 | Ken Deffeyes On Radio 4BC | The Oil Drum | Peak Oil Overview - March 2008 (Pdf and Powerpoint available) |  |
86 comments on A Twelve-Step Plan to End Oil Addiction
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
86 comments on A Twelve-Step Plan to End Oil Addiction
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
I'm sorry, RED, but your claims range from tendentious to the purest
crapnonsense. Starting with the grandparent comment:I'm not sure that supports your claim, because it's an example of "subsidize the bad".
The concept I prefer is "Tax Bads, Not Goods". Tax petroleum in particular and fossil fuels in general, and cut other taxes to keep the total burden unchanged. This will change the economic incentives without promoting particular solutions, good or bad. In particular, corn ethanol would disappear under such a scheme.
If you stop at taxing bads, there is no pot of money to be handed out and this scenario is impossible.
I know no such thing, because it's false. Per the Institute for Lifecycle Energy Analysis via the Wayback Machine, manufacturing is only about 10% of the lifecycle energy use for a typical car. If we allow a Prius to require 25% more than a Taurus to build (150 GJ vs. ~120 GJ) and spread this over a 15-year, 180k mile lifetime at 12,000 miles/year, the Prius at 50 MPG consumes its energy of manufacture in a hair over 5 years (1/3 of its lifespan). This appraisal is heavily biased by the low fuel consumption of the Prius (a more economical vehicle looks worse even at the same energy of manufacture), and non-consumed energy isn't handled properly at all; energy implicit in e.g. refined nickel can be recovered at end of service.
Hi EP,
Thanks for putting some figures on the energy required to produce cars.
I think it is worth pointing out that the energy to manufacture is largely non-oil based too, as that is our current pinch-point.
I'm just wondering if it is possible to narrow the figure down at all for the manufacture of electric vehicles rather than hybrids, as the weight saving reductions possible in this technology are very large.
I know you will be aware of them, but for the benefit of others who may be browsing this thread, most of the stuff you need for a conventional car can be thrown out, and importantly it is good economics to switch to lighter materials, using carbon fibre and so on instead of steel.You would though tend to use more aluminium, which comes at high energy cost.
The weight savings multiply into even less energy cost in production, as you don't need such beefy suspension where you have a lighter engine, and the engine needs to be less powerful where the body weight is lower, and so on round in a circle.
In view of these savings, would a guesstimate of 80GJ be likely in the right ball-park for a 4-5 seater EV?
The weight savings multiply into even less energy cost in production, as you don't need such beefy suspension where you have a lighter engine, and the engine needs to be less powerful where the body weight is lower, and so on round in a circle
True enough, but range in EVs creates a multiplicative effect.
Design passenger cabin, add suspension, motor and batteries to go 40 km. Light weight (less than comparable ICE by a few kg). Marketing comes in screaming, we need at least 120 km range !
OK, triple batteries, increase suspension and motor size to move more kg. OOPs, with added weight of batteries and other, range is only 80 km. Increase batteries by another 50%, .... closer. One ends up with x6 batteries to x3 range, and almost double the overall weight, but heavier than a ICE car. (VERY rough calcs to make a point).
Other solutions ? Downsize from 4-5 passenger compartment to 2 or even 1 passenger compartment.
One engineering optimization leads you to a "hybrid
car", the eBike. Passenger/motor works with battery (one can afford high tech batteries for such an efficient mode) and a very small electric motor to give extended range.
Another engineering optimization may lead to a 2 passenger titanium EV (titanium, unlike carbon fiber, can be recycled) with fabric seats, charcoal heater, no air conditioner. Expensive structure but fewer expensive batteries. Minimal parasitic loads and weight.
Best Hopes for Adapting Society to Engineering Reality,
Alan
You are of course correct that with current batteries weight savings for the set-up I specified, with 4-5 seats are not possible.
I was trying to illustrate how important weight is to EV's and overstated my case.
I used the example of carbon fibre purely as one example, but a number of composite solutions are possible.
The Th!nk car is highly recyclable, unfortunately I do not have information on what they have used in the structure.
I suspect that cost considerations will lead to many EV's being designed with very limited range to get people to work, even lead-acid batteries with capacitors might do for this, and the cost is way lower than lithium batteries.
For the record I don't see EV's attaining universal coverage anytime soon, but the better off are likely to have the option - nothing like our current, or perhaps I should say the US's current, car based culture though.