Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“Men argue; nature acts.”
—Voltaire
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
"unless we have a generally available mechanism for turning electricity into vehicular motion (and I don't think current BEVs need apply) the whole discussion is moot."
The latest generation of li-ion batteries really do fill the bill. A123systems and Altair have much greater cycle life than conventional li-ion, thus dramatically reducing lifecycle costs.
GM indicates they are satisfied with the specs for the 2 batteries they're considering for the Chevy Volt (A123systems and Saft), and are just waiting for the engineering of large battery packs suitable for vehicles.
The only limitation right now is cost - PHEV's/BEV's can't compete at the moment with very cheap gasoline (heck, BEV's preceded ICE's, but haven't been able to compete for the same reason). That will change in the next 3 years with the Volt, and other PHEV's. Of course, it could change even faster, if gas prices rise...
What is the penetration of A123systems-driven BEVs going to be like in Africa, Asia and South America? What's the global fleet change-over time? What about cost of retraining mechanics world-wide? How much will a 20% penetration of BEVs in these regions over the next 25 years help the global problem? This problem doesn't stop at the shores of the United States.
As I say in my Musings on Peak Oil Mitigation I look on BEVs strictly as a near-term technology that will promote a softer entry into the coming depletion phase. The way I see things unfolding, if we roll into a medium term characterized by localization, the technology requirements of such devices will be too great to maintain.
By all means we should develop them. Just don't be surprised if they have less impact on the situation than some are hoping.
Electrics are much simpler, and easier to maintain than ICE's. Their lifecycle cost is going to be less than ICE's.
If you think our ability to maintain complex systems will decline, electrics are just the ticket.
I'm thinking more about our ability to produce batteries that depend on nano-technology.
Nanotech in this case is a bit of a misnomer.
Originally it referred to very complex, very small scale systems, like tiny robots. Here it really refers to very tiny particles, or materials with very altered characteristics at a very small scale due to an understanding of material dynamics at that scale.
I don't think manufacturing it is all that much harder than conventional batteries.
Of course, if you think we won't be able to maintain central large manufacturing facilities due to catastrophic economic collapse, all bets are off. I think that depends on the assumption of catastrophically fast depletion combined with a lack of substitutes for oil. I don't see either being the case.
Oh, I have no question that oil consumption will look like that chart. I just see no reason why it has to cause economic collapse.
Peak oil does not equal peak fossil fuels - coal will be with us for a long time, and it will be used if it's needed to prevent economic collapse. Peak FF does not equal peak energy - renewables and nuclear will do just fine. For that matter, peak energy wouldn't equal peak economic growth - the US could easily function with 10% of our current energy. Heck, replacing heat engines (with renewables for electrical generation and electric motors for transportation) would reduce our energy consumption by 2/3, with no loss of functionality).
Given the sun pumps out 10^26 watts, peak energy is a good deal beyond the scope of reasonable conversation.
I agree that solar/wind can supply all the energy we need, i.e. it is technically possible. However, getting to that situation without accidents under the way is what most people here think the problem is, and it is caused not by technical difficulties but by the peculiarities of the human social behaviour.
Exactly. Can Be is different than Will Be.
As a test, go to Walmart parking(or any mall) lot for a half hour, Look at the people close and consider how easy/hard it would be for them to change radically their lifestyle. Go and convince them that Economies of growth may be a thing of the past for quite a while.
Tell them that their may not be NASCAR in 5-10 years.
Tell them to meditate on "Less is More" for a while.
Or (with GW thrown in) tell them to watch Grapes of Wrath.
Peace
John
this one is for SIX
In using the calculator on the numbers put forward in this ‘CUBIC MILE ‘- thread, you’ll see some ridiculous numbers/sizes coming up - after those 50 years of compensation (for dwindling oil , as I understand it all).
As for windmills the numbers comes to 1,8 millions of them – and at a rotor-diameter set to 100m and equator at 40.000 km – the line of wind turbines will, put ‘shoulder-by-shoulder’, circumference equator 4,5 times OR more or less cover all coastlines of this planet ……. Still possible??
AND as for the insane number of the 2,1kW solar arrays (demanding ca 30m2 pr unit) – you need a jam-packed area of more than half of that of the UK – or alternatively the area of the Czech + Slovakian Republics …. Still possible????
Both of these energy converting systems are subjects for replacements and maintenance – and PV’s are prone to be depleted through 20/25 years, rendered dead and gone ….
I reckon these systems will yield much less than what ever we can imagine at our worst, reality are some times brutal (!)
Fifty times 32850 wind units is a bit over 1.6 million. If you arranged them in lines 300 meters crosswind and 1 km downwind, the entire complement would only require an area of 493,000 square kilometers (190,000 square miles). This is less than 3 times the area of North Dakota, for the entire world. (The land between the turbines can still serve for agriculture or forestry.)
50 times 91.25 million 2.1 kW solar units (which would require about 15 m2 each, not 30) would require 68437 km2 of area. If I recall correctly, the USA alone already has about twice this much area beneath impervious surfaces like roofs and pavement. The world as a whole could put this much PV on existing rooftops.
Last, today's PV panels are warranted for 25 years. They will probably produce at upwards of 60% of their rated power for 50 years. If the cells on Pioneer 6 can operate in the high-radiation environment of space for 35 years, cells on the ground which aren't mechanically damaged should do just fine.
You are failing to see my point Engineer Poet.
And you are correct for the Wind turbine numbers – I used the number 35850 – for some erroneous reason, so my number came out 10% wrong.
But I googled an 2,1 kw array saying 1 kw needed 10x15 feet , giving my number 30m2 some truth.
BUT my overall assessments to these energy-systems are the shear scale of it all – and my claim is that the cubic-mile of oil will never be substituted by these systems on a MToes basis.
Surely the spaces are readily available – that’s not the issue. THE issue is to understand the ‘simple task of pumping oil/refine it’ in COMPARISON to the ‘complexities to manufacture, maintain and substitute PV/Wturbines as per needs’ – on this grandiose scale.
Both systems are dependent on their limitations –
a) it must blow – and nominal yield is roughly 15m/s …. Think again
b) it must be day and the sun must shine …. Think again
You will never be able (in the future) to depend on such systems – but they will constitute an add-on effect which we surely must go for ….
You are arguing against scale (argument from incredulity), when today's petroleum systems have an even greater scale — thus questioning your argument ab initio.
The USA installed about 2.5 GW of wind power in 2005, up from about 400 MW installed in 2002. This is more than doubling every 2 years. Potential of the continental 48 states is about 1.2 TW average, the continental shelves about 0.9 TW average; at 0.3 capacity factor, the USA could carry on installation at 50 GW/year for several decades without reaching limits of the resource. Production scales relatively well. What's the show-stopper?
15 m/sec is well above the average design speed for a typical wind turbine. The ones I've seen are generating considerable power in 7 m/sec winds.
There is nothing intrinsically expensive about PV. Silicon isn't especially energy-intensive (unless you try making it into single crystals), and one advance like a long-lived dye-sensitized TiO2 cell would slash costs radically. Once PV comes down to a small multiple of the cost of conventional roofing or glazing materials, it will replace them. There is an enormous installed base of structures in the world, and those structures require fairly regular roof repairs or replacements.
I can depend on wind and PV producing a certain amount of energy every year, if not every hour; PV is well-matched to one major load (air conditioning). Technology like thermal storage, grid-interactive vehicles and biomass-powered fuel cells can provide the buffering capability to manage a lot more. Keep 20% nuclear and 15% hydro in the electric mix, and you're probably there — I'd have to do the numbers to be sure.
Your last argument is equivalent to claiming that because individual electric plants go off-line for minutes or weeks, I can't depend on the grid. Your logic is faulty.
If your primary energy source peaks, I can't see peak FF being far behind, if it is behind at all. "A long time" for coal, won't be as long as you think, especially if it starts to substitute for oil, at least not at the required quantities. Natural gas is already peaking, or close to peaking, in some major regions. No doubt the US could operate on 10% of current energy consumption but there will be severe hardships getting there, unless it's done over many decades.
Renewables also take resources and would take a very long time to ramp up to what is required. No doubt they'll do fine but I don't expect them to be able to allow the party to continue. And growth will trump any "solution" eventually.
Just because you think something can be done doesn't mean that it will be done, or will be done in time, or that the transitions will be anywhere near painless.
Let me address things out of order.
"Just because you think something can be done doesn't mean that it will be done, or will be done in time, or that the transitions will be anywhere near painless."
There's no question in my mind that we will go to alternatives. The process has started: wind is 1% of US electricity and is growing at 25% per year at least: that's a doubling period of 3 years, so in 15 years we could be at 20% wind easily. If all of the wind projects planned for the US in 2007 actually get built, wind capacity will double to 2%, in just 1 year. That's not likely, but it tells you something about the demand for wind, which is mostly being held back by the speed with which turbine manufacturing can ramp up. Solar is doubling every 2 years, and in 10 years will be where wind is now. The needed batteries are here, and will be on the road in 3 years (whether it's GM or an asian manufacturer).
OTOH, I'm not suggesting that the transition will be painless. As I've noted elsewhere, if depletion happens relatively fast (or if war expands in the Persian Gulf to the point of greatly disrupting oil supplies), and we haven't prepared better than we have so far, then the transition will be much more painful than necessary. The question is, how painful will it be?
My hope is that the campaign against global warming will accelerate preparations.
"Renewables also take resources"
No question. OTOH, they don't take significantly more than conventional energy. Excess costs will arise if we have to retire infrastructure before the end of it's normal lifetime, as appears necessary. That's difficult, but doable.
"I don't expect them to be able to allow the party to continue"
Why not? And why do you phrase in a way that suggests that our current way of life is vaguely immoral, and that we should return to an ebstemious, pure life of ascetism?
"growth will trump any "solution" eventually."
Not really. This is an outdated notion. Growth levels off. Population growth is doing so, and manufacturing is doing so in OECD countries. The difficult question is how to raise developing countries to the standard of living of the developed.
"If your primary energy source peaks, I can't see peak FF being far behind, if it is behind at all. "
Oil isn't our primary energy source: it only provides 40% of our energy. Imported oil only provides 24% of US energy (and yes, US oil is declining, but very slowly).
"I can't see peak FF being far behind, if it is behind at all. A long time" for coal, won't be as long as you think, especially if it starts to substitute for oil, at least not at the required quantities."
A long time for coal is 30 years. No one thinks coal will be used up earlier than that, even with the highest estimates of growth in consumption. That's all we need it for - alternatives will be in place long before then.
"Natural gas is already peaking, or close to peaking, in some major regions. "
No question, NG is going to be painful. OTOH, we don't import much now, some imports will be available (as LNG, and probably in the form of fertilizer), and it will be around for a while, even declining.
"No doubt the US could operate on 10% of current energy consumption but there will be severe hardships getting there, unless it's done over many decades."
We could convert to PHEV's for 75% of vehicle miles driven in 20 years with relatively little pain (3 years to PHEV sales, 7 years to convert most vehicles to PHEV, 10 years of sales). That would accomplish a large chunk of the reduction. Actually, it could be really good for the domestic car industry to do it that fast or faster: it would keep them solvent, if done in the right way.
Nick - maybe - maybe not ...
As I see it Peak-Oil and the add-on of Peak-Coal will coincide with peak-Fossils somewhere down the line – which in turn will coincide with peak-everything so to speak.
Now, philosophically speaking or rather physically speaking: ARE we NOT in the progress of putting the physical parameters for the atmosphere back to the stages where FOSSIL-FUELS where produced at the first stage (?) some 90 – 170 million years ago…
As we now deplete the fossil-fuels and put them back into circulation again (CO2, methane, etc) – over a few hundred years –
… and eventually if we did succeed 100% in doing this – we would reach the same temperatures (greenhouse-effect) as way back than when the oceans went green from algae(oil/gas) and the peat-swamps(coal) blossomed …
ARE we about to close some kind a circle here ????
In the US we have a lot of under-used vehicles in our inventory. We can replace 50% of vehicle miles driven in 5-6 years, easily.
Poorer countries that tend to wait for our used cars will have a harder time, no question.
One paper I found shows the 50% crossover at about 9.5 years (link), but under pressure from high fuel prices and/or legal changes it might be quite a bit less.
hmmmm. I don't see the 9.5 years. The data on page 15 suggest that 8 years of sales accounts for 49.0% of total VMT (cumulative total of %'s in 4th data column).
The same data indicates that the median life of CA vehicles is 16.6 years (total vehicle population divided by last year sales), while the same figure for the country as a whole is 12.4 years (210M divided by 17M). So, apparently California is not representative.
The same ratio (8 to 16.6) applied to the national figure of 12.4 gives 6.0 years.
I agree, that could be accelerated.
A neat editorial on why car manufactures seem so reluctant to use all these wizbang new battery technologies we see popping up.
He basically goes through and explains the wide range of operating conditions cars are used in. Then points out that these new batteries have yet to be proven in real world conditions, and until that happens big car makers can't afford to use them.
----------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind that these new battery technologies don't even claim to be usable in the entire range of real world operating conditions.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/page3/
--------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me we still have a long way to go before we can electrify transportation in any reasonable way. As one commenter in the first editorial said:
Necessity breeds invention. If we need battery powered vehicles because it simply is too expensive to fuel with gasoline, then we'll have them. They may have limitations compared to normal ICE vehicles and it simply will not matter. When the question changes from "which would you rather drive?", to "would you rather drive or not?" then the answer becomes very easy.
There are other solutions, of course, like increased public transportation. I think that is a very viable idea. But EVs will definitely play a part in the solution to our dwindling oil supplies, and all of the problems they'll face will fall by the wayside as time goes on.
betting that this will happen is like going out and buying a 500,000 dollar boat on the assumption just because you bought a lottery ticket you will win the lottery. it might happen but the chances are so remote and you only have one chance to win before the collectors start calling that it's just better not to take the chance.
more simply put modern(not counting bagdad batterys) battery's have been around for almost a hundred years and to expect a increase of efficiency larger then the it's history combined is asinine.
"to expect a increase of efficiency larger then the it's history combined is asinine."
Possibly, but the increase has already happened - check out Dewalt 36 volt tools.
Need a different kind of "efficiency" here: the high price of advanced batteries reflects (in part) embedded energy, and thus their price will RISE as energy prices rise. (They'll also fall as technology improves, those two effects will happen simultaneously.) Couple that with harder economic times, and the ability to "turn over the fleet" is going to be limited, IMHO.
"high price of advanced batteries reflects (in part) embedded energy"
Do you have any specific reason for believing this? Energy cost as a portion of industrial sales averages less than 3%, as I documented in a post elsewhere on this article (search for "cement").
The manufacture of batteries is one of the most energy intensive, and wasteful, processes on earth. The average Li-Ion battery pack can store less than 1/100 of the energy used to manufacture it, and has a limited number of recharge cycles.
The MIT battery is still very much a dream, articles on the technology still use the weasel words 'may' and 'possibly', if the technology does actually pan out it will be years before its in production. Time is short. The Altair Nanotech battery is not available for sale, and their claims are yet to be proven. We all hope these and other technologies will see the light of day but the fact still remains you can not buy a reasonably priced EV today, one with a good range, one that is a real car not a converted atv/golf cart.
I want to like EV's, I really do. I recently got a price of $55k for the S.U.T. and that is out of my range. There has been much talk of solar panel charging, yet a modestly sized residential grid tied PV array is over $25k, will never pay for itself at current residential electric rates (per BP Solar's own website) and solar panels require a great deal of specializes resources to manufacture (hence the present shortage of them).
Granted, EV developments are looking better but at the same time internal combustion engines have also gotten progressively better, more reliable, lower emissions. The balanced view if you ask me is EVs will take over when they are really ready and that isn't now. The last vehicle I sold had 220,000 km on it where nothing has ever been done to the engine except oil changes, plugs and wires. The only problems (and had some)were all electric. The I.C.E. continues to roll.
Factor in the 5000 to 8000 li-ion batteries in the drive banks, the 12,000 odd fuse links, the 300 circuit board to solder all the cells to, the DC controllers, cooling bath for the batteries, fans, tons of sensors for temp and voltage, wiring harnesses, hopefully well shielded DC motors, and various interconnects, and there is a ton of extra spark gaps just waiting to fail in the dynamic load situation and inclemental weather normally seen by passenger vehicles in normal use. All with low use reliability testing. Every ICE powered vehicle I have ever owned I have driven for 100k or more virtually without a hiccup. Does anyone seriously think you'll get that kind of reliability out of an EV?
Ever?
Think you will ever seen an EV tractor trailer?
"The MIT battery is still very much a dream, articles on the technology still use the weasel words 'may' and 'possibly', if the technology does actually pan out it will be years before its in production. "
Are you referring to the A123systems battery, originally researched by MIT? If so, it's being sold currently in Dewalt power tools. GM is waiting for engineering of a large battery pack for the Chevy Volt, but the battery itself is real. GM says they expect to have a prototype on the road this year, and be in full scale production in 2010.
" The average Li-Ion battery pack can store less than 1/100 of the energy used to manufacture it, and has a limited number of recharge cycles."
Could you provide more info? Is this process heat provided by natural gas? Does the energy info apply to the new generation of li-ion, like the A123systems?
"The Altair Nanotech battery is not available for sale, and their claims are yet to be proven."
Isn't it being sold to Phoenix for the SUT?
"the fact still remains you can not buy a reasonably priced EV today, one with a good range, one that is a real car not a converted atv/golf cart. "
Well, sure. The day that happens everything will be different. That's what we're all waiting for, with bated breath.
"There has been much talk of solar panel charging,"
It's perfectly clear that grid electricity is cheaper than PV (before subsidies) - this is for the minority of people who are willing to pay a premium for clean, independent power.
"Every ICE powered vehicle I have ever owned I have driven for 100k or more virtually without a hiccup."
You're luckier than most. OTOH, EV's are much simpler than ICE's, and will be much cheaper to maintain. For instance, the Prius has much lower maintenance than the average car.
"Think you will ever seen an EV tractor trailer?"
Sure. Hybrid-electric is the preferred technology these days for large vehicles, like tanks and trains. More reliable, more efficient, better low speed acceleration.
I wouldn't be worried about complex electrical systems. Cars these days are already rolling computers. The batteries are the least of it.
30 years ago my father was selling electrical harnesses to Ford that allowed complex electrical interconnections that would nevertheless be reliable - this is old hat.
I think you're getting confused by different kinds of "batteries".
First, the editorial to which you refer is dealing with the new generation of li-ion's, the A123systems, Saft, and Altair. These are inherently safer, cheaper, more powerful and longer lasting.
As the editorialist noted, they will get used. His point is just that it will take several years to engineer the battery packs/power electronics and test them. That's all - he's just asking people to be patient.
The TR article is talking about Eestor ultracapacitors. Everyone agrees that these are much more speculative. They promise the world, and it will be wonderful if they deliver, but for the moment everyone is skeptical.
The last person you quote is talking about conventional Li-ions. He doesn't seem to be aware that, in fact, there has been a quantum leap in li-ion progress in just the last 5 years in the new-gen li-ions.
The best candidate for GM's Volt is the A123systems battery. If you have any contractor friends, ask them about the latest DeWalt 36volt tools which use them.
You're right, I was lumping different technologies together.
And I also agree that these new techs (ultra capacitor and next gen li-ion) will get used eventually.
I was trying to stress that there are no new battery technologies currently capable of performing in real world operating conditions.
Take a look at the A123 batteries (for the Volt). Neat stuff, I sure they work great for power tools. But only rated to -30C. Next cold snap and every car north of Virginia dies.
Batteries have a long way to go before you see viable EVs.
1st, -30C (-22 F) is pretty cold.
2nd, take a look at their spec sheet: http://www.a123systems.com/html/products/ANR26650M1specs.pdf
The drop in performance at -20C (about 15%, by eye) is a lot smaller than the drop in conventional car starter batteries (sealed lead acid), which lose 50% of their power at only 0C. I'd say the electric cars will be going when the ICE cars are frozen.
Gets colder than that around here. And to start the ICE, only need to preheat the engine a bit. And the battery too, in extreme cases. After starting, the engine keeps itself (and the driver) warm, and the battery can be cold, since little electrical power is needed. With an all-electric vehicle, be sure to dress warmly!
"With an all-electric vehicle, be sure to dress warmly!"
Probably 95% of the heat thrown off by an ICE is wasted. If you use 1,000 watts for resistance heating that would only use about 5% of the car's cruising power consumption, and you'd get instant-on heat, instead of waiting several minutes like you have to in a gasoline vehicle.
Interesting question: would it make sense to put a heat pump in an EV, instead of a straight air conditioner?