, and even peak food…… IF they are lucky enough to have good leaders capable of getting the population behind doing what’s necessary.
It’s not that we are NECESSARILY going to be poor in the future. It IS necessary, if we are to continue being rich, that we will have to be rich in new ways.
We can adapt. The question is whether we WILL adapt in a timely fashion. Some people in some countries will do so, and some countries will do so. A country as rich as the USA can manage it even if we dawdle around another generation before getting well started, assuming good luck and good leadership.
If I were to win a big lottery, I would give any younger poor man or woman a couple of thousand bucks, plus pay the costs of sterilization, for undergoing the procedure.
It wouldn’t take long at all to give away a billion bucks this way unless I’m mistaken, lol.
Don’t forget to ask your favorite rock, mountain, bear, snake or sky daddy or mommy, on a regular basis, for help in the form of a never ending series of Pearl Harbor Wake UP Events.
Such events are our best and maybe our only real hope of awakening the people of the world to the absolute necessity of taking overshoot proactively on the grand scale before it’s too late.
“Pearl Harbor Wake UP Events”
I thought that was a great phrase. To me it means a relatively small but very scary event. I suspect most people think the attack on Pearl Harbor was an immense disaster when in fact, as Isoruku Yamamoto said, all it did was “Awake a sleeping giant and fill him with terrible resolve” and that’s exactly what we need. True but unfortunate that we will need a series of them.
I was in town all day on Friday while my dog was getting surgery. These are not big cities, each about 40K (Campbell River and Courtenay BC). I was astounded at the traffic and how it has grown as I had moved away 20 years ago when both places were 1/2 as big. Astounded. In fact the traffic was so bad I bailed on a few errands to avoid it. But the reason why I shook my head was that our Govt mandate states that all new cars sold by 2030 will be EV. I looked, but did not see one EV. I saw a few hybrids. 9 years is supposed to see enough growth in charging stations to supply all the new demand. 9 years is supposed to see all new car buyers on board with electric? Not likely, and we have surplus electricity here with every scrap of it renewable. All is Hydro. There are one or two charging stations in each city….City Hall and at the local tourist info centre. There are three chargers at a rest stop south of Courtenay suitable for the 1/2 hour charge because you can take a nice walk and take a leak. The other chargers don’t even have restrooms. So, everyone else is going to have home charging stations? I’ll tell you right now, ain’t going to happen. There will be an increase in EV usage, no doubt. But Govt mandates? You can’t even get everyone to agree on a vaccine for Covid and that’s a no brainer, even in a Province pushing 90% fully vaccinated.
Back to Global climate change effects. Down Island just suffered a two day pummeling, 6-8 inches of rain in 2 days…flooding, road washouts. It happens, it makes the news , but is not unusual. Almost 50 years ago, on New Years Eve, I remember motoring around a subdivision in Duncan in my 12′ tinny. People were drinking on their front steps and I called out, “High tide is at midnight, better think about leaving. Do you want a ride”? No one jumped in and the next day I saw water 1/2 up their living room walls. Nothing like Houston, or just about anywhere else, but terrible all the same. So maybe the latest flooding event will spark an appreciation for the need to change, but I doubt it, doubt it, doubt it. Just a note, if I lived in town I would probably have an EV with a home charging station. If I move to town, I would have one, but then again I’m retired and don’t need to go anywhere and my electrician son can install everything for me at cost. My electrician buddy drives a big diesel PU to haul a trailer, and just bought a new ICE Nissan car of some sort. And he’s a tech guru convinced new batteries are ‘almost here’.
Anyway, we are just 70 miles from the big rain event. Hardly got any, and I live on a scary river when it floods. Lucky break.
My guess is that all these government mandates on EV’s will mostly be ‘leading’ from behind.
The majority of vehicle purchases will have a plug, regardless of mandate, around 2030.
Sure a minority will want to be forced to change and it may be a significant advantage for some to stick with ICE- especially those who live more rural and travel long distance routinely, and happen to live in an oil producing state.
But for most, it will make perfect sense to have a plug vehicle
on simple economic grounds. Voluntarily.
The transport landscape is on the verge of huge change, even if people haven’t seen it up close and personal yet.
I do expect plenty of ICE purchases this decade, but the shift is gaining steam- especially in oil importing countries.
We got lucky on deluge as well- just 2.2 inches
while 7.4″ on the mountain just 21 miles away.
The rivers have become like a stampede of a thousand horses.
For anyone who drives less than 50 miles daily, a regular 120V outlet is all you need to charge an EV. We have 3 EV’s at my house now, and to avoid demand load charges we never charge concurrently. The Tesla charges at night, and the other two of us share daytime hours; all on 120V. Works fine for us.
to avoid demand load charges
I’ve only seen that terminology in industrial/commercial settings. Are you on an I/C meter? Or is this just a time-of-day rate with a residential meter?
My house has four apartments, and I’m on a commercial meter. My power cost is unbelievably cheap at $0.055/kWh (for green power!), but I pay $8/kW for demand load up to 5kW, and then $15/kW above that, so charging a Tesla at 240V 50A would be a big hit — up to $170/month — just for plugging in.
If anyone can recommend a good smart meter/panel product that is capable of prioritized load shedding, I’d love to hear about it. For example, I’d love to be able to alternate A/C loads, and drop them temporarily when ranges, microwaves, or clothes dryers are in use.
Good on you for offering rides during the flood.
There’s quite a big range up there: https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Duncan-Bay-British-Columbia/tides/latest
I’ve only been places like Key West or South Texas, where one had to worry about (gasp!) a foot and a half or two foot tidal variation (not 10 feet or more).
I second Bob – unless one lives in an apartment with no power at the parking spot, or one drives a lot on a daily basis, just plug in with the portable “charger” unit to a standard household outlet. Though Superchargers are really great when traveling long distances.
New from Tom Murphy.
“Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: Developing a PLAN for the future.”
An encompassing and engaging overview of the human predicament, and a call to action.
Niko…thanks very much for the link to the article. Outstanding. He lays out the situation just as it is.
And his proposal is perfectly logical.
I suspect that any follow up findings or proposals that may come of it, or other such efforts, will be unpalatable to almost all of the 8 billion. Unfortunately.
But it is worth the effort, if anything is.
Can you imagine a human culture where a person values the reward of respect from crowd earned by their voluntary acts of downsizing (refraining from having children or giving up meat eating and leisure travel for example), more than they value the prosperity they may gather through economic growth activities?
I can…but only among a very very small percent of humanity.
With humanity- economic contraction and population contraction will be forced by conditions. Not voluntary based on understanding and a sense of the common good.
Hickory,
I share your view that meaningful action is exceedingly unlikely. What I love about Murphy’s paper is how clearly, comprehensively, and succinctly he outlines our predicament. I also respect those working to try and change humanity’s trajectory, despite my low opinion of their chances.
Indeed.
“Can you imagine a human culture where a person values the reward of respect from crowd earned by their voluntary acts of downsizing (refraining from having children or giving up meat eating and leisure travel for example), more than they value the prosperity they may gather through economic growth activities?”
That sounds like the kind of human culture you would find living in hell.
I, too, have always believed that heaven sounds like a shit hole.
I dunno, smaller and smaller mobile phones were quite an attraction. And switching from bulky CRT screens to flat screens was popular too.
The same goes for speakers. Decent sounding speakers were huge in the 70s. Now they are tiny, and people love them.
In the more than thirty years I have been involved in the computer industry, consumers have always preferred smaller devices over larger ones.
John Parole proves the point.
Downsizing will be forced by hard constraints.
Not a conscious or voluntary act.
Coming from a small island in the tropics, i don’t see the idea of less is better having much of a chance. I count myself among a very small proportion of the population that favors conservation of the environment and reducing CO2 emissions etc. From what I see around me every day, conspicuous consumption is still highly sought after.
Construction of multi-story residential complexes is still booming and every vacant lot or old house is in danger of being turned into such a building. Regular cars are OK for regular people but, if you want to set yourself apart from the regular folk, your mode of transportation better have a German badge on it (Mercedes, BMW or Porsche). I know a guy who used to drive a Toyota Crown Hybrid and even though he said it was the nicest car he had ever driven, his dream was to own a Mercedes. He now owns a Mercedes.
Lots of blah, blah, blah about solar and EVs but not an awful lot of action as evidenced from the following article;
Minister of Science, Energy and Technology Daryl Vaz says his Ministry is pushing for a significant reduction in the import duties on electric vehicles, which he calls alarmingly high.
Vaz, who is also the Member of Parliament for West Portland, was the guest speaker at the installation of an electric vehicle charging port at Total Energies service station at Bryan’s Bay in Port Antonio on Wednesday.
He stated that he is hoping that Cabinet will come to a consensus on the issue of the duties when it meets next week.
“As far as the ministry of science, energy, and technology is concerned, we are pushing for a significant reduction in the duties on electric [vehicles],” said Vaz.
“We have been working assiduously with the Ministry of Finance, which deals with the fiscal regime, and we want to encourage the use of electric vehicles. We are hoping that we can finalise and have a full policy announcement roll out by the new fiscal year, and hopefully, if we can speed up the submission, we can have some interim arrangement until the new fiscal year,” he continued.
I’ve heard that before. Three years ago I placed a deposit on a used (5 yo) Japanese electric van with the hope that by the time I was ready to pay the balance and collect it they would have reduced the duties. They did not and other circumstances derailed that purchase so somebody else got the vehicle. I’m still waiting for this reduction in duties but, at this time it seems a bit like a moving target.
in the meantime there are two major highway projects under construction, one heading east out of the capital city and the other an extension of an existing 44 km (27 mile) toll highway that will continue for a further 30 km (19 miles) or so and cut the travel times for that section by half. Got to make more roads for the ever increasing amount of cars, the overwhelming majority of which will need petroleum based fuels!
Crime is a major problem with way too many people going after far too few opportunities for earning a living. Not helping that situation is the story of two young ladies I know, one has had two kids since 2014 and another three. They were both not permanently employed at the time of their first pregnancy. The one with two kids has sent the first child off to his father in Canada and appears to be pulling herself together. The other had her third child two or three months ago and there is no sight of any father that I am aware of. On that cheerful note, I’m off to go earn a living.
Don’t worry, fellow peakoilers, catastrophists, and doomers. Your fears are all just religion:
Because it’s always about framing things in archaic christian eschatological terms, isn’t it?
Cue the Flagellants
This guy (Shellenberger) is a nuclear advocate, who’s willing to say a lot of dishonest things about the opponents of nuclear power .
The primary problem with nuclear power is it’s link with weapons: that’s something that nuclear advocates really don’t acknowledge. Unfortunately “greens” don’t really discuss that thoroughly either, but I think that’s really the underlying problem that makes environmentalists dislike nuclear.
And nuclear weapons are still an existential threat to humanity, even if it’s not discussed that much these days…
“[nuclear weapon].. that’s really the underlying problem that makes environmentalists dislike nuclear.”
No. Its radiation.
Whether in bomb form, in waste form, during meltdown, or in the form of leaked materials during plant operation, transportation or storage.
Hmmm. That could be, I suppose, but it seems irrational to me. We’re surrounded by radiation, and the amount that has come, is likely to come or even the amount that might come from a major accident is much smaller. Heck, coal plants are likely to produce much more ambient radiation than nuclear plants.
No, I think that European Greens are heavily influenced by the fact that they were the battleground that the US and Russia would have fought on, with a variety of tactical nukes:
“The total number of nuclear weapons based in Europe reached an all-time peak of 7,300 during the height of Cold War tensions in 1971. ”
Personally, I find the link between nuclear power and weapons to be the most troubling aspect of nuclear power. Weapons proliferation to relatively small and less developed countries seems very risky.
Of course, nuclear is also very slow to build, and more expensive than renewables.
There is already now enough nuclear overkill capacity (a nice word from the 80s).
So building more atomic plants changes absolute – nothing.
And everyone eager enough to get nukes can so so – it costs a few billions, but can be done without any input. So banning nuclear power because of nukes is not really helpful.
And when choosing the thorium cycle it would help in this case – the intermediate uranium in this cycle is very radioactive and no easy to handle bomb stuff. That’s why thorium was left behind in the 50s – no good stuff.
The level of delusion on display here is awe-inspiring. Shellenberger’s argument is essentially that everything is getting better, there are no threats to the biosphere, Earth can healthily support this level of population and consumption, global warming is no big deal, and anyone who disagrees is a religious nutjob. Amazing.
It’s a stark contrast to the conclusions conveyed in the Tom Murphy paper I linked one comment prior to yours. Note the differences: Shellenberger is simply stating the opinion that everything is fine and backing it up only by saying “if you disagree you’re crazy”, while Murphy’s opinion is backed up by piles scientific evidence and rigorous reasoning.
Interesting also that Shellenberger referenced Vaclav Smil. Smil is a massive proponent of accepting limits and understanding that our civilization is not currently sustainable.
I did notice the irony of posting the link after Murphy paper!
Shellenberger is a troll who invests all is energy in spreading bad-faith arguments. Everything he says is either a red herring, a direct lie or a wild distortion. He pretends to be an environmentalist, but doesn’t actually care. He mostly pretends to be pro-nuke, but spends most of his energy attacking renewables, not seriously promoting nuclear energy.
The less time spent thinking about him the better. This kind of troll doesn’t even try to “win” arguments in the traditional sense, just to muddy the waters and distract people from what is going on in the world.
Concern Troll:
“A concern troll is a false-flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. ”
Shellenberger has been unfortunately rather more vocal lately with the COP26 and natural gas and coal price spikes filling his sails. Man is an idiot and a shill (Shillenberger?). I think the book he did and the TED talks indicate someone who is rather dishonest or just an idiot.
I tried to match the Volvo XC40 ICE and EV carbon emission numbers using figures from the 2021 BP Statistical Review. I used the primary energy sources and total CO2 emissions for North America, Europe etc. to give the carbon intensity for each fuel, which fitted quite well, and then applied those numbers to the electricity generation fuel sources.
From BP the ratio of global generation to Europe is 185%, but the Volvo ratio is only 150%, which is more like the ratio between Europe and North America from BP. With the BP numbers the EV would have a larger CO2 lifetime emissions than the ICE if power came from the global generator mix (dashed green line). The carbonfootprint.com site has electricity generation carbon emissions by country for June 2019 and overall the differences between Europe and globally look closer to those calculated from the BP figures than those given by Volvo. It may be that Volvo is counting “global” as only that part in which it markets its vehicles.
Asia has worse emissions than the global average, using the BP Asia numbers and pro-ratioing them against the Volvo global average (solid red line) or against the BP numbers (dashed red line) each show that emissions over the life are worse than the ICE version.
About 25% of renewables in Europe come from wood pellets that are counted as carbon neutral. The net zero emissions are heavily backloaded, like much in the net zero by 2050 and assume the released CO2 is extracted as the forests grow back. Some studies indicate the initial release is 50% worse than coal and that the extraction can take as long as 50 years if hard wood pellets are used compared to 12 for soft woods. It is difficult to find what mix is used but sources from southeastern USA seem to include a lot of hardwood. The dashed blue line shows the short-term emissions impact.
Overall it is all a bit underwhelming. The most hyped sector supposed to save us from emissions, light vehicles, contribute only 10% to global emissions, at best only about half of these will give any saving and they would average a net saving of 30 to 50% – i.e. a maximum 1.5 to 2.5% of the total when we are supposed to be reducing by 5% per year (unless you are a “net zero by 2050” supporter in which case we just keep growing until some time in the 40s).
If a new battery is needed through the life cycle things get worse, but I guess these instances would be negated by longer lasting vehicles, especially if with the same battery.
George-
Here is a study that does a much more comprehensive and in-depth study of the subject- and it comes up with pretty dramatic emission improvements with EV over ICE. See for yourself-
“This wide-ranging life-cycle assessment (LCA) examines the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of passenger cars, including SUVs. Performed separately and in depth for Europe, the United States, China, and India, the analysis captures the differences among those markets, which are home to about 70% of global new passenger car sales. It considers present and projected future GHG emissions attributable to every stage in the life cycles of both vehicles and fuels, from extracting and processing raw materials through refining and manufacture to operation and eventual recycling or disposal.”
Result summary for US and Europe-
“emissions over the lifetime of average medium-size BEVs registered today are already lower than comparable gasoline cars by 66%–69% in Europe, 60%–68% in the United States…,”
Emissions associated with electric vehicles will probably decline by half within twenty years as we add more wind and solar capacity to the grid.
There will be a nice HAPPY positive feedback effect. EV’s will suck up off peak wind and solar juice, charging up cheap, and this off peak market will boost the wind and solar industries.
Well put.
And lets not forget the other huge reason to switch to electric vehicles-
Oil Depletion.
and the concentration of oil supply in the hands of just a few countries,
and the concentration of oil wealth in the hands of just a tiny fraction of the worlds population.
Well put.
And don’t forget the result of such concentration of oil supply in a few countries: oil wars, with costs of trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and uncountable emotional trauma and physical disability.
The gulf wars were widely understood to be oil wars. Here’s a cover from Businessweek:
Spotlight on German auto purchases 1st 10 months of this year-
cars with plugs comprised 24% of the total sales, which was up from 10% the year before.
Nothing particularly unique about this vehicle, yet it highlights a sector of the vehicle market that is racking up big sales in Europe and China. For daily commuting the costs are affordable to a big chunk of the worlds working people. No gas tank. Small battery.
Charging with a standard home 120v outlet will give about 40 miles charge in 10 hrs.
minor nit – European home outlets are typically 230 volts, 50 Hz.
The typical outlet is rated for 16 amps.
Or did you already do a conversion?
From the carmagazine.co.uk article “30 hours … 250 mile drive.” comment, that gives 8.33 miles-of-range/hr-of-charging, or 1.733 kWh-into-battery/hr-of-charging. 40 miles range would only be (just under) 5 hours.
Half the voltage (roughly) would double the charging time.
Thanks for the correction on the European electrical system. Improved charging times is the result, as you pointed out.
The new models coming to market in the next two years will be a dramatic shift to the landscape.
I believe there’s a substantial but so far untapped market for short range EV’s.
But so far nobody is making any real effort to build or sell them here.
That’s going to change once most of us have had enough experience with electric cars to get comfortable with them.
I know half a dozen people these days who have bought a new cheap small car such as a Kia which they drive quite a lot because it’s easy on gas, and easy to maintain…… allowing them to leave their four by four pickup truck or full size Buick sitting in the driveway.
These tend to be the kind of people who will keep that pickup or Buick for years and years…… so they see the little car as a way to delay wearing out their bigger vehicles.
In a lot of cases the little car will allow them to keep their existing big trucks and cars until they’re done driving at all.
Prosperous working people who want to make their money go a long way will buy short range electric cars imo once they have the opportunity to do so. A hundred mile range is enough for more than ninety percent of all commuters.
This means the existing Camry or Impala will last them for an additional decade or longer before it’s giving problems due to high mileage.
A hundred and fifty mile range is enough for almost any small business such as a drug store or auto parts store that delivers within a limited distance while staying open eight or ten hours a day.
There is a mismatch between how people think they use their cars and how they actually use them. I have been keeping track of my use and on a “normal” day I drive around 12 miles. 2x this year did I make a trip of more than 100m each way. My guess is that my numbers may be slightly below average but not a whole lot. I have an EV and charge it (at home) perhaps once a week.
Whether or not an EV works for somebody is really a use case question but it is hard to get people to be honest about that.
That is one reason why fleets are likely to be the biggest market in the short term. The other reason is that fleet managers are more likely to be able to calculate total lifetime costs than private buyers. So the Hertz thing isn’t so surprising.
OFM,
It is just such a huge task to replace the 1.6 billion vehicles with ICE globally. I tried to do a bottom up analysis and came to at least that number currently. As of this year electrical vehicles are going to sell 7 million units as an estimate. It would be likely that the number can be doubled before nickel and lithium shortages becomes too costly. Increasing the share of Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries helps, and then lithium becomes the limiting factor. Still this battery type can take 25% of the market. I do think that the solution to get to 200-300 million electric cars globally is less battery size, smaller cars and for convenience better charging speed. Something like the Dacia Spring no frills and cheap car, can reduce the resource use on one car to 1/3, just steel, cheap plastic and a battery really. I believe that is what we will see the next decade if we are in a resource squeeze.
And that is just light transportation; heavy transportation requires different solutions. It is difficult to beat the diesel engine for high hp work. Potentially at least 20 ton trucks can be electrified, and it puts a strain on electricity that can not be accommodated everywhere. The heavy transportation takes at least as much energy as light transportation. In Norway though, we are going to try to electrify everything. And also get 1000 hydrogen trucks on the road by 2030. Let’s see how it goes. Projected use in 2030 on electrified transportation is around 15-17 twh a year on a 5.4 million population.
It may seem like a huge task, but so was replacing land lines with mobile phones. Funny how nobody saw that as a burden at the time. instead, it was seen as an opportunity.
The same thing is true of replacing typewriters with word processing. It was a huge shift, and it was mostly viewed in terms of modernization and business opportunity.
OFM —
It looks like Dacia (known for low end cars) is already selling a low range car in Europe.
The average USA car fleet mpg is 24.9 and the average car mileage driven is 13,500 miles.
The average cost of gasoline is $3.41
So, in the US a car uses 542 g/yr gasoline and the driver spends $1,848/yr on fuel!, on average.
Imagine you could guarantee that there would be no petrol price inflation over the next 10 years-
the driver would spend $18,480 on gas.
For an equivalent EV you would need about 4000 kwh electricity to travel the same 13,500 miles/yr
[assuming 3.5 miles/kWh]- https://ecocostsavings.com/average-electric-car-kwh-per-mile/
At the national average electric rate of 11cents/kWh you are talking about $440/yr ‘fuel’ bill.
Or, you go a step further towards independence in transportation cost and security-
In almost all of the 50 states the 10 yr amount that the average driver will spend on petrol could purchase and install a 6kW solar system with a couple thousand dollars left to spare (for a home battery?) https://www.consumeraffairs.com/solar-energy/how-much-do-solar-panels-cost.html
” A 6kW solar system will produce between 400-900 kWh of electricity/yr, depending on sun exposure. The average cost of installing a 6kW solar system is $15,600 but varies by state”- 2018
So spread over 10 years you could pay for the whole solar PV system with money you avoided spending on petrol, and have another 20-30 years of paid-in-full electricity.
At some point most people will come to understand these basic facts.
And they will want to fund their own power station rather than to Exxon or the other oil multinationals.
Sadly, I think the average US car fleet MPG is lower than that, based on the last year of non-pandemic-recession data: 2019. Per the FHWA, Vehicle miles travelled were 3.27T. Per the EIA, gallons of gasoline were about 146M. That gives about 22.4 MPG.
That improves the cost effectiveness of EVs by roughly 10%.
I don’t know how you manage this – are you all driving pickup truck?
I had a gas car 5 years ago – a Ford Focus, but with the european engine. It was 36 Mpg in the long run, and I’m not driving that slow (going 100 mph on the Autobahn when it’s free).
My current Diesel does 47 mpg.
An electric car won’t save much here since I don’t own a home with own solar. Electricity is 32 cents / Kwh at the home tap – and much more at super chargers if you don’t own a Tesla.
Do you have time-of-day electricity rates? They’re required of all utilities in the US, and allow you to charge cheaply in the middle of the night (or, in theory, in the middle of the day if your utility has a lot of solar).
No, it’s a fixed price rate – normally fix for the next year.
This also includes the current price chaos has to be swallowed by the utilities – they can increase prices only in the next year. There are some non fixed, but they are normally only small margins cheaper.
Since some years you are allowed to consume electricity from your solar roof by yourself and be connected by the grid. This is attractive to E car owners – at least in the sunny half of the year.
Nick, time of day rates not a uniform requirement in the states.
I had the option in N Calif.
It is not an option in WA state.
I believe that the utility in WA state offers it, or is breaking the law: i believe that the Federal 2005 Energy Act requires it of all utilities (I’ve seen it from a small rural electric co-operative). On the other hand, many of them do nothing to let their customers know about the option ( I had to look hard at the co-op’s offerings). So the question would be, did you happen to take a deep dive into the utility’s rate offerings?
Sadly, it seems like passive resistance. It seems like some utilities want to innovate (like CA), and some want to do the minimum. Hawaii is an interesting example: HECO did the absolute minimum for years, causing pollution and consumer rates to be unnecessarily high. Now they’re innovating, after much pressure…
Anyway, time of use billing plans are a good idea and will be adopted much more widely as time goes on. In Calif I would only charge up the EV at night when the rates were very cheap, and our PV array would feed the grid during the day when electrical demand [and rates] was high.
Hickory,
When someone says they “believe” something to be true, they’re signaling that they are not 100% sure. This is a good thing: it helps when people indicate their level of confidence in the information they’re presenting. So…don’t scoff at it.
Any way, I’m still pretty sure that the Energy Act of 2005 does indeed mandate the availability of time-based rates. I think that the article you found discussed “default” rates, not optional rate availability (though I agree that the article wasn’t clear on this).
So, here’s a citation:
“SEC. 1252. SMART METERING.
(14) TIME-BASED METERING AND COMMUNICATIONS.—(A)
Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this paragraph, each electric utility shall offer each of its customer
classes, and provide individual customers upon customer request, a time-based rate schedule under which the rate charged by the electric utility varies during different time periods and reflects the variance, if any, in the utility’s costs of generating and purchasing electricity at the wholesale level.
The time-based rate schedule shall enable the electric consumer to manage energy use and cost through advanced metering and communications technology.”
Yara to start operating the world’s first battery-electric container ship, prepared for autonomous operation
Yara Birkeland (earlier post)—the world’s first battery- electric container ship, prepared for autonomous operation—has departed for its maiden voyage in the Oslo fjord. The autonomous ship will sail within 12 nautical miles from the coast, between 3 ports in southern Norway.
We are proud to be able to showcase the world’s first fully electric and self-propelled container ship. It will cut 1,000 tonnes of CO2 and replace 40,000 trips by diesel-powered trucks a year.
The 120 TEU Yara Birkeland was developed in collaboration with the Kongsberg Group. The ship was built by VARD with financial support from Enova, and will be in commercial operation from 2022.
“There are no storages beside a few pumped hydro from the 80s, and there are even no big plans to build some. ”
These few storages are sufficient to cover 60% (!) of the energy demand in a green scenario according to studies of the VDE, which is not a green organisation.
“The Swiss or Austria won’t flood their valleys with pumped hydro for us – we could do this perfect on ourselfes.”
That is a strawman. Sweden and Norway have more than 120 TWh hydro reservoirs, a first step is simply to build HV transmission lines to Scandinavia.
“Battery mass storage is kind of science fiction”
Again a strawman. Batteries do not solve the long term storage issue, however other approches do.
Why don’t you check studies of Fraunhofer groups? Check academic studies and projects on LOHCs….
You argue like somebody who has not really followed the science in this field for 5 to 10 years.
Reality check for your 1st entry:
For a typical summer night of 10 hours of low or 0 solar, you need round about 500 Gwh. Wind is mostly low then, let’s say 400 Gwh left. What do the few pumped storages can do there? They have a combined power of a maximum of 6 Gw – as long they have water ( 37 GwH capacity when they are all full ). This is 60%, for this simple scenarion that happens 50 times in summer?
“simply to build HV transmission lines to Scandinavia.”
You want to build HV transmissions capable of 50 GW to Norway, and they should sacrify all their hydro for Germany? And their current capacity is enough for themselves, not a ten time bigger industry country.
Remember, in Sweden this summer hydro was empty and electricity prices soared to record hights. They restarted an old oil burner from the 60s, guzzling 40kbd oil.
And how much billion tons of concrete and steel does it cost to develop this 120 Twh hydro reserve? Is this in some kind enviromental friendly?
Doing all this wind and solar storage with hydro reminds me of the gigantomanic plans of the former Sowjet Union.
yes, the science wants to get the money at the moment, every one is in wind and solar – I have some wind stock, too.
But I don’t see anything solving wind and solar problem – all things started now are small projects. The cable to Norway I would describe as a nice try.
And you’ll need even a lot more electric energy in the future – not only electric cars, but trucks and busses (or rail). And heat pump heating everywhere. And converting steel, Aluminium, concrete, common process energy production to green – this means even more electricity.
I know the current scenarios think of reduced consumption in the future so storage doesn’t need to be so big. But I don’t think so.
Ah, and the good places for wind energy are already taken – there is a limit how many you can build. Wind shadow of wind farms extends up to 50 km, setting a soft limit how many farms you can build (and how much they harvest in not so good situations):
So overbuilding to a huge margin dosn’t really help, besides costing a lot of money and raw materials. Setting a turbine on every hill only creates – less wind.
And sorry – LOHC technology in big, really big IS science fiction at the moment. It’s stored in liquid created from oil. And to store hydrogen for a winter, you’ll need lots of this carrier liquid. Lot’s as more than the strategic petroleum reserve. So a new source of oil demand…
At the moment they are still at project and university example status. For example, you need to build factories of the size of reffineries to create all this liquid to build a really big storage able to replace the northern nat gas storage caverns.
You see this problems with the rollout of electric cars. More than 10 years already – and everything of it was ramp up time for battery building.
“You want to build HV transmissions capable of 50 GW to Norway, and they should sacrify all their hydro for Germany? And their current capacity is enough for themselves, not a ten time bigger industry country.”
Yes, want to build at least 20 GW transmission capacity to Scandinavia, try to understand why at least 20 GW. And keep in mind, the current projects are often Scandinavian. 🙂
I want also batteries for overnight storage, because PV with 200 loading cycles leads to good economy of short term storage with batteries.
“Doing all this wind and solar storage with hydro reminds me of the gigantomanic plans of the former Sowjet Union.”
Again a strawman. Nowhere I claim we have to use only hydro. Fore short term storage batteries may also work and chemical storage is useful for medium or long term storage.
Again, do your homework first and read Fraunhofer studies on this topic. Your argument would already not have survived 5 years ago in a serious discusssion.
“Ah, and the good places for wind energy are already taken”
That is BS. Serious studies come to 200 GW onshore wind power with 10 H distance. All this with nice FLH. You use your ignorance as yard stick. That is weak in a serious discussion.
“And sorry – LOHC technology in big, really big IS science fiction at the moment.”
It is not, but maybe as chemist I have a different perspective.
They created a high temperature magnet capable of delivering the needed magnetic field for fusion. This magnet is strong enough, and much cheaper than the low temperatur magnet used in ITER. And additional it created a 20 Tesla field – ITER has round about 13 Tesla.
Now all parts are in place – it has to be finalized now and then the rollout can start. As in all industrial products, prices will come down with serial production.
What seemed common sense in the last decade is no longer relevant now- Over and over we have heard about the death of the suburbs once crude oil products for transport becomes more expensive, as scarce/depleting resources do.
Now the scenario is different. Simply its all about electricity, batteries, and electric vehicles. Now a delivery van or a personal vehicle can be electric with a dozen choices, soon to become dozens of choices. By the end of this decade the vehicle landscape will not be recognizable from the perspective of someone who last checked in in 2015. You will measure a vehicle capability in battery pack size [kWh] and electric efficiency [in miles or kilometers/kWh]. These measures will be familiar to you, or you will be left in the dust.
And many people will no longer go to a gas station, and many young people will not even know the smell of gasoline. They will know all about plugs and charging. The local grid will matter more to them than OPEC. Solar on their roof will give them a sense of transportation independence, security, and cost saving- if they live in an area that is not heavily clouded or shaded.
Being 30 miles from the city center is not going to be a transportation cost nightmare as people recently envisioned, particularly if the regional grid operator is competent and the populace takes an active role in empowering the utility to be successful.
Suburbs and small satellite cities will also have an additional advantage over city centers- being close to farmland. Especially if local land use policies are in place to protect the lands with better soils.
This posting is not so much about the specific topic- its bigger message is to remind yourself to be open minded about how things may progress/digress. Which of your current assumptions/preconceived notions are or will be best placed in the bucket of falsehoods? I’m sure we all have some.
And just what do we take for granted, besides readily available fuel and Democracy, of course?
That brings two thoughts to mind:
-Maybe Yogi Berra said “Predicting is difficult, especially about the future”.
I’m pretty sure it is true that in about 1965 the Post company, that supplied the engineering industry with equipment, was given a government grant to explore the future of engineering technology. They apparently got a lot right except for one minor omission. They missed the advent of the pocket calculator which destroyed the market for slide rules which were their most profitable product.
Suburbs, electric cars, roof to solar all seem to be on an obvious path towards more of them and less of gasoline. However I wonder if some serious out of context issues in the future will make these concerns all moot and create some entirely different realities for commuters and homeowners. After the miserable failure of any meaningful action at COP26 (to quote Greta Thunberg “blah, blah, blah”) the likelihood of climate change creating massive disruptions in economies, forced migration, food supply problems and likely large scale military action seeking control over finite resources these issues may all be changed beyond recognition.
“these issues may all be changed beyond recognition.”
Absolutely. I’m sure in many, or most, places they will.
Urban sprawl may not be limited by fuel in an electric society, but it seems that paving over lots of land is not such a great idea anyway. In a way though one would want to have a larger footprint – a larger roof allows for more energy capture, and that is pretty much the opposite of a more compact lifestyle that is more energy / resource efficient. Even if energy is not the limiting factor, resources in general are a huge limiting factor. Plus, is more better?
Regarding democracy, not so sure if it can survive in a system where you can legally buy your representatives.
I am not an advocate of sprawl- quite the opposite. Strict land use regulations.
Even if it costs a lot more for humans to do their thing.
It’s worth mentioning that a lot of urban sprawl happens because it is mandated by law, not because the “free market” demands it.
It’s particularly bad in America, where massive overspending on road widening together with mandates for single family units and parking minimums have gutted cities.
Agree. Europe (at least the northern countries) are much stricter with respect to sprawl with decent sucess.
On the question of using rooftops for solar:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25720-2
How much surface would be needed:
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/
somewhere between 10k and 20k square miles, depending on efficiency. A lot but not a crazy amount Just roads take up around 17k square miles.
The power generation issue is solvable but the political willpower needs to be in place for it to happen because a some of it will need to be either mandated or on public land / roads.
IMHO it’s energy to a fair degree is a political issue rather than a resource issue (puts on flame resistant suit).
Rgds
WP
Weekend peak,
Solar can be ground mounted where there are no buildings or parking lots, also as we move to transportation as a service, with the potential for autonomous vehicles to do the driving there will be fewer cars owned and less need for parking lots, it reduces the amount of paving. Also it would be pretty easy to build an app that puts more riders in each vehicle which would reduce road congestion and require fewer lanes on the roadways.
So I would agree less is more, smaller houses, fewer cars, narrower roadways, fewer parking lots, fewer children born per woman, and fewer people. We are moving in that direction. We do need more educational opportunities and more knowledge, more art, more beauty, more kindness. So in some cases more is better, in my opinion, but more in the spiritual world and perhaps less in the physical world (especially for the wealthy).
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is relevant here:
“Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid, with the largest, most fundamental needs at the bottom, and the need for self-actualization and transcendence at the top. In other words, the idea is that individuals’ most basic needs must be met before they become motivated to achieve higher-level needs.[1][9]…Maslow also coined the term “metamotivation” to describe the motivation of people who go beyond the scope of the basic needs and strive for constant betterment.[11]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
I do not think the world as a whole is approaching the sunlit uplands of happy electric motoring to the sprawling suburbs. It is slowly stepping down the hierarchy of needs as the limits to growth digs its claws deeper into the fabric of societies. The US (or at least its wealthier half) is increasingly in a bubble of privilege and exceptionalism where the ecotechnical future is still glorious. Trump is still riding his wave of prejudice and ignorance and hate and as the poor find themselves hungrier that wave will grow in the coming decade.
Here in Europe we have rising inflation as too much fiat currency chases too few physical resources. Electricity in the UK is 35c a KWh – a price that makes electric cars not so much cheaper to run than diesel, even with the massive taxes on the latter. New car sales are falling sharply, as supply dries up, and used cars are going up in value. The UK is particularly hard hit by Brexit but global trade is still well down, with widespread power cuts in China and India vetoing the phasing out of coal at the COP meeting. Europe is increasingly besieged by migrants fleeing war and hunger in the middle east , Afghanistan, Africa, and terrorist attacks have not gone away, the last one on Sunday in the UK as the Muslim extremists feed off that hunger. Putin is pushing to expand his territory back into the Eastern Europe.
Many countries in Europe are moving back to right wing governments as they reflect the increasing xenophobia as the poorer strata see their living standards fall.
The limits to growth is here and higher culture and peace and good will are close their peak
Ralph,
“Limits to Growth” isn’t the explanation for every problem. In fact, it doesn’t look like the explanation for any of the problems you’ve mentioned.
Some of what we’re seeing is a sharp recovery from the Covid recession, and an increase in economic activity which was unexpected, causing massive production and transportation (aka “supply chain”) problems.
Some of what we’re seeing is massive income inequality. That’s a big problem, but it has little to do with basic resource limits.
High income folks don’t get happiness from that money. Warren Buffet knows that: he lives on relatively little money and advocates for higher taxes on high income folks. I think he’s sincere but not willing to really fight hard enough for those ideas…
I think we are unlikely to agree on this one. Obviously money beyond a basic standard of living is not essential to life, but it provides comfort, convenience, the service of others, and, at least in the minds of many, power over and the respect of ones peers. Yes it is very satisfying to grow and cook your own food, dig your own latrines and prove you could survive in your natural environment with nothing more than the shared work and skills of your tribe, but as you grow older and weaker, it is far easier to let machines or other people take a larger burden, and leave you time for the higher things of life, like music or procreation. Human nature is not going to change because evolution has honed us to be greedy and controlling, because it is the greedy and controlling that produce more offspring
Unfortunately this planet is not big enough to sustain 10 billion people at even a basic level of food and culture. Over 90% by weight of the mammalian, avian and fish life on this planet is now human beings and our direct food supply. We are destroying our wild food species and ecosystems at an accelerating rate and the carrying capacity of the planet is declining rapidly. This when less half the global population has what we would consider a basic lifestyle of adequate food, clean water, housing, education, health services etc. Yes the top billion (including us) are using far more than the global average, but even if we suddenly became Buddhist monks, there are too many of us. The limits to growth are as much about saturating the sinks of our waste streams as it is about the sources of resources. Near infinite renewable energy sources are technically possible, and we can mine lower and lower quality minerals with more energy, but we cannot replace a single extinct species and as long as we keep growing our economy, we will never control our carbon , methane, microplastic and other waste streams to a level that the planet can absorb and reprocess.
There are too many of us and we have left it too late. Human nature will not change at the population level even if we do as individuals
I drive an electric car, but not for much longer. (My eyesight is deteriorating).
The current shortages and inflation is part of the larger disconnect as nation states start to relocalise and reverse global trade in an attempt to placate their own populations as standards of living fall .
Ralph,
I’m not suggesting a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, or subsistence farming. I’d say the median European lifestyle is perfectly achievable across the planet.
There are a lot of points to discuss in your comment, too many to answer. One struck me, though, the idea that “Over 90% by weight of the mammalian, avian and fish life on this planet is now human beings and our direct food supply. “. I’d say that’s far from the mark. Take a look at the following, which gives a different perspective. Humans are only .01% of all life on the plant, and fish have 10x the mass of humans: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/all-life-on-earth-chart-weight-plants-animals-pnas
Clearly humans have reduced some categories of wildlife sharply: “The authors of the PNAS article estimate that the mass of wild land mammals is seven times lower than it was before humans arrived (keep in mind it’s difficult to estimate the exact history of the number of animals on Earth). Similarly, marine mammals, including whales, are a fifth of the weight they used to be because we’ve hunted so many to near extinction.” But keep in mind that we’ve severely cherrypicked the forms of life we’re including, and still the levels are 15% to 20% of pre-human levels, not the 2 or 5% sometimes implied.
I agree this is a tragedy. But do we know that this threatens human survival?
If the whole world were converted to an English garden with no wild large mammals, as humans have certainly been prone to do historically, what is the evidence that this would doom humanity?
I absolutely agree it’s a bad idea to take such a risk. But, certain collapse? I’d like to see actual evidence for such an idea.
All of the large mammals were killed in the UK centuries ago. Their ecology didn’t collapse. Bees are a good example of an important species that is at risk. On the other hand, we’re talking here about large mammals, not insects.
I think large scale species extinction is a very bad idea: an emotional tragedy, and a risk to the ecology which supports us.
I agree that Climate Change is a big risk: I think we should transition away from FF ASAP. But, does civilization face certain collapse due to Climate Change? I don’t see the evidence, in part because of the likelihood that humanity will respond to CC by reducing FF. Not as fast as we should, but we are doing it.
So, does civilization face certain collapse due to extinctions? I’d like to see at least a little evidence.
Income inequality has actually been falling globally for decades, this has been down to between countries inequality falling, but the developed nations facing much higher inequality as consequence of falling energy per capita.
This is a statistical function that no amount of political tinkering will eradicate, and especially not going into an exergy crisis as we are. You’re always going to have inequality, however, it is especially hard to ignore when the gulf rapidly widens in places where it was much less prevalent and a de facto state of progress was expected in perpetuity.
An economically ravaged populace lashes out. They will lash out at the Out Group du jour, and especially at renewables if they see they have to not only pay vastly more for energy the elites can easily afford, but also suffer rolling blackouts and economic insecurity as consequence. Pielke’s iron law is still in play.
OMG!!
Inequality has very little to do with energy costs! Where the heck did this idea come from??
The most recent wave of inequality in the US started with Reagan’s tax cuts and attacks on unions, and continued with long-term Republican attacks on unions, racial and gender pay equality, and minimum wages. The biggest problem is taxation, with reliance on regressive payroll and consumption (sales) taxes combined with reductions in taxes for higher incomes & capital gains and reduced wealth taxes (estate and property).
The problem here is that “capital” has grown too powerful, lately. By that I mean that income received by the owners of stock, bonds, real estate etc., has been growing much faster than wages for roughly the last 50 years. Wages are stagnating while profits, dividends, rents etc., are taking almost all of the increase in income. Income inequality is growing sharply within the US and many other countries (though income growth in developing countries is reducing overall global income inequality).
Owners of capital have been waging a successful PR campaign to support this distortion, through Fox, Murdoch, Koch, etc.
Good lord, blaming energy costs is the biggest red herring ever!
Nick G: The data supports what I said. If you take issue with this, I’d probably go let Carey W. King know, among other physics based economists. Energy absolutely has an impact, and your points about inequality only further prove that. Or did you think the well to do with capital doing well off reduced remuneration to the labour force was just a coincidence?
You seem rather blinkered to the concept that physical resources have any impact here, which is… odd. Did you think the Industrial Revolution just happened to coincide with the largest prosperity increase in human history through sheer luck?
For all the German Energiewende fans and solar enthusiasts – here a chart from last week:
https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=45
As you see, all conventional power plants inclusive the peakers burning now exensive gas are at full load. This week is even worse so far. Not much wind and the sun isn’t visible.
There are no storages beside a few pumped hydro from the 80s, and there are even no big plans to build some. So this Energiewende only works with all the conventional plants still in workable condition. Ah, and the red bars will be gone end of this and next year. So more coal for you …
You can see the variance here, a week with some great days:
https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=44
I don’t see a possibility for a faster fossil exit without massive pushing nuclear – and newer nuclear concepts of 4th genertation plants. The battery production will be needed the next 20 years for vehicles from an ebike to a truck – no spare capacity to build terawatthours for sun and wind backup.
It’s easy (and good) to save some fossile energy by wind and solar – but it’s difficult to set all energy usage on it.
When heating with gas or oil will be forbidden, the load on the grid will increase even more – especially on these cold no wind days.
It is not an easy situation when also nuclear power is being phased out. I don’t see how you are going to avoid energy poverty one way or another going forward. There are all kinds of deals going on to increase energy imports to Germany or even out electricity supply when the “wind is not blowing”: interconnector cables, utilising pumped hydro in Switzerland, Austria and even Norway, import of more biomass, the offshore wind power islands proposed in Danish waters, import of hydrogen using ships, utilise natural gas cables even more etc.
It is very difficult to transform from a industrial society based on coal power to renewables. Be happier with less seems to be a mantra a lot of places going forward. And hope that the fossil fuel tail is going to be a long and not a too steep one.
The competence when it comes to engineering and technology will always be valued, so I guess Germany can rely on a lot of countries to export energy if possible for a long period of time. In Europe more, but also elsewhere if commodities can be produced cheap.
The Swiss or Austria won’t flood their valleys with pumped hydro for us – we could do this perfect on ourselfes.
Additional, how big this should be? A calm summer night without wind needs round about 500 GwH – a current pumped hydro has a few Gwh. Interconnectors? – in a low wind scenario no country in middle Europe has extra wind. For example the today low wind low solar weather includes France, Germany, Danemark, Norway and Sweden.
Perhaps we get the “We save the world” and “We are holier than you” solution. We shut down coal, gas and nuclear in the next 10 years – and all neighbors build coal and nuclear round us to sell energy for good money to us.
Import of hydrogen would help – but this is still science fiction. As fusion plants – it will be a hard race which is faster. At least fusion plants have already some test ignitions, and liquid hydrogen has some container sized test plants.
Generation 3+ atomic plants are no science fiction, geothermic power plants are real (Many great locations in Germany, I sit literally on one. Here is cooking water in 1500 meters depth, going hotter when you get deeper).
On the science fiction scale there are:
– 4th generation atomic breeder plants (some test installations)
– Thorium reactor (some prototypes)
– Liquid hydrogen mass import (some small test installations up to the megawatt scale)
– Fusion plants (some test ignitions)
Battery mass storage is kind of science fiction because of the pure mass of battery cells needed to get into the TWH range – before this all these cars busses and trucks have to be build.
Those are all great ideas. They would have been better in the ’70s.
To paraphrase Neil in Tenet: Energy isn’t the problem, producing it in time is.
We’ve been riding down a problematic road since the end of Les Trente Glorieuses. It’s a bit late to envision the brave new world of not being reliant on fossil fuels at the same time they’re declining rapidly and we need them to bootstrap literally a whole new global infrastructure. It’s impossible with this economic and political system.
It is definitely possible to define a reliable floor to electric grid output. The floor is much higher when fossil fuels comes to the rescue, than if renewables are to dominate. The dreaded traffic light system for electricity would in the absence prevail (red-turn off, yellow -sometimes on, green – always on)
Many uncertainties going forward, but there are a lot of livable solutions too going long into the future (not trying to give a reply to your input right now; maybe later).
Most people, even the ones so well informed as the members of this little forum, seem to be incapable of thinking about the future except as fantasy land or the Stone Age.
Eulenspiegel is right about the impossibility ( as a practical matter within the next few decades ) of building enough battery or pumped hydro storage to keep Old Man Business As Usual staggering along as he has been for the last few decades.
We can’t continue as we have been, by substituting renewables for fossil fuels on the grand scale, because as he points out, the job is just too damned big in relation to the time frame and the resource depletion problems involved to succeed.
But we don’t have to go back to the Stone Age, lol.
I’m quite flexible enough to get by with hardly any electricity between dusk and dawn, already.
Two hundred watts is enough for me…. that will keep a couple of led’s on and my computer lit up. I can have timers on my refrigerator and freezer, and I can heat the house up nicely, or chill it somewhat before dark, and be comfortable all night.
We farmers have been making hay when the sun shines, and only when it shines, since the invention of farming, lol.
It’s going to be hard going, but there aren’t all that many things that NECESSARILY have to work twenty four hours around the clock around the day around the calendar.
We sure as hell can smelt all the steel we HAVE to have on an intermittent basis using wind and solar electricity. We sure as hell can get by doing half as much driving, or even a quarter as much, in cars that are half or less the size of the ones we drive now.
We can go back to making things to last, rather than to be thrown away. Most of my furniture is hand made from nice thick solid wood harvested locally. It’s expensive to make furniture this way, for sure…….. but it will last indefinitely, hundreds of years unless it’s lost in a fire.
There’s no real reason cars and trucks can’t be built to last fifty years. I used to drive old Chevy trucks that could be economically repaired more or less forever… for a lot less money than it would have taken to buy a new one. The only real reason these trucks were scrapped is that newer ( but still used) ones could be bought dirt cheap because so many people were buying new ones.
If we actually do succeed in lowering the birth rate to the point our population starts dropping, here in the USA, we won’t be needing hardly anything at all in the way of new roads, new water reservoirs, or major new infrastructure. Nearly everything we have now can be refurbished and or upgraded, and doing this will mostly involve skilled labor rather than lots of raw materials.
There are entire cities in Europe where most of the houses are at least a hundred and even two and three hundred years old, or even older.
Almost everybody loves to talk about how shoddily present day houses are constructed, but the truth of the matter is that most of them, nearly all of the many I ‘ve looked over, are well enough built to last at least a couple of centuries….. if they’re properly maintained.
The first house I ever bought was a cracker box tract house built in the late forties or very early fifties.It’s better now than it was then, and it’s good for another century……… assuming it’s well maintained, and maintenance is mostly about skilled labor rather than materials.There’s no reason to think we will be short of skilled labor.
Austerity is about feeling deprived because you don’t have as much stuff as you used to.
My nieces and nephews don’t feel deprived because they live in apartments or tract houses.
They CAN’T miss what they have never had.
BUT I felt deprived when I left the farm for the first time to live in a dormitory, and then in an apartment in the city, without even enough space outside to enjoy a private outdoor meal. It was tough, going from owning everything within a hundred yards to that little PRISON, lol. I couldn’t even change the oil in my car. I couldn’t sit down anywhere outside my walls without being expected to pay for the privilege, except a nearby city park.
A lot of us, barring the worst kind of bad luck, are going to continue living a dignified, reasonably secure life without worrying too much about the real necessities……. food, medical care, a roof over our head, friends and family.
A lot of us aren’t.
My advice to anybody young enough to do some serious thinking followed by serious action is to find a place where he or she can be reasonably self sufficient, where the climate will still be at least bearable, where riots and looting are unlikely,where food is produced locally, where clean water is abundant.
Whoever gets my little farm will have such a place.
“It’s easy (and good) to save some fossile energy by wind and solar – but it’s difficult to set all energy usage on it.”
Your argument is not convincing because you sell lack of reliable power as lack of energy. Lack of energy can easily be solved with more RE generators. Lack of reliable power does, however, require other approaches.
This issue has beenn discussed in many studies during the last decade in Germany, please keep up. We have on average 14 days without sun and wind in Germany per year, 8 can be in a row. This is a decade old stuff.
What is your issue with (as very unelegant scenario) cheap back-up generators like open NG turbines or diesel generators that run for a few days per year, still cheaper than baseload power plants like NPPs or CCNG power plants?
What is your issue with more transborder transmission lines that connect uncoirrelated generation of huge hydro storage in Scandinavia?
Great posts, every one of them, so far.
Remember the farmer’s perspective.
We see collapse on a regular basis in my field.
I can’t remember a particular year when I didn’t hear about droughts, floods, extreme cold or heat, insects, blights, misguided public policies, or SOMETHING that didn’t more or less wipe out the farm economy someplace.
Global collapse is a real possibility, but local and regional collapse events are many times more likely to dominate over the next few decades in my own humble opinion. I come by it having observed the local, national and world scene since I was a kid back in the sixties.
Some places will thrive, some people will thrive.
Some will die hard and fast. Others will die hard and slow.
The better educated and the more prosperous people and countries have it within their power to adapt to just about anything short of catastrophic climate runaway scenarios or a flat out WWIII.
The price of ONE new car in Western Europe or the USA is enough to upgrade the construction of a typical new house to net zero standards. It’s enough to upgrade an existing house to close to net zero in a lot of cases.
Countries and people that are supposedly broke somehow suddenly find it within their means to raise armies when it’s time to go to war, lol.
Most Western countries, and a number of Asian and African countries have more than ample resources to deal with problems such as peak oil, peak metals, peak timber, and even peak food…… IF they are lucky enough to have good leaders capable of getting the population behind doing what’s necessary.
It’s not that we are NECESSARILY going to be poor in the future. It IS necessary, if we are to continue being rich, that we will have to be rich in new ways.
We can adapt. The question is whether we WILL adapt in a timely fashion. Some people in some countries will do so, and some countries will do so. A country as rich as the USA can manage it even if we dawdle around another generation before getting well started, assuming good luck and good leadership.
If I were to win a big lottery, I would give any younger poor man or woman a couple of thousand bucks, plus pay the costs of sterilization, for undergoing the procedure.
It wouldn’t take long at all to give away a billion bucks this way unless I’m mistaken, lol.
Don’t forget to ask your favorite rock, mountain, bear, snake or sky daddy or mommy, on a regular basis, for help in the form of a never ending series of Pearl Harbor Wake UP Events.
Such events are our best and maybe our only real hope of awakening the people of the world to the absolute necessity of taking overshoot proactively on the grand scale before it’s too late.
“Pearl Harbor Wake UP Events”
I thought that was a great phrase. To me it means a relatively small but very scary event. I suspect most people think the attack on Pearl Harbor was an immense disaster when in fact, as Isoruku Yamamoto said, all it did was “Awake a sleeping giant and fill him with terrible resolve” and that’s exactly what we need. True but unfortunate that we will need a series of them.
I was in town all day on Friday while my dog was getting surgery. These are not big cities, each about 40K (Campbell River and Courtenay BC). I was astounded at the traffic and how it has grown as I had moved away 20 years ago when both places were 1/2 as big. Astounded. In fact the traffic was so bad I bailed on a few errands to avoid it. But the reason why I shook my head was that our Govt mandate states that all new cars sold by 2030 will be EV. I looked, but did not see one EV. I saw a few hybrids. 9 years is supposed to see enough growth in charging stations to supply all the new demand. 9 years is supposed to see all new car buyers on board with electric? Not likely, and we have surplus electricity here with every scrap of it renewable. All is Hydro. There are one or two charging stations in each city….City Hall and at the local tourist info centre. There are three chargers at a rest stop south of Courtenay suitable for the 1/2 hour charge because you can take a nice walk and take a leak. The other chargers don’t even have restrooms. So, everyone else is going to have home charging stations? I’ll tell you right now, ain’t going to happen. There will be an increase in EV usage, no doubt. But Govt mandates? You can’t even get everyone to agree on a vaccine for Covid and that’s a no brainer, even in a Province pushing 90% fully vaccinated.
Back to Global climate change effects. Down Island just suffered a two day pummeling, 6-8 inches of rain in 2 days…flooding, road washouts. It happens, it makes the news , but is not unusual. Almost 50 years ago, on New Years Eve, I remember motoring around a subdivision in Duncan in my 12′ tinny. People were drinking on their front steps and I called out, “High tide is at midnight, better think about leaving. Do you want a ride”? No one jumped in and the next day I saw water 1/2 up their living room walls. Nothing like Houston, or just about anywhere else, but terrible all the same. So maybe the latest flooding event will spark an appreciation for the need to change, but I doubt it, doubt it, doubt it. Just a note, if I lived in town I would probably have an EV with a home charging station. If I move to town, I would have one, but then again I’m retired and don’t need to go anywhere and my electrician son can install everything for me at cost. My electrician buddy drives a big diesel PU to haul a trailer, and just bought a new ICE Nissan car of some sort. And he’s a tech guru convinced new batteries are ‘almost here’.
Anyway, we are just 70 miles from the big rain event. Hardly got any, and I live on a scary river when it floods. Lucky break.
My guess is that all these government mandates on EV’s will mostly be ‘leading’ from behind.
The majority of vehicle purchases will have a plug, regardless of mandate, around 2030.
Sure a minority will want to be forced to change and it may be a significant advantage for some to stick with ICE- especially those who live more rural and travel long distance routinely, and happen to live in an oil producing state.
But for most, it will make perfect sense to have a plug vehicle
on simple economic grounds. Voluntarily.
The transport landscape is on the verge of huge change, even if people haven’t seen it up close and personal yet.
I do expect plenty of ICE purchases this decade, but the shift is gaining steam- especially in oil importing countries.
We got lucky on deluge as well- just 2.2 inches
while 7.4″ on the mountain just 21 miles away.
The rivers have become like a stampede of a thousand horses.
For anyone who drives less than 50 miles daily, a regular 120V outlet is all you need to charge an EV. We have 3 EV’s at my house now, and to avoid demand load charges we never charge concurrently. The Tesla charges at night, and the other two of us share daytime hours; all on 120V. Works fine for us.
to avoid demand load charges
I’ve only seen that terminology in industrial/commercial settings. Are you on an I/C meter? Or is this just a time-of-day rate with a residential meter?
My house has four apartments, and I’m on a commercial meter. My power cost is unbelievably cheap at $0.055/kWh (for green power!), but I pay $8/kW for demand load up to 5kW, and then $15/kW above that, so charging a Tesla at 240V 50A would be a big hit — up to $170/month — just for plugging in.
If anyone can recommend a good smart meter/panel product that is capable of prioritized load shedding, I’d love to hear about it. For example, I’d love to be able to alternate A/C loads, and drop them temporarily when ranges, microwaves, or clothes dryers are in use.
This BC govt document says there are 10,376 ZEV’s on “Vancouver Island & Coast”. (pg 14).
(54K province-wide at end of 2020).
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/electricity-alternative-energy/transportation/zev_2020_annualreport_march2021_v5.pdf
Is “& Coast” coast of mainland, like Powell River?
Also, the 100% ZEV target for B.C. is for 2040. Did that change?
Just 2 Tesla Superchargers on the Island for now, but a bunch of “destination chargers”.
I always get a kick out of seeing them at wineries (seems like a hella good idea – err, maybe not so much until full self driving gets here).
But Vancouver Island has not one but two up there between Campbell River and Courtenay at distilleries!
https://www.tesla.com/findus?v=2&bounds=51.19481282872102%2C-121.36724646484375%2C48.094566426600394%2C-128.60174353515623&zoom=8&filters=supercharger%2Cdestination%20charger
Good on you for offering rides during the flood.
There’s quite a big range up there:
https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Duncan-Bay-British-Columbia/tides/latest
I’ve only been places like Key West or South Texas, where one had to worry about (gasp!) a foot and a half or two foot tidal variation (not 10 feet or more).
I second Bob – unless one lives in an apartment with no power at the parking spot, or one drives a lot on a daily basis, just plug in with the portable “charger” unit to a standard household outlet. Though Superchargers are really great when traveling long distances.
New from Tom Murphy.
“Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: Developing a PLAN for the future.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629621003327
An encompassing and engaging overview of the human predicament, and a call to action.
Niko…thanks very much for the link to the article. Outstanding. He lays out the situation just as it is.
And his proposal is perfectly logical.
I suspect that any follow up findings or proposals that may come of it, or other such efforts, will be unpalatable to almost all of the 8 billion. Unfortunately.
But it is worth the effort, if anything is.
Can you imagine a human culture where a person values the reward of respect from crowd earned by their voluntary acts of downsizing (refraining from having children or giving up meat eating and leisure travel for example), more than they value the prosperity they may gather through economic growth activities?
I can…but only among a very very small percent of humanity.
With humanity- economic contraction and population contraction will be forced by conditions. Not voluntary based on understanding and a sense of the common good.
Hickory,
I share your view that meaningful action is exceedingly unlikely. What I love about Murphy’s paper is how clearly, comprehensively, and succinctly he outlines our predicament. I also respect those working to try and change humanity’s trajectory, despite my low opinion of their chances.
Indeed.
“Can you imagine a human culture where a person values the reward of respect from crowd earned by their voluntary acts of downsizing (refraining from having children or giving up meat eating and leisure travel for example), more than they value the prosperity they may gather through economic growth activities?”
That sounds like the kind of human culture you would find living in hell.
I, too, have always believed that heaven sounds like a shit hole.
I dunno, smaller and smaller mobile phones were quite an attraction. And switching from bulky CRT screens to flat screens was popular too.
The same goes for speakers. Decent sounding speakers were huge in the 70s. Now they are tiny, and people love them.
In the more than thirty years I have been involved in the computer industry, consumers have always preferred smaller devices over larger ones.
John Parole proves the point.
Downsizing will be forced by hard constraints.
Not a conscious or voluntary act.
Coming from a small island in the tropics, i don’t see the idea of less is better having much of a chance. I count myself among a very small proportion of the population that favors conservation of the environment and reducing CO2 emissions etc. From what I see around me every day, conspicuous consumption is still highly sought after.
Construction of multi-story residential complexes is still booming and every vacant lot or old house is in danger of being turned into such a building. Regular cars are OK for regular people but, if you want to set yourself apart from the regular folk, your mode of transportation better have a German badge on it (Mercedes, BMW or Porsche). I know a guy who used to drive a Toyota Crown Hybrid and even though he said it was the nicest car he had ever driven, his dream was to own a Mercedes. He now owns a Mercedes.
Lots of blah, blah, blah about solar and EVs but not an awful lot of action as evidenced from the following article;
Vaz bats for electric powered vehicles
I’ve heard that before. Three years ago I placed a deposit on a used (5 yo) Japanese electric van with the hope that by the time I was ready to pay the balance and collect it they would have reduced the duties. They did not and other circumstances derailed that purchase so somebody else got the vehicle. I’m still waiting for this reduction in duties but, at this time it seems a bit like a moving target.
in the meantime there are two major highway projects under construction, one heading east out of the capital city and the other an extension of an existing 44 km (27 mile) toll highway that will continue for a further 30 km (19 miles) or so and cut the travel times for that section by half. Got to make more roads for the ever increasing amount of cars, the overwhelming majority of which will need petroleum based fuels!
Crime is a major problem with way too many people going after far too few opportunities for earning a living. Not helping that situation is the story of two young ladies I know, one has had two kids since 2014 and another three. They were both not permanently employed at the time of their first pregnancy. The one with two kids has sent the first child off to his father in Canada and appears to be pulling herself together. The other had her third child two or three months ago and there is no sight of any father that I am aware of. On that cheerful note, I’m off to go earn a living.
Don’t worry, fellow peakoilers, catastrophists, and doomers. Your fears are all just religion:
Apocalypse Never.
Because it’s always about framing things in archaic christian eschatological terms, isn’t it?
Cue the Flagellants
This guy (Shellenberger) is a nuclear advocate, who’s willing to say a lot of dishonest things about the opponents of nuclear power .
The primary problem with nuclear power is it’s link with weapons: that’s something that nuclear advocates really don’t acknowledge. Unfortunately “greens” don’t really discuss that thoroughly either, but I think that’s really the underlying problem that makes environmentalists dislike nuclear.
And nuclear weapons are still an existential threat to humanity, even if it’s not discussed that much these days…
“[nuclear weapon].. that’s really the underlying problem that makes environmentalists dislike nuclear.”
No. Its radiation.
Whether in bomb form, in waste form, during meltdown, or in the form of leaked materials during plant operation, transportation or storage.
Hmmm. That could be, I suppose, but it seems irrational to me. We’re surrounded by radiation, and the amount that has come, is likely to come or even the amount that might come from a major accident is much smaller. Heck, coal plants are likely to produce much more ambient radiation than nuclear plants.
No, I think that European Greens are heavily influenced by the fact that they were the battleground that the US and Russia would have fought on, with a variety of tactical nukes:
“The total number of nuclear weapons based in Europe reached an all-time peak of 7,300 during the height of Cold War tensions in 1971. ”
https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-u-s-nuclear-weapons-in-europe/
Not interested in your speculations.
Well, I think I wrote badly.
Personally, I find the link between nuclear power and weapons to be the most troubling aspect of nuclear power. Weapons proliferation to relatively small and less developed countries seems very risky.
Of course, nuclear is also very slow to build, and more expensive than renewables.
There is already now enough nuclear overkill capacity (a nice word from the 80s).
So building more atomic plants changes absolute – nothing.
And everyone eager enough to get nukes can so so – it costs a few billions, but can be done without any input. So banning nuclear power because of nukes is not really helpful.
And when choosing the thorium cycle it would help in this case – the intermediate uranium in this cycle is very radioactive and no easy to handle bomb stuff. That’s why thorium was left behind in the 50s – no good stuff.
The level of delusion on display here is awe-inspiring. Shellenberger’s argument is essentially that everything is getting better, there are no threats to the biosphere, Earth can healthily support this level of population and consumption, global warming is no big deal, and anyone who disagrees is a religious nutjob. Amazing.
It’s a stark contrast to the conclusions conveyed in the Tom Murphy paper I linked one comment prior to yours. Note the differences: Shellenberger is simply stating the opinion that everything is fine and backing it up only by saying “if you disagree you’re crazy”, while Murphy’s opinion is backed up by piles scientific evidence and rigorous reasoning.
Interesting also that Shellenberger referenced Vaclav Smil. Smil is a massive proponent of accepting limits and understanding that our civilization is not currently sustainable.
I did notice the irony of posting the link after Murphy paper!
Shellenberger is a troll who invests all is energy in spreading bad-faith arguments. Everything he says is either a red herring, a direct lie or a wild distortion. He pretends to be an environmentalist, but doesn’t actually care. He mostly pretends to be pro-nuke, but spends most of his energy attacking renewables, not seriously promoting nuclear energy.
The less time spent thinking about him the better. This kind of troll doesn’t even try to “win” arguments in the traditional sense, just to muddy the waters and distract people from what is going on in the world.
Concern Troll:
“A concern troll is a false-flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll
Shellenberger has been unfortunately rather more vocal lately with the COP26 and natural gas and coal price spikes filling his sails. Man is an idiot and a shill (Shillenberger?). I think the book he did and the TED talks indicate someone who is rather dishonest or just an idiot.
I tried to match the Volvo XC40 ICE and EV carbon emission numbers using figures from the 2021 BP Statistical Review. I used the primary energy sources and total CO2 emissions for North America, Europe etc. to give the carbon intensity for each fuel, which fitted quite well, and then applied those numbers to the electricity generation fuel sources.
From BP the ratio of global generation to Europe is 185%, but the Volvo ratio is only 150%, which is more like the ratio between Europe and North America from BP. With the BP numbers the EV would have a larger CO2 lifetime emissions than the ICE if power came from the global generator mix (dashed green line). The carbonfootprint.com site has electricity generation carbon emissions by country for June 2019 and overall the differences between Europe and globally look closer to those calculated from the BP figures than those given by Volvo. It may be that Volvo is counting “global” as only that part in which it markets its vehicles.
Asia has worse emissions than the global average, using the BP Asia numbers and pro-ratioing them against the Volvo global average (solid red line) or against the BP numbers (dashed red line) each show that emissions over the life are worse than the ICE version.
About 25% of renewables in Europe come from wood pellets that are counted as carbon neutral. The net zero emissions are heavily backloaded, like much in the net zero by 2050 and assume the released CO2 is extracted as the forests grow back. Some studies indicate the initial release is 50% worse than coal and that the extraction can take as long as 50 years if hard wood pellets are used compared to 12 for soft woods. It is difficult to find what mix is used but sources from southeastern USA seem to include a lot of hardwood. The dashed blue line shows the short-term emissions impact.
Overall it is all a bit underwhelming. The most hyped sector supposed to save us from emissions, light vehicles, contribute only 10% to global emissions, at best only about half of these will give any saving and they would average a net saving of 30 to 50% – i.e. a maximum 1.5 to 2.5% of the total when we are supposed to be reducing by 5% per year (unless you are a “net zero by 2050” supporter in which case we just keep growing until some time in the 40s).
If a new battery is needed through the life cycle things get worse, but I guess these instances would be negated by longer lasting vehicles, especially if with the same battery.
George-
Here is a study that does a much more comprehensive and in-depth study of the subject- and it comes up with pretty dramatic emission improvements with EV over ICE. See for yourself-
“This wide-ranging life-cycle assessment (LCA) examines the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of passenger cars, including SUVs. Performed separately and in depth for Europe, the United States, China, and India, the analysis captures the differences among those markets, which are home to about 70% of global new passenger car sales. It considers present and projected future GHG emissions attributable to every stage in the life cycles of both vehicles and fuels, from extracting and processing raw materials through refining and manufacture to operation and eventual recycling or disposal.”
Result summary for US and Europe-
“emissions over the lifetime of average medium-size BEVs registered today are already lower than comparable gasoline cars by 66%–69% in Europe, 60%–68% in the United States…,”
https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021
Emissions associated with electric vehicles will probably decline by half within twenty years as we add more wind and solar capacity to the grid.
There will be a nice HAPPY positive feedback effect. EV’s will suck up off peak wind and solar juice, charging up cheap, and this off peak market will boost the wind and solar industries.
Well put.
And lets not forget the other huge reason to switch to electric vehicles-
Oil Depletion.
and the concentration of oil supply in the hands of just a few countries,
and the concentration of oil wealth in the hands of just a tiny fraction of the worlds population.
Well put.
And don’t forget the result of such concentration of oil supply in a few countries: oil wars, with costs of trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and uncountable emotional trauma and physical disability.
The gulf wars were widely understood to be oil wars. Here’s a cover from Businessweek:
Spotlight on German auto purchases 1st 10 months of this year-
cars with plugs comprised 24% of the total sales, which was up from 10% the year before.
The number one plugin vehicle in October was the Renault Zoe. A small vehicle with 130 mile range.
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/renault/zoe-ev/
Nothing particularly unique about this vehicle, yet it highlights a sector of the vehicle market that is racking up big sales in Europe and China. For daily commuting the costs are affordable to a big chunk of the worlds working people. No gas tank. Small battery.
Charging with a standard home 120v outlet will give about 40 miles charge in 10 hrs.
minor nit – European home outlets are typically 230 volts, 50 Hz.
The typical outlet is rated for 16 amps.
Or did you already do a conversion?
From the carmagazine.co.uk article “30 hours … 250 mile drive.” comment, that gives 8.33 miles-of-range/hr-of-charging, or 1.733 kWh-into-battery/hr-of-charging. 40 miles range would only be (just under) 5 hours.
Half the voltage (roughly) would double the charging time.
Otherwise – yes, it’s amazing the rapid penetration of EVs in Europe.
More from insideevs on this:
France: Plug-In Market Share Reaches 22.9% In October 2021
https://insideevs.com/news/547155/france-plugin-car-sales-october2021/
Netherlands: Plug-In Car Share Expands To 35% In October 2021
https://insideevs.com/news/547556/netherlands-plugin-cars-sales-october2021/
Norway: Plug-In Car Sales Improved A Bit In October 2021
The market share remains ultra-high at 70% BEVs and 19% PHEVs.
https://insideevs.com/news/545467/norway-plugin-car-sales-ctober2021/
Here in the U.S. – I found the juxtaposition of these two articles amusing:
US: Tesla Sold More Cars Than Mercedes-Benz Through September
Lexus and BMW are not far away, so Tesla might soon be the #1 premium brand by volume.
https://insideevs.com/news/546719/us-tesla-sells-more-mercedes/
Cadillac Losing 30% Of US Dealerships By Going All-In On EVs
GM’s luxury brand will enter 2022 with 560 dealerships, down from 875 at the beginning of 2021.
https://insideevs.com/news/546467/cadillac-losing-30percent-us-dealerships/
Though it turns out the ex Cadillac dealers were mostly low volume dealers.
Crikey – I’m glad I already have my Tesla!
US: Base Tesla Model Y Estimated Delivery Time Slips To September
[That’s September 2022].
https://insideevs.com/news/544416/us-tesla-modely-estimated-delivery/
Thanks for the correction on the European electrical system. Improved charging times is the result, as you pointed out.
The new models coming to market in the next two years will be a dramatic shift to the landscape.
I believe there’s a substantial but so far untapped market for short range EV’s.
But so far nobody is making any real effort to build or sell them here.
That’s going to change once most of us have had enough experience with electric cars to get comfortable with them.
I know half a dozen people these days who have bought a new cheap small car such as a Kia which they drive quite a lot because it’s easy on gas, and easy to maintain…… allowing them to leave their four by four pickup truck or full size Buick sitting in the driveway.
These tend to be the kind of people who will keep that pickup or Buick for years and years…… so they see the little car as a way to delay wearing out their bigger vehicles.
In a lot of cases the little car will allow them to keep their existing big trucks and cars until they’re done driving at all.
Prosperous working people who want to make their money go a long way will buy short range electric cars imo once they have the opportunity to do so. A hundred mile range is enough for more than ninety percent of all commuters.
This means the existing Camry or Impala will last them for an additional decade or longer before it’s giving problems due to high mileage.
A hundred and fifty mile range is enough for almost any small business such as a drug store or auto parts store that delivers within a limited distance while staying open eight or ten hours a day.
There is a mismatch between how people think they use their cars and how they actually use them. I have been keeping track of my use and on a “normal” day I drive around 12 miles. 2x this year did I make a trip of more than 100m each way. My guess is that my numbers may be slightly below average but not a whole lot. I have an EV and charge it (at home) perhaps once a week.
Whether or not an EV works for somebody is really a use case question but it is hard to get people to be honest about that.
That is one reason why fleets are likely to be the biggest market in the short term. The other reason is that fleet managers are more likely to be able to calculate total lifetime costs than private buyers. So the Hertz thing isn’t so surprising.
OFM,
It is just such a huge task to replace the 1.6 billion vehicles with ICE globally. I tried to do a bottom up analysis and came to at least that number currently. As of this year electrical vehicles are going to sell 7 million units as an estimate. It would be likely that the number can be doubled before nickel and lithium shortages becomes too costly. Increasing the share of Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries helps, and then lithium becomes the limiting factor. Still this battery type can take 25% of the market. I do think that the solution to get to 200-300 million electric cars globally is less battery size, smaller cars and for convenience better charging speed. Something like the Dacia Spring no frills and cheap car, can reduce the resource use on one car to 1/3, just steel, cheap plastic and a battery really. I believe that is what we will see the next decade if we are in a resource squeeze.
And that is just light transportation; heavy transportation requires different solutions. It is difficult to beat the diesel engine for high hp work. Potentially at least 20 ton trucks can be electrified, and it puts a strain on electricity that can not be accommodated everywhere. The heavy transportation takes at least as much energy as light transportation. In Norway though, we are going to try to electrify everything. And also get 1000 hydrogen trucks on the road by 2030. Let’s see how it goes. Projected use in 2030 on electrified transportation is around 15-17 twh a year on a 5.4 million population.
It may seem like a huge task, but so was replacing land lines with mobile phones. Funny how nobody saw that as a burden at the time. instead, it was seen as an opportunity.
The same thing is true of replacing typewriters with word processing. It was a huge shift, and it was mostly viewed in terms of modernization and business opportunity.
OFM —
It looks like Dacia (known for low end cars) is already selling a low range car in Europe.
Here’s a slightly goofy review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vZWMcINhlw&ab_channel=FullyChargedShow
The average USA car fleet mpg is 24.9 and the average car mileage driven is 13,500 miles.
The average cost of gasoline is $3.41
So, in the US a car uses 542 g/yr gasoline and the driver spends $1,848/yr on fuel!, on average.
Imagine you could guarantee that there would be no petrol price inflation over the next 10 years-
the driver would spend $18,480 on gas.
For an equivalent EV you would need about 4000 kwh electricity to travel the same 13,500 miles/yr
[assuming 3.5 miles/kWh]- https://ecocostsavings.com/average-electric-car-kwh-per-mile/
At the national average electric rate of 11cents/kWh you are talking about $440/yr ‘fuel’ bill.
Or, you go a step further towards independence in transportation cost and security-
In almost all of the 50 states the 10 yr amount that the average driver will spend on petrol could purchase and install a 6kW solar system with a couple thousand dollars left to spare (for a home battery?)
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/solar-energy/how-much-do-solar-panels-cost.html
” A 6kW solar system will produce between 400-900 kWh of electricity/yr, depending on sun exposure. The average cost of installing a 6kW solar system is $15,600 but varies by state”- 2018
So spread over 10 years you could pay for the whole solar PV system with money you avoided spending on petrol, and have another 20-30 years of paid-in-full electricity.
At some point most people will come to understand these basic facts.
And they will want to fund their own power station rather than to Exxon or the other oil multinationals.
Sadly, I think the average US car fleet MPG is lower than that, based on the last year of non-pandemic-recession data: 2019. Per the FHWA, Vehicle miles travelled were 3.27T. Per the EIA, gallons of gasoline were about 146M. That gives about 22.4 MPG.
That improves the cost effectiveness of EVs by roughly 10%.
I don’t know how you manage this – are you all driving pickup truck?
I had a gas car 5 years ago – a Ford Focus, but with the european engine. It was 36 Mpg in the long run, and I’m not driving that slow (going 100 mph on the Autobahn when it’s free).
My current Diesel does 47 mpg.
An electric car won’t save much here since I don’t own a home with own solar. Electricity is 32 cents / Kwh at the home tap – and much more at super chargers if you don’t own a Tesla.
Do you have time-of-day electricity rates? They’re required of all utilities in the US, and allow you to charge cheaply in the middle of the night (or, in theory, in the middle of the day if your utility has a lot of solar).
No, it’s a fixed price rate – normally fix for the next year.
This also includes the current price chaos has to be swallowed by the utilities – they can increase prices only in the next year. There are some non fixed, but they are normally only small margins cheaper.
Since some years you are allowed to consume electricity from your solar roof by yourself and be connected by the grid. This is attractive to E car owners – at least in the sunny half of the year.
Nick, time of day rates not a uniform requirement in the states.
I had the option in N Calif.
It is not an option in WA state.
I believe that the utility in WA state offers it, or is breaking the law: i believe that the Federal 2005 Energy Act requires it of all utilities (I’ve seen it from a small rural electric co-operative). On the other hand, many of them do nothing to let their customers know about the option ( I had to look hard at the co-op’s offerings). So the question would be, did you happen to take a deep dive into the utility’s rate offerings?
Sadly, it seems like passive resistance. It seems like some utilities want to innovate (like CA), and some want to do the minimum. Hawaii is an interesting example: HECO did the absolute minimum for years, causing pollution and consumer rates to be unnecessarily high. Now they’re innovating, after much pressure…
You might ‘believe’, but
As of 2019-
“About half of U.S. investor-owned utilities have optional time varying rates for residential customers,” … New programs are being tested or talked about in at least ten states, but at present only 1.7% of all residential customers have chosen to use them.”
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/an-emerging-push-for-time-of-use-rates-sparks-new-debates-about-customer-an/545009/
Anyway, time of use billing plans are a good idea and will be adopted much more widely as time goes on. In Calif I would only charge up the EV at night when the rates were very cheap, and our PV array would feed the grid during the day when electrical demand [and rates] was high.
Hickory,
When someone says they “believe” something to be true, they’re signaling that they are not 100% sure. This is a good thing: it helps when people indicate their level of confidence in the information they’re presenting. So…don’t scoff at it.
Any way, I’m still pretty sure that the Energy Act of 2005 does indeed mandate the availability of time-based rates. I think that the article you found discussed “default” rates, not optional rate availability (though I agree that the article wasn’t clear on this).
So, here’s a citation:
“SEC. 1252. SMART METERING.
(14) TIME-BASED METERING AND COMMUNICATIONS.—(A)
Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this paragraph, each electric utility shall offer each of its customer
classes, and provide individual customers upon customer request, a time-based rate schedule under which the rate charged by the electric utility varies during different time periods and reflects the variance, if any, in the utility’s costs of generating and purchasing electricity at the wholesale level.
The time-based rate schedule shall enable the electric consumer to manage energy use and cost through advanced metering and communications technology.”
119 STAT. 964 PUBLIC LAW 109–58—AUG. 8, 2005
https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ58/PLAW-109publ58.pdf
Yara to start operating the world’s first battery-electric container ship, prepared for autonomous operation
Yara Birkeland (earlier post)—the world’s first battery- electric container ship, prepared for autonomous operation—has departed for its maiden voyage in the Oslo fjord. The autonomous ship will sail within 12 nautical miles from the coast, between 3 ports in southern Norway.
We are proud to be able to showcase the world’s first fully electric and self-propelled container ship. It will cut 1,000 tonnes of CO2 and replace 40,000 trips by diesel-powered trucks a year.
The 120 TEU Yara Birkeland was developed in collaboration with the Kongsberg Group. The ship was built by VARD with financial support from Enova, and will be in commercial operation from 2022.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211120-yara.html
Addendum:
“There are no storages beside a few pumped hydro from the 80s, and there are even no big plans to build some. ”
These few storages are sufficient to cover 60% (!) of the energy demand in a green scenario according to studies of the VDE, which is not a green organisation.
“The Swiss or Austria won’t flood their valleys with pumped hydro for us – we could do this perfect on ourselfes.”
That is a strawman. Sweden and Norway have more than 120 TWh hydro reservoirs, a first step is simply to build HV transmission lines to Scandinavia.
“Battery mass storage is kind of science fiction”
Again a strawman. Batteries do not solve the long term storage issue, however other approches do.
Why don’t you check studies of Fraunhofer groups? Check academic studies and projects on LOHCs….
You argue like somebody who has not really followed the science in this field for 5 to 10 years.
Reality check for your 1st entry:
For a typical summer night of 10 hours of low or 0 solar, you need round about 500 Gwh. Wind is mostly low then, let’s say 400 Gwh left. What do the few pumped storages can do there? They have a combined power of a maximum of 6 Gw – as long they have water ( 37 GwH capacity when they are all full ). This is 60%, for this simple scenarion that happens 50 times in summer?
“simply to build HV transmission lines to Scandinavia.”
You want to build HV transmissions capable of 50 GW to Norway, and they should sacrify all their hydro for Germany? And their current capacity is enough for themselves, not a ten time bigger industry country.
Remember, in Sweden this summer hydro was empty and electricity prices soared to record hights. They restarted an old oil burner from the 60s, guzzling 40kbd oil.
And how much billion tons of concrete and steel does it cost to develop this 120 Twh hydro reserve? Is this in some kind enviromental friendly?
Doing all this wind and solar storage with hydro reminds me of the gigantomanic plans of the former Sowjet Union.
yes, the science wants to get the money at the moment, every one is in wind and solar – I have some wind stock, too.
But I don’t see anything solving wind and solar problem – all things started now are small projects. The cable to Norway I would describe as a nice try.
And you’ll need even a lot more electric energy in the future – not only electric cars, but trucks and busses (or rail). And heat pump heating everywhere. And converting steel, Aluminium, concrete, common process energy production to green – this means even more electricity.
I know the current scenarios think of reduced consumption in the future so storage doesn’t need to be so big. But I don’t think so.
Just play around the the data:
https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=45
Ah, and the good places for wind energy are already taken – there is a limit how many you can build. Wind shadow of wind farms extends up to 50 km, setting a soft limit how many farms you can build (and how much they harvest in not so good situations):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0281-2
So overbuilding to a huge margin dosn’t really help, besides costing a lot of money and raw materials. Setting a turbine on every hill only creates – less wind.
And sorry – LOHC technology in big, really big IS science fiction at the moment. It’s stored in liquid created from oil. And to store hydrogen for a winter, you’ll need lots of this carrier liquid. Lot’s as more than the strategic petroleum reserve. So a new source of oil demand…
At the moment they are still at project and university example status. For example, you need to build factories of the size of reffineries to create all this liquid to build a really big storage able to replace the northern nat gas storage caverns.
You see this problems with the rollout of electric cars. More than 10 years already – and everything of it was ramp up time for battery building.
“You want to build HV transmissions capable of 50 GW to Norway, and they should sacrify all their hydro for Germany? And their current capacity is enough for themselves, not a ten time bigger industry country.”
Yes, want to build at least 20 GW transmission capacity to Scandinavia, try to understand why at least 20 GW. And keep in mind, the current projects are often Scandinavian. 🙂
I want also batteries for overnight storage, because PV with 200 loading cycles leads to good economy of short term storage with batteries.
“Doing all this wind and solar storage with hydro reminds me of the gigantomanic plans of the former Sowjet Union.”
Again a strawman. Nowhere I claim we have to use only hydro. Fore short term storage batteries may also work and chemical storage is useful for medium or long term storage.
Again, do your homework first and read Fraunhofer studies on this topic. Your argument would already not have survived 5 years ago in a serious discusssion.
“Ah, and the good places for wind energy are already taken”
That is BS. Serious studies come to 200 GW onshore wind power with 10 H distance. All this with nice FLH. You use your ignorance as yard stick. That is weak in a serious discussion.
“And sorry – LOHC technology in big, really big IS science fiction at the moment.”
It is not, but maybe as chemist I have a different perspective.
My scenario for Germany:
80 GW offshore wind (-> 350 TWh/a)
150 GW onshore wind (-> 450 TWh/a)
300 GW PV (->400 GWh/a)
-> This means around 1100 TWh/a from German territory.
In addition, we should build generation capacity and import electricity in/from MENA.
You really like insulting.
A new development for fusion energy.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major-advance-toward-fusion-energy-0908
They created a high temperature magnet capable of delivering the needed magnetic field for fusion. This magnet is strong enough, and much cheaper than the low temperatur magnet used in ITER. And additional it created a 20 Tesla field – ITER has round about 13 Tesla.
Now all parts are in place – it has to be finalized now and then the rollout can start. As in all industrial products, prices will come down with serial production.
New post up by George Kaplan
https://peakoilbarrel.com/gom-reserve-revisions-for-2019/
and open thread
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-november-23-2021/