 | The Bullroarer - Monday 7 July 2008 | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Tuesday 8 July 2008 |  |
193 comments on What is happening with oil prices ?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
193 comments on What is happening with oil prices ?
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
electricity can power a car just like oil can
Amen brother. I'm glad most electricity comes from fairies and not something like coal.
"Amen brother. I'm glad most electricity comes from fairies and not something like coal."
just coal?
Yup, just coal and other fossil fuels. You see, solar thermal, wind, and whathaveyou in the renewable sector clearly aren't suitable for electric vehicles because instead of spending a few seconds plugging them in when we get home at night to charge over a 8-12 hour window, we would actually spend an extra ten or fifteen minutes going to a fast charging station, which would have to be built, just so we could whine about how we can't power a car with renewables due to problems with intermittency. ;)
Are you being sarcastic?
Electric motorcycle recharged from Solar PV...
http://www.zevutah.com/page/motorcycle.htm
Sounds "suitable" enough to me.
;-)
Just a bit. Besides, it's unpossible I tell you, unpossible! ^_^
John15, why do you keep harping about irrelancies?
Nobody denies electricity cannot theoretically power cars in spades in the future.
Further, it is theoretically possible that we can generate most of our electricity from non-fossil fuels in the future.
However, we do not live in the future. We live in now.
Now 99% of our car fleet in the world runs on fossil fuels.
Now, more than 60% of our electricity generation worldwide comes from fossils, most of that from coal.
The problem as you very well know is getting from now to the theoretical future in very rapid steps in a time of potentially declining net energy availability and restricted mobility due to decline in available oil.
Have you any idea about energy project finance costs, project completion times, finance deprecation times, car fleet replacement rates, PHEV mass-manufacturing capacities or electricity grid challenges in the real world?
Talking about a theoretical future where everybody is happy when we have 'such and such technology' generating us an abundance of cheap, non-polluting electricity, which we power our PEVs with is not only misleading, it is intellectually dishonest.
You have to face the reality.
Even EIA projects coal to increase annually 1.7% p.a. until 2050.
If you have some magic scenario how we can remove all that coal generative capacity in 20 year or so and replace it with cheap, clean & abundant energy of your choice with minimal risks, low financing, while growing economies and ensuring a win-win for everybody, then I think World Bank, IMF, UN, OECD, EU, US, OPEC, and the Nobel committee are all ready to listen to you.
And don't you think we don't want that to happen? Don't you think people don't want these issues solved?
But harping about theoretical possibilities and not facing the hard realities is not going to get things solved.
Instead of heaping criticism on someone without providing any numbers of your own, why don't you sit down, do the calculations and show it can't be done ?
I've never seen anyone do this using present day cost figures for CSP, solar PV/thin film, wind, biogas, geothermal, hydro and ocean power options and taking into account projected changes over the next decade.
I suspect you haven't either - so instead you indulge in a whole lot of hand waving and tell people to face the (unquantified) "reality"...
<sigh>
Gav, Please read again very carefully what I wrote.
This is not an either-or issue, we both acknowledge that.
However, in any fair argumentation, the proof of burden is on the one making the claim. I did not see a single shred of proof from John15. I did provide latest EIA AEO 2008 assessment for coal use growth up to 2050.
And you are right that the only calculation that I can refer to is the only publicly available high level calculation in the world that I know of, that of Hirsch et al.
I never claim it cannot be done (100% certainty).
I'm claiming the scale issue is very, very large and the time available for completion appears to be very short based on oil depletion forecasts.
My main point is the obvious thing that claiming it is theoretically possible does not make it so.
Theoretical possibilities are not realities until built.
However, having studied energy companies locally, I can attest that the average 5 year permit process, 2-3 year financing process, 7-10 year build time and the 10-25 year depreciation time does not make things easier. Especially when the industry is made ever more so confusing by constantly changing political winds and legislation, the volatility in the CO2 emission trading market and primary fuel markets (gas, coal, oil).
Please do not mistake me for a dichotomic doomer, because I'm not one.
Now, I've provided one very big study reference in this post.
Let's see if John15 can post one that backs his claims. One that is based on physical/financial high level calculations - not just lab-tech breakthroughs about algae and back of the envelope musings about how cheap pv is going to be in 2020.
Just saying 'it can be done' is as silly as if I had said 'it can't be done' (which I didn't write, if you read carefully again what I wrote).
*PS as for real-world solution: I am consulting both energy companies and politicians locally on this. That's what I mean when I say mere assertions get very little done.
there are plenty of BEV in use right now as we speak. hybrids are electric and they are in use right now. it wasn't too long ago that people said hybrids were a joke and now they can't keep them on the lots!
did wind suffer from the huge drop in oil consumption in Denmark? those who offer answers won't suffer from from high energy prices because they are producers of energy.
And in the now there is still lots of fossil fuels available.
In the future is when fossil fuel availability will decline, meaning talking about what can be done in the future is exactly what we're already doing.
Why is it wrong to talk about near-future solutions to near-future problems?
Actually John, no it can't. Power a car, yes. Like oil, no.
I filled up my people carrier yesterday - tank takes 80 litres diesel. Incidently would have cost £106.40 at todays price of £1.33/Litre, US$210, A$220. Wasn't completely empty so I didn't quite achieve the magic £100 fill up (yet).
Anyway, the point is that today I will drive approximately 750 miles - from central Scotland to halfway through France - with a vehicle loaded with people and camping equipment, before having to stop for fuel, provided I keep the speed reasonable.
Please provide us all with details of the electric powered vehicle which is in production, or even on the distant horizon, which can even come close to providing that kind of utility. Then provide details of the investment required, and the roll out times for replacement of the current fleet.
the prius. probably a dozen or more hybrid and electric cars are going to be introduced in the next 3 years and that's not even including bikes and scooters.
who cares? people can just drive less if they have to. I also question whether the fleet needs to be turned over. one could just convert an ICE car to an electric.
high school kids did it.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/high_school_homework_make_an_ele...
ups is using the zap.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/11/ups_delivering_1.php
Just in case you may have been fooled by the smoke and mirrors ... in reply to the question
John15's only solution offered is "the prius" ... in fact, the Prius is powered by PETROL and emits 104g/km
http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/frame_start.jsp?id=MSR_PRIUS&C...
John15 says "who cares?" ... I do for one, since it is important for me to know what the future can't be ... what is left is what might be.
Clearly, from John15's answers, an adequate number of affordable electric cars for the masses is unlikely in the immediate future.
IMO his other solution offered "just drive less" is much more likely (and is happening already) ... using less is otherwise known as a recession, it isn't BAU. Plan on that assumption.
OUCH!!!......John15 thats gotta really hurt!
A person asks what electric vehicle will travel 750
miles.....loaded with people and camping gear and luggage....and you say a Prius.
The example given is ridiculous - that particular requirement is a rare outlier compared to fundamental travel needs (though a Prius clearly can go 750 miles, and more fuel efficiently than a regular vehicle - though it isn't an EV).
Hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electic vehicles exist already and the car industry is rapidly shifting towards building them - true or false ?
Friends of mine have a Prius. They drove Brisbane to Sydney (913km) on 45L. That is great mileage of 4.6L/100km.
I just drove Melbourne to Sydney in a Prius. Similar distance, similar milage.
There's only ONE answer, TODAY.
We (the world) are, currently, producing about 15 Billion Gallons of Ethanol, annually. This production will power 30 Million Cars 300 BILLION MILES @ 20 mpg (500 gpy.)
That's TODAY! We can increase this by a facto or ten like rolling off a log.
What were those "TODAY" numbers for Electric, again?
Some concerns:
1) There were 600 million cars worldwide in 1997. Where do you get the 30 million number from?
2) even with 300 million cars needing power, fueling with ethanol gives 1000 miles per year per car. 83 miles/month. 19 miles/week. 3 miles/day. I cycle more than this.
3) Much ethanol production is dependent on fossil fuels for fertilizer and pesticide, and must compete with food production. Ethanol production is more likely to decrease by a factor of 10 rather than increase I think.
Ethanol can't be transported in pipelines, and freight railroads are already at capacity just keeping power plants supplied with coal and parts of California supplied with ethanol for 10% blends.
Sure it can. Morgan Kendrick is doing it in Florida, right now.
And making ethanol (even in the limited quantities available so far) has plunged 100 million people into deep poverty and created soaring food prices and made the danger of starvation real for millions more people.
Apart from that (and the fact it can only be scaled so far) its great.
I don't suppose you'd want to give sources for any of that would you?
Naw, I didn't think so.
I'd be happy to.
In the meantime please stop acting like a moronic troll - its a big challenge, but I hope you can rise to it.
Here you go:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.food
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/biofuels-push-30-million-into-po...
How many more would you like ?
In any case, with the world population rising to 9+ biullion people in the coming decades, you can be sure that using cropland to produce fuel instead of food will increasingly be seen as an anti-social act.
There are better ways - clean energy and electric transport than pursuing the foolishness of first generation biofuels (my mind remains about about next generation techniques, none of which exist at any meaningful scale as yet).
I don't agree with a word that the ethanol guys says, but don't feel that abuse is appropriate.
It is particularly concerning when it originates from a moderator.
The guy was dishing out shit. If you're gonna dish it out, you gotta be ready to take a bite yourself.
Dave - as you well know (having experienced it many times yourself), if you abuse me, I'll abuse you back.
If you keep doing it, I'll delete your comments, and if you persist furher, you'll be banned.
In addition, you personally are no position to criticise others (though your holier than thou attitude doesn't surprise me one little bit, having seen that many times before too) having crudely abused many commenters over the last 6 months, for which you have been warned repeatedly.
You really appear to have no sense of irony in your disregard of site rules.
You allegation of my abusing others are unfounded - perhaps you would care to substantiate by showing anywhere that I have called someone a 'moronic troll' because we disagreed?
Yeah, well at least I'm smart enough to wait till there's actually a report before I start "quoting" it.
Guardian misrepresents coming World Bank Report.
It seems it was Transportation Fuels after all. What they, probably, won't throw in is the effect of Horrble Government Policies on holding land out of production (EU 10% of their wheatland, the U.S. 34 Million acres of rowcrop land, etc.) Export/Import Tariffs, Droughts in Australia, China, Argentina, etc.
Common sense should have told you that with Rice (Asian long-stemmed,) and wheat being the most commonly eaten foods on earth corn ethanol in the U.S. couldn't possibly lead to 75% price incrreases in food around the world. The USDA is probably about right with 2 - 3%.
And, yes, I was being a little snarky. If you think that justifies the moronic troll appelation (and, it makes you feel better) have at it.
You might, also, consider this:
EU Farmers Protest raising Dairy Quotas as WORLD PRICES FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS SOAR.
Maybe you should have read all the links before shooting off half-cocked once again.
Here - I'll save you the trouble of clicking :
Drought in Australia is something that happens (more and more frequently), which is why turning food grown elsewhere into fuel pushes prices up (and starves poor people).
You can't say its the drought that is to blame when good crops are being turned into liquids to burn in car engines, it just doesn't work.
Corn based ethanol is an atrocity, and pretty much everyone understands that now.
frankly, I really don't care about a vehicle that can travel 750 miles on a full tank or whatever. we're talking about electric powered cars.
I would think TOD would ask why do you need to go 750 miles to camp?
From wiki link nos. in bold, they sound about right, in any case all numbers are pretty much jagged stabs in the dark - world, energy end use, 2006:
13% biomass - that means cutting down trees/plants and burning them, or using agri. detritus, minor. Cow patties! Turf I suppose falls with coal.
hydropower - see the infrastructure and the need for running water: 3%
geothermal, wind, solar, ocean waves: .8 % (point eight.)
other - tapping underground hot water springs, informal solar use such as drying fruit, %?
biofuels - ethanol, biodiesel, vegetable oil (eg palm oil), biogas - to what degree this production has an acceptable EROEI, what role the subsidies / infrastructure have, and in what measure they are really ‘renewable’ (not in a closed system anyway imho), and how much they use up resources that would be better used in a different way are all subject to *heated debate.* For that reason, even end use stats are useless, and coming up with some number is moot.
That is it, and it doesn’t look good. Solar might find some devp. if the will was there. Electricity is basically made from fossil fuels (though I didn't include nuclear, which is non renewable in the common definition...)
You could simply be in less of a hurry.
A spute hybrid is halfway there already, and nobody *needs* to drive 750 miles in a single day to go camping.
I strongly suspect that a Ford F150 would make a beautiful electric vehicle. Though as a conversion I expect it would lose some carrying capacity, it would maintain more than enough capacity for camping gear. In fact, a compact pickup would probably be even more convertible, and more appropriate.
Of course, if you want BAU then you are just going to be SOL shortly.
a prius is a hybrid electric vehicle. and no, I mentioned more than just the prius.
To echo xeroid, THE PRIUS IS NOT AN ELECTRIC CAR. It's an ICE with a short-range battery-only facility. It uses as much fossil fuel, and certainly costs more to build and maintain, than the most fuel efficient diesel MINI or Ford Focus.
The kind of EV that could replace a 7-seater MPV with a 700-mile range is years away and will probably never be manufactured.
Once permanent oil decline sets in, people will barely be able to afford to wear-out tyres (tyres are made from a lot of oil and little bit of rubber), let alone use up scarce and extremely expensive electricity to footle about in cars.
Long distance road transportation will probably always be primarily powered by liquid fuel; fossil or - heaven help us - biofuel. It will be mostly confined to moving to goods and food, with buses for people in places where rail is impractical.
Mass car ownership - the phenomenon that pissed away a priceless legacy of fossil energy - was an artefact of cheap oil. It is already dying inch by inch at $140 a barrel.
Here in the UK, I predict that in 10 years time, most people will still be driving the same car they own today, or the next one they buy. They will use them rarely, when they can afford the fuel or really, really need to go somewhere.
If they're earning a lot more more than most, they may own a small EV for local trips. But most people - and this is what really scares today's car makers - won't bother buying a new vehicle. When people's income is down 25-40% (conservatively) compared to the cheap oil era; fuel costs per mile have quadrupled, and the relative cost of a new car has trebled, what are they going to prioritise when food and home heating costs are also much higher than today?
We can only maintain economies and lifestyles built on cheap energy with more cheap energy. Where is it coming from?
There is a super efficient electric vehicle on the market NOW. The TWIKE is made in Germany. The discovery channel show Daily Planet did a show that covered this one. I think it will be great for use in the city especially. When I can get one in Canada, I will try, but the 2008 production for North America is all sold out.
This vehicle uses no oil and requires little electricity.
www.twike.com
Can someone tell me that this doesn't at least help with the problem of high gas prices? I realize that this vehicle needs to be mass produced.
For one thing, it has a top speed of 53 mph, and it costs 20,000€ for the basic version with the smallest battery pack. The 20Ah battery that gives a 100 mi range costs an extra 7,000€. Battery costs are prohibitive for any vehicle larger than, say, a 70 lbs Segway or electric bicycle. 18650 Li-ion cells are mass produced in the billions for laptop batteries. They cost about $4 each, and capacity is 2 Ah at 3.7v. The Tesla Roadster uses about 7,000 of them.
For comparison, a motor scooter like a Honda Elite 80 with the same top speed but minus the weather protection costs $2,400 and gets 70-80 mpg. If you can live with a 35 mph top speed, a 50cc motor scooter costs $2,000 and gets over 100 mph.
I'm part of what is probably a typical suburbian family.. a quick tally would suggest that between our two cars, we have about 6000 miles commuting and 3000 miles holiday/family visits travelling.
Clearly, replacing one of our cars with an EV of some sort for those 6000 commuter miles would drop out oil consumption a lot (perhaps >70% since the other 3000 miles are motorway-intensive).
As for what EV to get, I was looking at this:
http://www.powacycle.co.uk/Salisbury-Lithium-Polymer-Electric-Pedal-Bike...
So although you are technically correct that EVs are not currently a direct replacement for all car usage, for an awful lot of journeys they can act as replacements, especially for 2-car families.
Actually Hag, I've got one of those too. I've been commuting with it for four years, now I try to save it for special occasions like yours (wave as you pass through Lyon please!) -- I reckon I can run it for 15 years at least under those conditions.
And I won't complain about paying whatever price the diesel costs in 15 years' time.
But I sure as heck won't be commuting with it, or anything like it.
Dunno, granted it isn't fully electric but you might be able to go camping with a few people in one of these, eh? Might even be room in there for a few bicycles and kayaks for side trips.
http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/vehicles/hy-diesel.html
Now imagine if the darned thing weren't shaped like a box and were designed with some basic knowledge of aerodynamics to boot? Nah, furgetaboutit can't have any of that new fangled idea of conservation and fuel efficiency now can we? Everybody must go out and get yourself a new 5.0 L Land Rover with all wheel drive and big fat mud tires and a giant winch for pulling tree stumps mounted on the front.
You wouldn't want to go camping by bus with your friends family and neighbors. Heck they might think you weren't a rugged independent outdoorsman, they might think you were a green socialist or something even worse.
Ride a Bike or Take a Hike!
This type of vehicle could get yourself, your family and several hundred of your closest friends from scotland to france, and you wouldn't even have to fill up when you got there. I suspect that one or two may even have been built over the years ;-)
Here.
Yes, it's a train; so? Is there some fundamental impediment to travelling by train from Scotland to France? My understanding is that you can make that trip today, although not all of the rail will be electrified.
If you truly need to travel into rural areas - and if you're going camping, you don't "need" to - then you could rent a vehicle at the end of your train journey, immediately cutting your petrol requirement to a small fraction of its former level. If the problem is only those last miles, it's much less difficult to electrify them. Miles Electric Vehicles has been building production EVs for years, and has an 80mph/120mile sedan planned for 2009.
Electrified rail costs and benefits have been covered pretty well by Alan, so I'll refer you to his posts. The EV is targetted at $35k-$39k MSRP, which is a little under twice the price of a comparably-sized petrol sedan (Camry), but at US$9/gal in France, you'd expect to make back that difference after burning about 2,000gal of petrol, or about 50,000 miles of driving. Or much less, in a fuel-restricted world.
The rate at which the current fleet is replaced will depend enormously on what rate is required. Fuel is currently not that expensive, so I wouldn't expect rapid uptake, or conversion of whole car factories to produce EVs. By contrast, a fuel-limitted world would see much more demand for EVs, and hence much more rapid uptake. It's impossible to say with any real certainty how replacement would go in any particular scenario; however, one interesting thing to note is that 50% of US miles driven are accounted for by cars 5 years old or less, meaning that any rapid shift in the market will be reflected quite quickly in overall efficiency.
All sorts of things can make a car move, but really it seems silly that if I want to go from A to B I should use all that energy and pay all that money to drag a tonne of steel with me.
Electric cars are feasbile but high power equipment like trucks excavators fishing boats large ships the list goes on slill need liquid fuel!.
Actually, a lot of giant-scale mining equipment runs on electricity.
And electric trucks and SUVs have appeared too...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/world-most-powerful-electric-tru...
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2008/2008-05-21-092.asp
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/
For regular vehicles, Tesla have announced an electric sedan to go with the roadster too now.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/07/01/new-submission-29/
I think there are now something like 30 companies currently producing or trying to produce electric cars. This is the result of just a few years of high prices. What do you think the world's vehicle manufacturing industry will look like in 5 years time ?
In five years, not much different to today on the surface. GM will have gone bust. Chinese brands will be appearing in small numbers in Europe and elsewhere, just as Chinese small motorcycles and scooters are already doing in the bike market. There'll be a widening gulf between large luxury cars for those who can afford the fuel (and taxes), with low-cost, low-CO2, low tech cars for the increasingly hard-up majority.
Beneath the surface, though, the wheels will be coming off for many manufacturers.
With lower disposable incomes and reduced access to credit, their traditional customers in the West will have to save long and hard to afford new cars. All the time, the rising cost of energy will make cars more expensive to make and more costly to fuel when people eventually get together enough cash to buy one. Sales volumes will shrink and weaker car makers will go to the wall.
Unlike the 1970s, Governments have learned the foolishness of trying to keep dying auto giants going with public subsidies for the sake of jobs. In any case, the Governments will have their hands full just trying to keep the power grids up, food distribution going and public transport running.
By 2013 the descent down the other side of the peak is likely to be starting - snuffing out any last hope of a return to growth after the nasty recession of 2009-2012.
IF people have used the next few years to pay down debt, cut their energy use and, if possible, save some money, there may be enough liquid wealth available to prevent the complete decline of large scale passenger car manufacturing. I'm not holding my breath on that one.
The roadblock facing the car industry is not technical, it's economic. Even if the first few years of energy descent are not completely chaotic, private car ownership will be so far down people's lists of financial priorities that car makers will be a great place to lose money.
I'm with memmel and others who have posted here that it will be probably 30 years before a stable auto industry re-emerges that is suited to a steady state economy. I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two names from today still around, together some Russian and Asian brands that will emerge in 2015-2025.
Technologically, the vehicles and infrastructure will probably look pretty amazing but in most communities there will barely be one vehicle for each street, let alone two on every driveway.
The plug-in planned by Toyota looks far more economic than GM's planned Volt, which is over-specced.
To run for their planned 40 miles they need around a 16kwh battery, and lithium batteries currently cost around $1000kwh, so you are adding about $16,000 to the price of a car.
This is too expensive for most to switch.
The new Prius plug-in is aiming for a more modest 10mile all-electric range, so at around 4kwh it would come in at a more modest $4,000, and with mas production they are hoping to halve the cost of the batteries, and at that price they are more likely to have a mass market than the expensive Volt.
For the daily commute that would give an effective range of 10 miles, as they could recharge at work. That covers more than 50% of users even in the States, whilst those who drove 20 miles each way would still halve their fuel bills.
Advanced lead-acid batteries using capacitors to prevent deep discharge would be still cheaperhttp://www.csiro.au/news/UltraBattery.html
UltraBattery sets new standard for HEVs (Media Release)
Costs for those might run at $160/kwh, not counting the capacitors, so you should be able to get a good performance from less than $1,000 cost premium.
Power use might be around 6kwh for a 20 mile a day trip to work and back - around 300/watts/mile as you would not totally drain the battery.
So one GW of power generation would run around 4 million cars at this level of use, so for the 1.6GW nuclear plants 30 million Australians of whom half might run a car that would take around 3 plants.
Solar power might require an installed capacity of 2kw per car to make up for intermittency, and this and wind power would combine very well with a fleet of EV vehicles as the storage is taken care of.
The biggest problem is getting EV's built in time.
Toyota plan a million a year build by 'the early years of the 2010 decade'
Even with a ramp up of those plans due to continuing shortages of oil and allowing for the efforts of other manufacturers it is perhaps difficult to see more than 4 million or so being built a year by 2012, when the oil crunch will be well and truly here.
So can people stay mobile, also taking into account that most incomes will be much reduced?
It seems clear that much more modest electric bikes and trikes will provide much of the answer, with far more modest costs and power needs.
Hardly a case of carrying on trucking, but considerable personal mobility should remain.
Long-distance trucking is much more difficult, as batteries are basically inadequate for it.
To the extent that rail can take over this seems likely, and in the case of Australia perhaps some trucks could use natural gas - I am not sure how practical that is for large lorries.
Shorter distance delivery vehicles are possible within today's technology:
http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/cr/index.asp?pageid=63&caseid=vans
J Sainsbury plc : Responsibility : Case studies : Case studies - Environment
Rotating the fleet can't be done overnight though, so a lot of problems remain.
"and with mas production they are hoping to halve the cost of the batteries"
If this is the case then the GM solution is going down to 8k. Also tech improvement is probably going to be another 20% in a few years bringing the battery cost in the GM idea down to about $6000. This is ballpark what the tax rebate is likely to be on these cars.
As far as production constraints, there is no real reason that the industry can not switch over to total serial hybrid in 5 years. The only real bottleneck is likely to be battery production but the whole idea of ganged cells seems to lend itself to mass production. Whatever estimates being given by the car companies are likely their estimate of demand rather than what they could actually produce if they had the orders. I suspect that the demand response is going to shock even the most ardent supporters of the tech.
The US, up until this recession began was at a run rate of about 16 million vehicles per year. The heavy use driving fleet is around 100 million vehicles. This could turn over in 6 years once the ramp is in place.
At a premium of $16k over a petrol car, I can't see GM having the volume to drive battery costs down.
At a premium of $4k initially, Toyota will have.
Toyota is also going to be here in 2010, whereas it seems much more doubtful that GM will be.
If we were talking about a BAU scenario, I would have thought it would be possible to transfer most production to EV vehicles by, say, 2015.
We are going to be trying to do this though whilst coping with the mother of all recessions, falling incomes and high oil prices.
Under those disrupted conditions then I can't see production of more than a fraction of the current annual vehicle production.
So basically for financial rather than technical reasons I would see most of the production consisting of electric bikes and motorbikes.
France may be an exception to that, as demand for building nuclear power plants and its agricultural products may sustain it's economy far better, and it has a low cost base for electricity for industry from it's nuclear fleet.
Where will all of the electricity come from, what source?
Gas>LPG>Coal/Nuclear>Fast Breeder>Renewables>Fusion
+massive downscaling of demand.
Nick.