147 comments on A Tale of Two Speeches--OPEC's Demand Side Fear Is Very Real
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
147 comments on A Tale of Two Speeches--OPEC's Demand Side Fear Is Very Real
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
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
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- 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
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Roger:
What you say with regard to auto fuel consumption is all well and good as far as it goes, but it seems to me that its really very focused on wealthy states patterns of car use. What about China, India, etc.? The car makers goal there is to bring an encono-box car to market at a retail price point of about $US 4,000.
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/news.php?sid=783&page=1
The target market there is folks who are now driving a motorcycle or scooter, or using mass transit. Given the rapid economic growth rates in these regions and the relationship between income and car ownership we have seen in the past, even with more expensive car designs:
it seems to me likly that such a build-out might happen. I have not heard anyone suggest that a plug hybrid can be produced at this price point, or that the fuel consumption from these very cheap cars will be anything near as good as the scooters or mopeds that folks are driving there now, so it seems to me quite possible that the fuel savings from high tech cars sold in the north will be soaked up, and probably then some, a first time Indian car owner may well be able to out-bid an African farmer on the price of a gallon of diesel for some time to come.
When plug-in hybrids are proposed as a solution, it is responsible to discuss the massive amounts of coal and natural gas they consume - more in terms of barrel equivalent than the amount of oil consumed by conventional cars, because there is loss when coal and natural gas are converted to electricity, and there is loss when electricity is distributed.
Plug-in hybrids do not mean using less fuel. They mean trading oil for even more coal and natural gas.
Coal and natural gas have their own problems.
Natural gas production in America peaked thirty years ago, and in North America peaked recently. Importing natural gas from overseas requires liquefying the gas. This wastes 30% of its energy and makes for boats that can explode with incredible force.
Coal is far dirtier than oil, and any major transition from oil to coal may spark "peak coal" in our lifetimes.
Anyway, the problem with cars isn't what fuel they use. The problem is that the act of propelling one person 30 miles to work in a 2,000 pound box at 70mph is unsustainable, dirty, increasingly expensive, and destroys the natural world.
We can't assume that the lifestyle made popular by cheap oil energy will continue unchanged when oil is gone.
The allure of the glittering life of cheap oil is wearing thin. For example, once it was fun to dream about, and finally be able to purchase a cute little British sports car and drive the back roads, through the unspoiled wilderness of the Western USA -- etc., supply your own dream ("See the USA/ In your Chevrolet").
Maybe it's just that I'm getting older, but now the forests all are decimated, the roads are crowded, the restaurants are all the same, and a $300 hotel room awaits you at the end of the road -- I would rather stay home, and I do.
It seems a shame that people can't moderate their behavior and build a rational society for the benefit of everyone-- we all seem to have to stampede to collapse before something new can emerge.
It looks like Nate Hagens will have something to say about that at the ASPO conference; I hope the speech will be available on line, since I won't be able to go to Ireland.
Pure ICE vs. hybrid vs. EV vehicle overall Efficiency:
The answer on EV vs. ICE efficiency for plug-in hybrids depends on a lot of factors but my understanding is that it generally favors the EV side, depending on how much is from "plug-in".
This issue is very much in Engineer-Poet's camp and one resource is his now fairly static site, the Ergosphere as well as his posts here. From the EV side of the argument: Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks and PDF of same.
An older (2000) CA report "Fuel Cycle Energy Conversion Efficiency Analysis" pdf.
The Wikis Hybrid electric vehicle and Battery electric vehicle address the issue and provide a lot of links.
It partially depends where you live. In Ontario, electricity is nuclear and hydroelectric power for the most part, with fossil fuels only accounting for 36% of it.
But even if it were all coal or oil, back-of-the-envelope calculations seem to indicate that high efficiency coal turbines are more efficient (given higher combustion temperatures) than internal combustion engines.
A quick internet search reveals efficiencies of 45-59% being possible for coal plants (Wiki,e8.org). Even with losses for electricity transmission, rectification etc, this seems like a good deal compared with an average 20% efficient internal combustion engine. Possibly 10-20% better than a prius (36% efficient?), even after losses.
PHEVs don't seem like they're a SOLUTION per se, but they seem to be a decent silver BB.
You're right that our lifestyle won't continue as-is, but tiny Smart-car sized PHEVs will probably be part of how we adapt.
According to this, an all-electric car is about twice as efficient as a Prius, assuming a 60% efficient modern cogenerating electric plant, which would make it somewhere around 100mpg based on well-to-wheel energy consumption. One would expect a plug-in hybrid to be fairly similar, at least when running solely on electric.
Thanks. Note that the "double" is for natural gas fired plants. Still, even coal-generated electricity would be more efficient then gas, if not as convenient.
I worked this out a while ago, and keep reposting it as it keeps coming up. Turns out its really not the silver bullet some claim.
California gets half our electricity from natural gas. Assuming NG electricity is not so valid for the USA as a whole but maybe Tesla plans to market in silicon valley. For now.
Anyways the efficiency of gasoline powered cars don't matter if there is no gasoline.
I plan to charge all these EVs during the day with solar panels. How do you plan to fuel all those hybrids?
RobertInSantaBarbara
I haven`t escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
True.
Most vehicle use is during the day. Its tough to charge your EV during the day.
Most schemes I read plan to charge these EVs during the night on wasted capacity (coal plants don't shut down quickly so often are left wasting power overnight). And that was what I originally wrote the above for.
Solar has severe drawbacks for charging at night.
If I got to make the decision I'd go for nuke and wind.
Most vehicles are driven to work during the day and left in the company parking lot for eight hours. Google already has solar powered recharging stations for employees with PHEVs.
RobertInSantaBarbara
I haven`t escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
robert2734's comment is good. The thing is, the average vehicle is parked 23 hours of the day, and 90% of the time it's offstreet.
It's just a question of putting a connection at that parking space. It's done in Canada & Minnesota at parking meters & garages for engine pre-heating.
Mostly true, but mostly beside the point.
When discussing massive numbers of electric cars, the typical concern is the additional generating capacity that would have to be added to power them. When adding new generating capacity, what matters is the efficiency of new generating plants, not the average efficiency of the decades-old ones that make up the grid now. Accordingly, the relevant efficiencies to consider really are the higher ones.
Moreover, electric vehicles are qualitatively better than gas-powered vehicles in the sense that they're much less constrained by fuel type. Peak oil is often described as not an energy crisis but a liquid fuels crisis; without that reliance on liquid fuels, electric vehicles are fundamentally different in peak oil terms.
With whatever's convenient, since they're not at all picky about fuel type.
One of the benefits of wide-spread plug-in vehicles would be a wide-spread network of batteries hooked up to the grid. Those would be exceptionally useful for smoothing out wind and solar PV generation more cheaply and efficiently than by adding pumped storage.
No disagreement here. Like I said, it all comes down to how you charge these EVs.
We are going to have to parallel deployment of large ev fleets with huge investments in elec generation and grid capacity.
My fear is this is going to come too little and too late.
"We are going to have to parallel deployment of large ev fleets with huge investments in elec generation and grid capacity. My fear is this is going to come too little and too late."
We won't need new generation and grid capacity for night time charging for at least 10 years, and wind can easily grow to the size needed in that time.
VW already has a 1L/100km car - it only carries 2 people in tandom. A Prius will never be a fuel efficient car as it's big and heavy and designed to go fast. It's got a monster engine that is running at such a tiny fraction of full throttle and has to operate over such a wide range of RPMs that it'll never be efficient.
The only real option is a 4hp IC/heat/turbine engine which generates the average power necessary for a car. That also generates a continous source of heat which is necessary for those of us outside la-la land where we have fall - winter and spring and -30C weather.
Parallel hybrids are useless with only marginal gains over a small IC car (and the gains are really only in the city driving - driving which is most easily avoided).
In short a parallel hybrid is a solution to a non-existant problem; it's just for people who wish to appear green and refuse to accept that radical reduction in energy use and change in lifestyle is necessary.
Oh, man, this made me actually laugh out loud. I take it you don't own a Prius, nor have ever driven one.
Big? Well, it's classified as a mid-sized car. So, not big, and not small. Compared to other mid-sized cars, at ~2700 lbs. it weighs anywhere from 500 to 1,000 lbs. less than other cars in its class. Granted, 2700 lbs. does not make it a potato chip, but then I'm less likely to get squashed by a Ford F-350. That 'monster' engine you refer to is a 1.5L four cylinder. That eliminates the 'fast' part right away. With the electric assist, it can get out of it's own way, but I'm not about to race for pinks anytime soon.
It's unfair to compare a 2 person VW test vehicle to a mid-sized production car that can carry four plus their luggage. I'm averaging about 50mpg in my Prius. Efficiency is not a destination, but a sliding scale. The Prius isn't perfect, but it's more than twice as efficient as my last car.
. . and please elaborate how a 4hp engine of any type will move anything heavier than a small motorbike.
"Plug-in hybrids do not mean using less fuel. They mean trading oil for even more coal and natural gas."
No, they don't. PHEV's fit very, very nicely with wind power, and will work just fine with solar if need be.
Yes of course, but wind and solar are intermittent, and since nobody's ever used them as the primary energy source for a society, we don't know yet how well they scale up. There are promising stories coming out of the wind and solar fields, but as fields they are still so tiny that it's hard to say.
"since nobody's ever used them as the primary energy source for a society, we don't know yet how well they scale up."
That's not really a serious argument, it's just a vague concern. There's nothing mysterious about wind or solar. Their engineering characteristics are very well known, and there's not reason to think they won't work.
Please note that we'll have many decades to phase out fossil fuels, and we'll have nuclear, wave, geothermal, biomass, etc to balance things out.
Of course wind and solar "work." People have used wind for hundreds of years to grind cereals into flour. Where they may not "work" is as the primary energy source for industrialized society. Nobody can really say if they can, because nobody ever tried. It's naive to assume that they will scale up just fast enough to replace the energy loss from declining fossil fuel, simply because we'd like them to.
It is a very serious concern that the exotic materials and simple metals required for high-efficiency wind and solar have never been produced by electric power before. All these things have only ever been produced with coal and oil power. We simply do not know whether it is possible for wind and solar to cover the energy cost of even their own maintenance and production.
"Where they may not "work" is as the primary energy source for industrialized society. Nobody can really say if they can, because nobody ever tried."
Not really. As I said, their operating/engineering characteristics are well know. It's straightforward to project how they'll work.
"It's naive to assume that they will scale up just fast enough to replace the energy loss from declining fossil fuel, simply because we'd like them to."
Not at all. Wind is here: it was 20% of new US generation in 2006, with 2.5 GW of new capacity. It's a straightforward manufacturing exercise to scale it up to the roughly 25-50GW per year that's needed, and the roughly $75B scale is not all that large or difficult. Nuclear could also do the job, if needed, and solar is right behind. We have decades to do it in, with many different technologies as alternatives. Relatively easy, and very low risk.
"It is a very serious concern that the exotic materials and simple metals required for high-efficiency wind and solar have never been produced by electric power before. "
Sure they have. Manufacturing is powered by electricity, not by coal or oil. At the moment steel needs coal, but we have many decades to find substitutes: they've never been needed before, that's all. Actually, the straightforward substitution is aluminum for steel.
"We simply do not know whether it is possible for wind and solar to cover the energy cost of even their own maintenance and production."
Sure we do. Wind has an E-ROI of 40-80. Solar is 20-50, depending on technology. That's what E-ROI means: they only need a tiny fraction of their own output for their own manufacture.
Sorry Nick its hard to believe anything you have said.
20% of new generation, so what, you will need to cover the whole of California if you want to approach what is generated by other means.
Solar needs Old Sol, its a joke. Coal power plants have millions of years of sun in their bunkers.
Nuclear is dirty in refining the Uranium and waste storage, the ore is finite maybe as finite as oil.
I surmise the reason nuclear power plants are not being built is that as the oil supply declines there will be no profit in it.
If you had $10 billion would you build an N plant?
What WOULD you spend your $10 billion on?
Manufacturing powered by electricity? Go ask a farmer what he relies on for power, manufacturing is made possible by feeding the populace and the transport of man, machine and raw materials to and from.
Steel from the ore stage needs much more than coal for manufacture, even recycling is not possible without oil.
"Sure we do. Wind has an E-ROI of 40-80. Solar is 20-50, depending on technology. That's what E-ROI means: they only need a tiny fraction of their own output for their own manufacture".
I nearly choked on this..........I don't take a great deal of notice of charts and figures used in other posts and I don't use them myself, common sense is my best guide but I would just love you to give me an example of your claim.
I'll bet you solar panels and wind turbines cannot be manufactured without oil.
I'll bet solar panels and wind turbines can't be manufactured with power supplied by itself.
I'd like to be proved wrong though.
"I don't take a great deal of notice of charts and figures used in other posts and I don't use them myself, common sense is my best guide"
I think this is your difficulty. Without learning numbers and doing calculations your "common sense" is just a compilation of other people's opinions, part information, part misinformation. You need to start learning basic quantitative energy stuff to inform your intuition...
Yep as I thought, typical of you, nothing to back up your figures plucked out of your imagination, so you get on a high horse and personal attack.
"You need to start learning basic quantitative energy stuff to inform your intuition..."
Why do I need? To be able to converse with your superior intellect or what?
As I said charts and figures here are used by posters to proclaim their personal legitimacy, most of the time I'm supposed to accept that they are correct, who knows if they are or not so I use common sense, I don't even have to be smart to use it.
The feeling I get is a lot of people here troll the internet for figures and generally make them fit the argument they are espousing.
I'm still waiting for your example.
Confirmation Bias
Some posters are more prone to this than others. I sometimes wonder if Nick's optimism towards EVs is a symptom of this.
"I sometimes wonder if Nick's optimism towards EVs is a symptom of this."
Not really. I looked at the numbers, and EV's clearly worked out.
I suppose it might help if I tell you some things I'm not optimistic about - those are climate change and species extinction. I have no confidence that we'll move quickly enough to prevent disastrous effects on our environment: rising sea levels, and ocean acidification. Species extinctions seem to be accelerating, and climate change is one of the drivers (along with habitat loss).
You certainly have looked at the numbers. I don't refute that.
It just seems you take the numbers at face value or more. You show no skepticism towards any marketing material or press releases.
When GM claims 2010 for the volt you think Jan 1 2010. I note that GM is now claiming "late 2010" and think that date is from some pointy haired exec and expect the volt to be 2011 at the earliest (possibly much later)
You claim triumphantly that HEV sales are 2.3% of the market and doubling every 18 months. Yeah true, but 2.5% of just the US and doubling from such a tiny number of sales is not a difficult feat.
You add up enough of these optimistic numbers and you can easily confirm the idea that EVs or PHEVs are here, viable, and a significant wedge.
In the end we are not far apart. I think these vehicles are coming, maybe 5 years later than you think, and not nearly the wedge you believe them to be.
Heck, if Ace's graph is right, even your optimistic view isn't going to happen in time to prevent a collapse.
"It just seems you take the numbers at face value or more. You show no skepticism towards any marketing material or press releases."
Not at all, I just know how to evaluate what they're saying. Take a look at gm-volt.com for more info.
I'll continue tomorrow...
Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck yesterday?!? Of course I've seen gm-volt.com
And I disagree, you are not objectively evaluating what you are reading. Like I said before, it stinks of confirmation bias.
For example a couple of weeks ago you were trumpeting that GM had selected the batteries for the volt, and it was only a matter of months till it hit the road. I checked gm-volt and sure enough, they had only accepted one of the contestants for the competition to determine the supplier for the production battery packs. And the battery pack delivered for the competition was only a fraction of what is called for in the production vehicle.
You just want to believe so badly your mind just isn't processing the data objectively.
"Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck yesterday?!? Of course I've seen gm-volt.com"
No insult intended. I simply think if you read gm-volt carefully you'll find it very encouraging.
" a couple of weeks ago you were trumpeting that GM had selected the batteries for the volt, and it was only a matter of months till it hit the road. "
I'm not sure what you're referring to, as I'm pretty sure I never said something quite like that, as I've been aware that GM hasn't announced a winner, and has said quite clearly that they won't until next summer. What I might've said was that a prototype was expected to be available within months, which is what both contestants have said.
"they had only accepted one of the contestants for the competition to determine the supplier for the production battery packs."
Actually, they simply promoted one of the contestants to "tier one" supplier status, which means that they work directly with them.
"the battery pack delivered for the competition was only a fraction of what is called for in the production vehicle."
I'm not sure what you're referring to. No battery pack has been delivered, AFAIK.
"You just want to believe so badly your mind just isn't processing the data objectively."
No, the information, and my interpretation, is pretty straightforward. A PHEV like this is a straightforward engineering exercise, and a new car takes 3-4 years to bring to production. GM started last year, and expects to start production in 2010, and produce about 60,000/year in 2010/2011.
Here's my take: GM was never enthusistic about EV's, and only produced the EV-1 half-heartedly, and scrapped it ASAP.
Since then they have stated publicly that 1) that was their biggest mistake in recent history, 2) they accept the idea of near-term peak oil, and 3) that their longterm existence depends on moving away from oil.
GM is acutely aware of the damage to their reputation from the EV-1, and the PR and sales advantage the Prius has given Toyota. They have put their reputation on the line in pushing for the Volt, and hope to use it to regain a competitive advantage.
There are three key questions here: is GM sincere, are the batteries adequate, and is GM realistic in their production
timeframe?
I think I've answered the first. It seems clear to me that the batteries are capable - it's certainly possible that there will be a glitch that will delay things, but that seems unlikely. It's important to note that GM has created redundancy with this competition, and that there are plenty of other potential suppliers as well. The worst that could happen is that neither of these work out (which is relatively unlikely), and that might add a year to GM's schedule. Finally, GM has it's flaws, but they really do know how to build a new car. The scheduling info they've given is consistent with my knowledge about production timing with other new vehicles, and I see no reason to doubt it.
You have to keep in mind the vicious competition between GM and Toyota (as well as Honda, and others). GM is hoping to beat the plug-in Prius by a matter of months, and they're pulling out all the stops to do so.
There will be several plug-ins in 2009 and 2010, including the Saturn Vue, the Volt, a likely Honda, and probably others operating in stealth mode.
"When GM claims 2010 for the volt you think Jan 1 2010."
No, I never said that. I have said that I think GM hopes to introduce the Volt ASAP - see my other note.
"You claim triumphantly that HEV sales are 2.3% of the market and doubling every 18 months."
That was a reply to someone who stated that sales were 1%. 2.3% is significantly greater, and the growth rate is important.
"Yeah true, but 2.5% of just the US and doubling from such a tiny number of sales is not a difficult feat."
Not really. Just a few years ago such a number was scoffed at by skeptics.
"You add up enough of these optimistic numbers and you can easily confirm the idea that EVs or PHEVs are here, viable, and a significant wedge."
Ah, well, they are. The numbers are real, and so are the EV/PHEV's.
"In the end we are not far apart. I think these vehicles are coming, maybe 5 years later than you think, and not nearly the wedge you believe them to be."
Well, I have no question that the impact of PHEV/EV's won't be as fast as we would like. We're looking at a difficult transition, just not certain doom.
"Heck, if Ace's graph is right, even your optimistic view isn't going to happen in time to prevent a collapse."
Well, Ace's graph seems a bit pessimistic to me. Also, it appears likely that US oil production will stabilize and slowly climb, CTL and biofuels will contribute a modest but noticeable amount, and vehicle efficiency and PHEV/EV's will contribute a large and increasing amount: PHEV's could be 50% of light vehicle sales in 10 years, quite easily, and there could be 30M PHEV's on the road, reducing light vehicle fuel consumption by 20%, a contribution which would grow further quite quickly.
Heck, we could reduce US oil consumption by 20% in 6 months with relatively painless and effective conservation measures - horrors, we might have to carpool....
Any figures are better than no figures, though.
Someone's common sense may or may not be right, but it can't be checked; figures are much better for communication simply because of how many ways they can be independently verified (e.g., check the reliability and authenticity of the source, check whether different sources agree, even check by directly measuring yourself).
Figures are what got us the computer you're writing on; one man's "common sense" is what got us an invasion of Iraq. Don't expect those of us who prefer figures to abandon them lightly.
No - to be credible. Unfortunately, your common sense - no matter how persuasive it may be to you - is nothing more than an opinion to anyone else.
More than that, really - common sense and intuition are built up by the things we deal with on an everyday basis, and for anything we don't deal with on an everyday basis - like wind turbine energetics, or science and engineering in general - common sense and intuition are demonstrably ineffective. So much so that in certain areas - quantum mechanics is notorious for this - students are warned in advance that their intuitions will lead them astray. And yet QM is one of the most rigorously tested theories in all of science; our intuitions are just wrong when we try to apply them outside the scope in which they were built.
That's not to say intuition and common sense aren't useful - they're extremely valuable for pointing us in the general direction. But only the general direction - details come from numbers.
So do you take for granted all the figures and graphs you see printed here?
You of course use common sense? If so we are not so different.
If not we are worlds apart.
Quantam mechanics is a fascinating field and I have read quite a few books discussing qm, string theory and particle theory, however it does not relate to what we are concerned about here but I think I understand the analogy you make.
If I came across as insinuating my common sense and or intuition is perfect I apologise.
Yes, but only as the beginning of my decision-making process.
Figures and graphs are numerical data, so I evaluate them numerically - I check their sources, check the reliability of those sources, check their agreement with other sources, and so on. Intuition is excellent for pointing out areas where figures or graphs need to be checked because they are likely to be wrong.
Likely.
Sometimes when intuition says a figure is wrong, it's the intuition that's wrong. That's great, it means I learn something, but it also means that "my intuition says no" is not a reliable reason for believing a set of numbers to be incorrect. And if I don't consider my intuition reliable enough, I'm certainly not going to consider anyone else's intuition reliable enough for that.
Intuition is a powerful and valuable internal voice, but it's at its best when it's just that - internal. It'll point you at the answer - usually - but digging it out requires more careful analysis.
"typical of you, nothing to back up your figures plucked out of your imagination"
I didn't mean to insult you: I gave you numbers, you said numbers weren't important, I replied that they were, and that you should learn some basic energy numbers so that you know that for yourself. That's not an insult, it's just the truth. Further, it's not unreasonable for me to suggest that you do some of the work in researching details, rather than just asking me to provide it all.
Nevertheless, you asked for backup. Here's an example:
"Wind has an E-ROI of 40-80."
Take a look at this Oil Drum article, keeping in mind that current wind turbines are 1.5MW to 5MW, so they're off the right end of Figure 2: EROI vs. wind turbine power rating.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/17/18478/085
Nick
A perfect example of what I said about figures and graphs.
They are biased to suit the argument being espoused.
Did you read all the comments on the article?
I think a true indication of EROI would be if they used wind turbine energy to manufacture and erect another wind turbine.
I doubt it could ever be done so in my opinion the EROI is meaningless.
"A perfect example of what I said about figures and graphs.
They are biased to suit the argument being espoused."
You've lost me there. I didn't see significant disagreement with the wind E-ROI figures in the comments.
"Did you read all the comments on the article? "
Sure.
"I think a true indication of EROI would be if they used wind turbine energy to manufacture and erect another wind turbine."
Sure, and it certainly can be done.
"I doubt it could ever be done so in my opinion the EROI is meaningless."
Ummm...why do you think so, specifically?
The political winds are blowing against coal. Capitalists have begun to become fearful about investing in new coal plants because they fear tougher emissions regulations and a carbon tax. For example, TXU scaled back its coal electric plans in Texas, About 30 requests to build nuclear power plants are about to get filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The capitalists are thinking that non-fossil fuels energy sources are safer bets for investments that will last many decades.
Therefore I do not see electric cars as necessarily meaning more coal electric plants.
I have to agree. Perhaps in 10 years we can get the US fleet efficiency from 20 mpg to 25, but in that time so many more cars will be on he road both in OECD and in the developing world that at best we are breakeven, more likely a slow rise in consumption. Hybrid sales at $3.00 gas are an anemic 1%, completely irrelevant. The idea that people will buy significant quantities of plug ins (or start taking trains that in most cities don't even exist) with gas below $7 is ridiculous.
Only one thing will reduce demand significantly, and that is $200 oil. And that is where we are headed.
My guess is that the Saudi fears about demand destruction have got to relate more to fears about what their society will look like in 50 years. I.e. they need to let oil rise to $200 now, so they can make a ton of money over the next several decades and pour it into industrial projects that will diversify their economies away from simple oil and gas production so that their grandchildren don't all starve to death.
That is what I would be thinking if I was in their sandals.
They can keep thinking, but they'll never make a microchip there. Eventually these countries will go back to the way they were. In between it will get very nasty.
Matt
mtn--
I agree--
These are societies based on superstition, with science and knowledge the enemy.
Any move toward a science or reason based economy are not possible.
The problem is that there are 20 million or so Saudi nationals now and they can't go back to herding sheep in the desert. It will be mass starvation. It is a gradual process moving from a traditional society to an advanced industrial economy, and oil revenues don't necessarily encourage development. Hopefully, the Saudi people see that they now need to adapt to a world beyond petroleum.
The Saudis see that just as clearly as we see the need to dig into that one supergiant field we have left - our own conservation. Notice how far that idea is progressing ...
We here believe that because we see something coming we can avert it. I don't have a history degree but I might as well for the reading I've done, and I think humans pretty much go right into "cats in a sack" mode over stuff like this. A forty something might be philosophical about life changes but a twenty one year old who can't get what he saw those just five years older than him have, even if it was transient, is tailor made for ... biting and scratching.
My son is fascinated with cars and racing games now. Every time this comes up I tell him "Things will be different when you're older." I hope he ends up sweating in the fields like my generation did, and not marching through them with a rifle over his shoulder like my father's generation, but I have no confidence in our leaders being able to face a total paradigm shift like the one coming at us.
Are hybrid sales 'anemic' or is the small percentage due to lack of production? Hybrid sales IMHO are constrained by a lack of batteries. There needs to be an order of magnitude increase in the production of batteries before hybrids can make up a serious percentage of sales.
The recent share price performance of my rare earth stocks (ARU, ALK) certainly implies that hybrids are never gonna happen on any significant scale but I prefer attributing this to market ignorance. Rare earths are used in both NdFeB-magnets (magnet flux density 1-1,5T) for electric motors and NiMH batteries (which require around 12 kg per car).
http://clients.weblink.com.au/clients/Arafura/article.asp?asx=ARU&view=6...
http://www.lynascorp.com/content/upload/files/press_releases/BCC_FINAL_R...
Current REE consumption growth rates are running at around 10% p.a. or a double every 7 years with world consumption at around 125kt. The reserve situation is murky to say the least and the USGS does its best to obfuscate the numbers through booking of potential resources which haven´t been found yet. E.g. they claim reserves of 13 Mio.t REE in the US, the country they should know best about whilst the only sizable deposit I´m aware of is the soon-to-be-recommissioned Mountain Pass mine in California, owned by Unocal, now Chevron, with resources of 2 Mio.t.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/
To give a ballpark number I estimate recoverable world reserves of REO at around 10 Mio.t. At 20kg REE/hybrid this even would not be sufficient to replace the current world car fleet with hybrids notwithstanding that the fleet is growing, REE have many other high-value-added applications with rapidly increasing demand, the mined rare earth mix is different from the REE demand distribution and after 10 years you´d have to recycle 100% in order to hold the number of rare earths in the cycle steady.
Or that they expect them to use lithium ion batteries, which don't seem to require the use of rare earths.
They would still need the neodymium for the electric motors which accounts for around 1/2 of the total value of all RE mined.
Lithium has a limited resource base as well (Again USGS claims that there are massive amounts of Li buried in Bolivia and Chile but I don´t believe them because nobody bothers developing them despite skyrocketing prices.); Li-ion/polymere batteries are around 5x more expensive than NiMH and, finally, Li has run into some snags because of working temperature restrictions. So, Li is no silver bullet.
BTW I´ve done a bottom-up analysis of the zinc-lead market and foresee a peak around 2015. If anybody´s interested I´ll post it here.
Very much. Please do post it.
"They would still need the neodymium for the electric motors"
Not necessarily: http://www.rasertech.com/
With diesel technology currently in existence allowing 60 mpg, there might not be a need for expensive hybrids. There were also many types of batteries. I recall you can even make a battery from a lemon sliced in half and a nail coated with zinc (galvanized) and a copper wire.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
I would think the decision to use a rare earth electric motor is independent of the decision to use a lithium battery. Unless someone can explain the connection to me. My bicycle has a rare earth motor and a lithium ion battery.
My guess is hybridization is still useful even if the diesel alone provides 60 mpg. The diesel engine is heavy and high inertia and won't peal rubber off the light worth a damn. We can run on electric until the diesel engine spins up to speed. Plus we can turn the diesel off at a red light. Plus we can regeneratively brake.
I've seen a clock run off copper and lead electrodes stuck in a apple. All that's required is two dissimilar metals and a electrolite. Since lemon juice is pH 2.5, it probably makes a better electrolyte. Rechargeable batteries that meet multiple specs simoultaneously is a different fish. High current charging and discharging, high efficiency, high energy density, low cost, low self-discharge, a million recharges, safety when abused, temperature sensitivity, no maintenance etc.
RobertInSantaBarbara
I haven`t escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
It is best to dig the well before you are thirsty.
I also agree.
All the changes in modes of transport should have been planned and implemented by now.
How can we realistically expect, consumers to buy these new hybrids in meaningful numbers?
Who is going to purchase their old vehicles (the government}?
If we did some how find the means and inclination to purchase these new vehicles what happens to the old vehicle manufacturing infrastructure and tooling, what incentive will vehicle builders need to mass produce the new products?
The answer I suppose is very high priced fuel but very high priced fuel will fuel inflation, recession and/or depression.
Consumers then will be much more concerned with the price of food not their family car, a cheap motor scooter can get you to and from work for maybe a month on a couple of gallons.
I only assume but I think oil will continue to be produced and sold simply because states with the ability to stockpile and hoard will do so. Strategic inventories will be increased if the opportunity presents.
What one country does not want another will gladly consume.
Because everyone knows oil is everything and it is a finite resource.
I don't know the answer but does anybody know how much oil goes into manufacturing a box of cornflakes and its delivery or a 2lb bag of flour. Are we eating oil?
The box of corn flakes is substantial - serveral times the calories contained in the corn flakes. Between the processing and the excessive packaging, much energy is lost. It is also very bulky at around 100g/l (varies widely by brand), so it takes more room on modes of transit, storage, retail, and in the household.
The flour should be much lower in embedded energy, as it is lightly processed and densely packed (about 1 kg/l). Large paper bags (or no bags at all) of milled or raw energy-dense foods such as flour, potatoes, corn, beans, etc are probably the most efficient way to grow and distribute food energy. Such products require no refrigeration, are generic (so no marketing & advertising losses, hopefully), are dense, are easy to grow, and are easy to store.
It is best to dig the well before you are thirsty.
Thanks Yartrebo.
Yes flour and rice are great for storage and convenience, they can feed the masses.
I believe oil though has enabled the mass production of these and other foods. It is the reason populations have exploded, they could not if they couldn't be fed.
Forget vehicles we need oil to eat.
As the oil prices goes up taking with it the price of food, the problem of the family car becomes moot.
If I could be assured the price of food will not rise (out of proportion)due to oil supply shortfalls then I have absolutely nothing to worry about.
[flour and rice are great for storage and convenience, they can feed the masses]
Not flour; it starts losing nutrient value immediately after milling. A better and cheaper approach is to make whole grains more easily available and get people to mill their own (coarser than they are used to, but not bad with fairly inexpensive modern home mills). Healthwise it would be far better to get people off processed flour and into whole grain products (both flours and cracked grains).
(An aside - I think we all have gotten the 'dig a well message'. ;o)
The population explosion is more likely due to 1) good sanitation and 2) modern medicine.
Oil and the 'green revolution' certainly helped places like India continue to expand their population, but that does not apply globally.
And we don't need oil for food. We just need oil for food 'as we now know it'.
We can raise (actually, excellent) food without petroleum based fertilizers and we can transport food to markets much more efficiently than we are now doing.
There's no reason why we can't move to 'locally produced' and organically grown food.
Sure, we won't have Chilean grapes in January. But we can do quite well with apples until the grape season rolls around again.
The oil peak is not followed by a oil precipice.
We ain't falling off into oblivion. We're just going to head off on a downslope of oil availability. And we need to get busy and build a new energy infrastructure.
(Call it digging a new well, if you like....)
Bob you are a smart man, you argue with class and knowledge and your utopian ideals are admirable but.........
I vigorously disagree that good sanitation and medicine are the reason for the population explosion.
Think for a moment, take oil out of the equation. What would the population of the world be now since 1900?
Look at the mass starvation which occurred in Bangladesh and Ethiopia. There is still huge starvation in Africa now.
Their populations did not grow because of good medicine and sanitation, it was because they could buy food with their labour.
Food provides life and sustains it.
Mass transportation, combine harvesters, crop dusters, refrigeration, pesticides and the motor vehicle are just a few of the oil uses which enable us to feed the masses.
Your other solutions are great, they will no doubt feed the few but the many will starve for lack of oil.
I'm hoping the decline in population will be gradual with the decline in oil as we adopt the solutions you suggest but if starvation occurs in a popluation armed to the teeth like the USA all bets are off.
Many fathers will not watch their child starve if they can take a shotgun and steal some.
Populations in developed countries have grown and largely stabilised at a sustainable levels. Due to birth control.
Big families are not desired or required.
The spread of HIV AIDS and other diseases is made possible by oil. Their containment was due to oil.
Various strains of flu spread throughout the world because of oil.
I could go on but what I still stand by is, that without the amount of oil we have right now we will not be able to feed everyone.
You'd be shocked.
On average, in the USA, about 10 Calories of oil is involved in every 1 Calorie of food you eat.
so, for example, a 12-oz. can of Coca Cola, with 160 Calories, took about 1600 calories of fossil fuels to get to your table.
Its the same with grain, vegetables, and manufactured foods. Its the fuel used by the farmer in his tractor, the petroleum-generated fertilizers and pesticides. The plastics and Styrofoam containers, the preservatives to keep it fresh (and the energy inputs to make THOSE petroleum products). The transport by land, sea, and air to get it to a processing plant. The energy the plant uses. More transport costs to your store, plus the refrigeration costs along the way. Then the costs while its in your own Fridge. Before you bother to sit down. Eating Organic removes only the pesticides and fertilizer, the rest of the input costs remain.
This is a common mistake, switching interchangeably between "fossil fuels" and "oil".
Those are not the same, however, and making that mistake grossly overstates the problems of peak oil. In particular, the largest fossil-fuel input into agriculture is natual gas for making fertilizer via haber-bosch.
Natural gas - as with all fossil fuels - is also limited, but it's on a different decline schedule from oil, so peak oil will not (directly) cause problems with fertilizer production.
"Hybrid sales at $3.00 gas are an anemic 1%, completely irrelevant."
No, they're 2.3% of sales, and doubling every 18 months.
Again, PHEV's are cost effective when gas exceeds $1.75/gallon.
That's great. The last number I remember hearing was 1%. I still don't think the overall fuel economy of the total fleet is going up, though, which is discouraging. A friend of mine just bought a new SUV despite my constant talk about "peak oil" and all the rest of it.
Really, people look at the price at the pump and make their decision. It's that simple.
Hybrid sales have jumped again - currently they're at 350K/year, out of 16M new light vehicles.
FWIW, here is a cite for 350K/yr and 2.3%. Sales are projected to increase to about 780K in 2010.
New fleet efficiency rose 3.9% from 2005 to 2006 - about 1 MPG.
New fleet efficiency rose 3.9% from 2005 to 2006 - about 1 MPG.
For where? The US? What about China? India?
Yet oil is 80 bucks a barrel and you can't even buy a PHEV. Something else must be going on here.
"What about China? India?"
Good question. Have any recent data?
"PHEV's are cost effective when gas exceeds $1.75/gallon.
- oil is 80 bucks a barrel and you can't even buy a PHEV. Something else must be going on here."
It's only been about 1 year since it was clear prices would stay above $1.75, and it takes 3 years to develop a new car. It's just normal capex lag.
Unfortunately not on hand. But we both know that a heck of a lot of cars are hitting the roads in these countries. They are going to easily wipe out any fuel savings 2.3% market share HEV are going to get you in the US.
The prius has been on the roads since 1997. Evs of one sort or another have been around since the dawn of the automobile. Gasoline has been over $1.75 since early 2004.
This is not just "normal capex lag".
" But we both know that a heck of a lot of cars are hitting the roads in these countries. They are going to easily wipe out any fuel savings 2.3% market share HEV are going to get you in the US."
Yeah. We have to hope they quickly grasp the value of PHEV/EV's. Given that the batteries and much other related stuff is being made there, I think they will.
"The prius has been on the roads since 1997. Evs of one sort or another have been around since the dawn of the automobile. Gasoline has been over $1.75 since early 2004.
This is not just "normal capex lag"."
No question there's enormous institutional resistance. OTOH, hindsight is 20/20; it wasn't clear that $1.75+ gasoline was essentially permanent in 2004; the kind of intelligence & ethics shown by Jimmy Carter & Toyota seems lamentably rare; and its been hard to fight against incredibly cheap FF's for a very long time.
The dam seems to have broken: GM has signed on to Peak Oil, and in an aggressive way. I think they really do see the Volt (and a related family of vehicles) as their future.
This is what I mean, You have just bought into the hype so bad, you just really need to believe its true.
GM is screwed, they know it, you know it. They got hit hard in the pr department by the movie "who killed the electric car". Some pointy haired exec thought it would be a good idea to move a concept car from the corner of the show room to the center to help fight the bad publicity. It worked, only it worked too well.
At the same time the volt came out Ford showed offed their series hybrid. Only they kept theirs in the corner just like GM should have. Toyota is just as cautious about their pHEV.
You got sucked up in they hype because you want to believe so badly. The Volt if and when it ever debuts will be a niche vehicle for a decade to come. And it very much has the possibility to sink what's left of GM should it flop. The liability from all those new untested battery packs in real world conditions is enormous. Even a small failure rate, spread over millions of vehicles would crush any of the major car makers. The others know it, and are proceeding much more cautiously.
The Volt is a PR stunt that got out of control. Now because of guys like you GM can't back out of it.
So now they have no choice but to make it work?
That doesn't sound so bad... ;)
I agree that the Volt was originally a trial balloon, without a lot of commitment. Now, though, I think they're committed. People like Chris Paine (of Who Killed...), and Calcars are taking GM seriously. They're frustrated that GM wants a no compromise car, and is therefore moving more slowly than otherwise, but they say that they believe that GM is serious.
"The liability from all those new untested battery packs in real world conditions is enormous."
Are you talking about fire hazard? Thermal runaway in li-ion's is pretty well understood. Toyota is stuck because the cobalt-based li-ion's require very high quality manufacturing to prevent fires (and they've had a number of other recalls, so they're afraid to risk a hit to their quality reputation), but other chemistries fundamentally don't have that problem.
"Even a small failure rate, spread over millions of vehicles would crush any of the major car makers."
Are you talking about fire hazard, or simply replacement liability? I'm not quite sure how you're figuring, and as you note elsewhere, it will take several years to get up to millions of units.
Please note that the Ford Pinto, for example, was the result of gross negligence on the part of Ford. If GM is careful I don't see the same kind of tort liability.
" I have not heard anyone suggest that a plug hybrid can be produced at this price point"
A PHEV with 20 mile range would require about 7KWH of batteries, which would cost about $400 using lead-acid. It's cost effective when gas exceeds $1.75/gallon.
That seems absurdly low.
Here's one actually observed datum, my own electric scooter. (www.egovehicles.com).
It weighs about 125lbs with lead-acid batteries, half that without. Most other electric scooters are toys and unsuitable for any real use.
Maximum speed is about 23 mph fully charged on flat ground, and realistic range (as I used it for commuting) over a moderate hill is 7 miles or so. Greater use of the battery capacity very quickly degrades lead-acid battery life. It is too slow to use on most trafficked streets unless there is a bike lane; it is about as fast as a road bike.
I replaced the batteries after about 1.5 years and 3000 or so miles at a cost of $180 shipped or so.
The 'fuel cost' (electricity) was utterly trivial for this scooter (maybe 5c a charge--my electric bill had no obviously noticable change), battery replacement not so. (As well as needing tires and tubes much more often than an automobile---3 or 4 tires at $30 each and more tubes at $5 each adds up).
Note these are not regular automotive batteries, they need to be high-discharge and high-rate-of discharge designed for scooter use.
This made me realize how far away electrics are---a gas scooter is more practical and useful for almost everybody. I didn't have one because I needed to use a path which was prohibited to engines, and the alternative was a 70 mph freeway where I'd also be illegal (and insane) unless I had a full strength motorcycle.
I can't use it for my current job, which is too far away.
Your scooter is doing much worse than the specs, at 20 mile range & 10,000 mile battery life - probably the lack of regenerative braking on that hill.
Anyway, you answered your own question: your batteries are 3x more expensive, because it's a small battery pack, and needs a high power to energy ratio.
Scooters are much less efficient than you'd expect: gas scooters are 40-80 mpg, and a Prius (at 20x the weight) gets 45 mpg.
Given their lack of safety, capacity, and protection from the elements, they are much less attractive in every way (including environmentally) than a PHEV/EV.
Unfortunately, it is absurdly low...wish it wasn't. Here's the problem.
226 AH Exide GC5 (6 volt) $105
http://www.sunelco.com/sunelcostore/productinfo.aspx?productid=641&categ...
(Trojan T-105's, which are quite popular are similar)
A good number for an EV is about 250 watt-hours/mile, any hybrid should use more (because of cooling demand on the ICE plus the extra weight, etc), but I'll use that lower number anyway. A 20 mile range will use about 5,000 watt-hours.
This is where the S Hs the F. Most PbA batteries are only capable of sustaining 1000amps. They'll cold crank 2000 for maybe 5 seconds, but after that all sorts of horror will occur. Thus 1000amps is your practical limit. Watts is a product of amperage and voltage. Watts is Power, the Tim Allen "argh! argh! argh!" factor. Those batteries listed above give 226amp hours at 6 volts.
You might be tempted to make a quick calculation:
Yay, only need 4 batteries($400)! Right? Well, depends on if you want to go anywhere.
That battery setup will only get you that at:
The problem begins. In order to get more horsepower, you need more Voltage(since you can't get more amperage). To get the voltage, you need to set the batteries up in series. To get to 12 volts you need to DOUBLE the battery pack. You might think this would double your range as well because if 6V+6V=12, why doesn't 226Amp-h+226Amp-h = 452Amp-hour? - Because you're getting it at 12Volts. When you combine two 6Volt batteries to get to 12Volts you do not add the Amp-hours together. So combining two 6Volt, 226Amp-hour batteries to get to 12Volts gives you ONE 12V, 226Amp-hour battery.
So for twice the battery pack (twice the money, twice the weight), you now have a whole 16 Horsepower potential and no improvement in range. "D'oh!" You might be able to get away with 32(potential) horsepower out in the world without getting completely run over, but now you're at four times the cost, four times the weight as the original calculation based on 6Volts.
A big however: Once you get beyond a certain amount of horsepower, you can make a reasonable argument that you'll not be using all of the battery's potential and additions to the pack to increase voltage will go towards range (since full power will not be used most of the time). That is, a 48Volt/200Ah pack run at 24Volts will give you 400Ah at those 24Volts.
No, but you do add the watt-hours together, and those are what provide range.
Tesla's sports car - at over 200 horsepower - requires 220Wh/mile on the EPA test cycle, so it's pretty clear that 250Wh/mile is the power consumption for an EV after it's at a reasonable performance level.
Say we want a 48 kilowatt engine. We provide 1000 amps at 48 volts DC. Maybe we go with wheel hub motors. Each of the four 6V batteries drives a separate motor that drives a separate wheel. No more hump. A computer sends control signals to all the motors.
Tesla's sports car uses lithium batteries so there isn't several tons of batteries to haul.
RobertInSantaBarbara
I haven`t escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
OK, first, let's remember we're talking about a $4K car here. It won't weigh much, and it won't need 400HP.
2nd, each of your batteries have 6KW cruising power, and 12KW peak. Seven of them, as I specified, would have 56 HP cruising and 112 HP peak acceleration. That's not bad for a tiny car.
3rd, the Chevy Volt is spec'ed for 200 watt hours per mile, and that's a much larger car. Figure 150 watt hours per mile, for a range of 30 miles at 70% depth of discharge.
4th, as noted by Pitt the Elder, KWH's do indeed add up: double the voltage, double the KW's.
"because of cooling demand on the ICE"
I'm not sure what you mean there. Do you mean A/C for passengers? Cooling for the ICE engine?
Say your lead acid batteries can be recharged 400 times. So each trip costs you a buck worth of batteries and a buck worth of electricity. And you are dragging 150 pounds of batteries around the entire trip whether they have juice in them or not. And you have the PITA of recharging them. And they take luggage space.
Lead acid batteries do not like to be empty. You can buy deep discharge batteries with thicker lead plates or you can buy 14kWhs of batteries and discharge them half way.
I don't think PHEVs will be done with Pb-acid batteries. Or just because they save you a few pennies on every trip.
RobertInSantaBarbara
I haven`t escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
I missed kennel's post. Your electric engine is too big to be legally a bicycle in California. Your state may vary. Will anybody pull you over for using it in the bike lane? Probably not. As they say, you can register your scooter as a moped anywhere.
You got a 800Wh battery and a 1500W motor. In "go fast" mode you can only power the motor for a half hour.
For the same cost, I got a 65 pound bike with a $400 360Wh lithium battery and a 400W motor. My top speed is 20 mph which is the maximum allowed for a bike in California. I can go 20mph for an hour. Realistically, my range without pedaling is 15 miles considering hills, wind, and bumpy roads.
My bike sucks on the hills. They say you can go 15mph up one. You are paying a heavy price for that much power.
Your moped is so heavy you are wearing out tires and tubes. I'm also curious how they gear it. I guess i can check the specs.
I haven't replaced the lithium battery yet, but they last 2-3 years whether you use them or not.
RobertInSantaBarbara
I haven`t escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
Belt Drive
The eGO Cycle Classic and LX, use a quiet belt drive transmission. The 'whisper drive' requires no lubrication and is nearly silent.
Ok, your scooter has a belt drive which is less efficient than a chain drive. OTOH a chain drive will clank and might be unacceptably noisy. My bike has one fixed gear and simply sucks on the hills. End of problem. You have a "go fast" and a "go far" gear.
RobertInSantaBarbara
I haven`t escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
" each trip costs you a buck worth of batteries and a buck worth of electricity."
Only 5 kwh's, or 50 cents worth is needed. The 8 KWH reduces depth of discharge. For 20 miles, that 7.5 cents per mile. Breakeven with $1.75 gas in an average ICE.
"you are dragging 150 pounds of batteries around the entire trip whether they have juice in them or not"
That's not much. They won't use luggage space in a newly designed vehicle.
"the PITA of recharging them"
Easier than a gas station.
"I don't think PHEVs will be done with Pb-acid batteries. "
Not in the US, but it can be done if up front costs are critical.
"Or just because they save you a few pennies on every trip."
We were talking about a $4k vehicle. Of course, if you're not concerned about gas prices rising...
PG&E charges 18 cents a kilowatt hour. Oilmanbob pays 14 cents a kilowatt hour in Galveston. You can get dirty coal electricity for 10 cents a kWh. Hydropower is a nickel if you live by a waterfall.
If the discussion is about additional capacity, they won't let you build a filty coal plant and all the good hydro sites are taken, 14 cents a kWh is not unreasonable.
RobertInSantaBarbara
I haven`t escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
The average retail price in the US is $.10/KWH. The price at night, when most charging will happen, might be about $.03/KWH.
Of course, the topic here is Chinese/Indian cars, so the question is, what's the price there?
They aren't making any additional dime electricity. If it were up to me, I'd make the dirty coal plants shut down or clean up. But it isn't up to me. You are paying for that ten cent electricity with your medical bills and your lives.
If they go to time of day pricing, they'll charge three cents at night and fourty cents during summer afternoons. Your bill won't get smaller.
RobertInSantaBarbara
I haven`t escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
"They aren't making any additional dime electricity."
True, but wind will be pretty darn close, maybe 12 cents.
"You are paying for that ten cent electricity with your medical bills and your lives."
True. Time to replace it with renewables, especially wind.
"If they go to time of day pricing, they'll charge three cents at night and fourty cents during summer afternoons. Your bill won't get smaller."
No (if your useage pattern doesn't change), but it won't go up by much when you add night-time PHEV charging.