Nah.
Again, there is this puzzling assumption that oil can't be replaced, that it is somehow magically necessary for industrial/modern civilization. Oil has been cheap and convenient for the last 100 years, but the industrial revolution started without it, and modern civilization certainly will continue without it. The idea that oil is necessary is an argument against solutions to Climate Change, and an argument for "drill, baby, drill".
• 130 years ago, kerosene was needed for illumination, and then electric lighting made it obsolete. The whole oil industry was in trouble for a little while, until someone (Benz) came up the infernal combustion engine-powered horseless carriage. EVs were still better than these noisy, dirty contraptions, which were difficult and dangerous to start. Sadly, someone came up with the first step towards electrifying the ICE vehicle, the electric starter, and that managed to temporarily kill the EV.
Now, of course, oil has become more expensive than it's worth, what with it's various kinds of pollution, and it's enormous security and supply problems.
• 40 years ago oil was 20% of US electrical generation, and now it's less than .8%.
• 40 years ago many homes in the US were heated with heating oil - the number has fallen by 75% since then.
• US cars increased their MPG by 60% from about 1976 to about 1991.
• 50% of oil consumption is for personal transportation - this could be reduced by 60% by moving from the average US vehicle to something Prius-like. It could be reduced by 90% by going to something Volt-like. It could be reduced 100% by going to something Leaf-like. These are all cost effective, scalable, and here right now.
I personally prefer bikes and electric trains. But, hybrids, EREVs and EVs are cost effective, quickly scalable, and usable by almost everyone.
Sensible people won't move to a new home to reduce commuting fuel consumption. That would be far, far more expensive than replacing the car. It makes far more sense to buy an EV and amortize the premium over 10 years at a cost of about $1,000 per year (much less than their fuel savings), versus moving to a much higher cost environment (either higher rent or higher mortgage).
• As Alan Drake has shown, freight transportation can kick the oil-addiction habit relatively easily.
We don't need oil (or FF), and we should kick our addiction to it ASAP.
The only reason we haven't yet is the desperate resistance from the minority of workers and investors who would lose careers and investments if we made oil and other FFs obsolete.
All of the various kinds of EVs (hybrids, PHEVs and pure EVS) would be much farther advanced if it weren't for resistance from the automotive and oil industries. The first PHEV was demonstrated more than 100 years ago. Very large and reliable EREVs were developed 100 years ago in the form of diesel submarines. This isn't new stuff, and it would be far more useful and cheaper if we had started to really push them 40 years ago, when US oil fields clearly showed their limits.
Gas should be priced at European levels (say, around $7 per gallon), to reflect it's real costs. If it were, EVs in their various incarnations would be obviously cost effective, and consumers would have demanded them long ago.
Some might ask, what about our current debt problems?
Debt is a symbol, a marker - what matters is the underlying productive capability of our economy, which will be just fine. Could we screw up the management of our economy, and go into a depression? Sure. But it's not likely.
Don't these transitions take 50 years?
The transition from kerosene to electricity for illumination took roughly 30 years. The US transition away from oil-fired generation took very roughly 20 years. The transition away from home-heating oil was also faster than 50 years (though uneven).
The fast transition from steam to diesel locomotive engines is illustrative. There were a few diesel locomotives in use in the U.S. during World War II but steam dominated in 1945. However, the steam locomotives had been very heavily used during World War II, and they all wore out at approximately the same time the first few years after 1945. When steam locomotives wore out, they were invariably replaced by diesel in the mid 1940s. By 1949, almost all steam locomotives were gone. There were still some steam locos made in the late 40's, and they were still in service in the 50's but dwindling. The RR's also relegated the steamers to branch line and switcher use - replacing the most used lines with diesel first as you would expect. Cn rail retired its last steam engine in 1959.
Other, very slow transitions are not a good guide to the future. For instance, the transition from coal to oil could be very slow, because there was no pressure - it was a trade up, not a replacement of a scarce resource. Many transitions occurred because something new & better came along - but the older system was still available and worked just fine. Oil may become very expensive very fast and that would provide us an incentive to switch over much more quickly.
On the other hand, we can point to many energy transitions that were sideways or down. The early transition from wood to coal in the UK was a big step down: harder to find and transport, dirtier - a pain in every way. Coal's only virtue was it's abundance. The transition from EVs to ICEs took a while - only when ICEs started to electrify did they become competitive. And, of course, we hid the external costs of oil from consumers: freeways (built by "engine" Charley Wilson after he went from President of GM to Secretary of Defense), pollution, overseas wars, etc. I'd argue that ICEs were never better than EVs - they just appeared that way.
On the other hand, EVs are better right now. They have better driving performance (better acceleration, better handling), and lower total lifecycle costs.
Unfortunately, we have more than 50 years worth of things we can burn for electricity. Fortunately, it doesn't look like we will. For instance, coal consumption in the US dropped 9% last year, about half of that due to loss of market share.
The transition from heating with wood to heating with coal took a lot more than fifty years. Electrification of the U.S. from small beginnings in the late nineteenth century to finishing rural electrification during the Great Depression took at least forty years.
Sure. These involved an enormous amount of infrastructure. On the other hand, EV/EREV/HEVs are manufactured on the same assembly lines as ICE vehicles, and roughly 75% drivers in the US have access to an electrical plug where they park.
Alan Drake would tell you: We transformed transportation before, in just twenty years. From 1897 to 1916, over 500 cities, towns and villages built streetcar lines. In several richer rural areas, vast networks of interurban rail lines were built. This was a nation with very limited "advanced technology", a half rural, half urban population and 3% to 4% of the real GDP of today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_streetcar_systems_in_the_United_States
http://www.railsandtrails.com/Maps/Interurban/default.htm
If we mobilized all our resources as we did in World War II with the single objective of getting off fossil fuels as fast as possible, wouldn't the transition still take at least twenty years, and probably longer than that?
Some things much easier than that. A transition to EVs requires only a change within the automotive industry (for most drivers). Slashing coal consumption involves pretty straightforward ramping up of wind energy. 75% reductions in fuel consumption by road transportation and coal consumption for electrical generation would be ambitious, but doable.
But are we actually seeing any replacements of oil?
Consumption in the US has fallen by more than 15% since it's recent peak in 2007 (while GDP has risen by 3%), and it continues to fall. Production has risen (both C&C and all liquids), and net imports have fallen by 38% since their peak in 2005.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=76&aid=3&cid=&syid=2000&eyid=2012&freq=Q&unit=TBPD
Didn't past transitions occur in a environment of growth, when making new investments was a good idea, and banks would lend?
The transition from horses to rail occurred mostly during the Long Depression from 1873-1890. The move from horses to tractors and automobiles continued at a very good speed during the depression, as did general electrification and business investment. The transition away from oil for electrical generation accelerated during the 1979-1981 recession(s), and CAFE standards rose.
Even at the depth of the Great Recession car sales were at least 60% of normal. Even with currently high oil prices car sales have recovered to about 14M per year, which is pretty strong. And finally, used cars were and are still turning over very 3 years, giving high-mileage/low income drivers an opportunity to switch to a more efficient vehicle.
Isn't this expensive?
EVs and their cousins (hybrids, plug-ins, EREVs, etc) don't require any more steel than ICE's, and they already have overall Total Cost of Ownership equal to or lower than ICE vehicles. We're making ICE's without a problem, and EVs aren't any harder. Wind turbines and solar panels really don't consume that much in the way of resources. Making long-haul trucks and coal plants prematurely obsolete is, of course, somewhat expensive, but the US has a big output gap (IOW, we have a lot of unemployed manufacturing and construction workers and empty manufacturing plants, waiting for something to do), and really, it would cost a lot less than another oil war.
Isn't "wasted" use of fuel is someones job providing a good or service? won't reducing fuel consumption cost jobs?
I'm thinking of the 50% of overall liquid fuel consumption that goes to personal transportation. That could be reduced easily without anyone losing their job.
Chevy Volts take as much labor to manufacture as vehicles that use 10x as much fuel. No problem there.
The average vehicle gets resold every 3 years: there's plenty of opportunity for higher mileage drivers to move to high MPG vehicles, even if they drive used.
Doesn't expanded rail mean wasteful & expensive extra handling?
Inter-modal container handling is well tested and is pretty efficient. More importantly, current distribution patterns were shaped under cheap oil. With higher oil prices the optimal mix of rail & truck has shifted sharply towards rail.
Alan Drake indicates that the clearest indicator of this is that Class I RRs are investing 18% of their GROSS revenues into capital projects. This is far higher than any other industry. The number of multi-modal transfer projects are exploding. Just 7 years ago, no Walmart distribution center was served by rail. Several new ones are. The number of factories and warehouses served by rail are expanding.
What about an emergency loss of oil supplies?
Carpooling works nicely: about 10% of all commuting is done via carpooling, more than mass transit and 3x as much as is done via commuter rail. Commuting is free, fast, and highly scalable, given that the average car only has about 1.15 passengers. Double that, and reduce overall fuel consumption by 25%. It could be done in weeks or months.
Isn't carpooling inconvenient and slow?
Yes, it's not an ideal long-term strategy. OTOH, it would work; it's bigger than bus & rail already; it's really cheap; it would eliminate congestion, which is why there are HOV lanes; and smart phones and modern telecom are making carpooling much easier.
The point is that we could reduce oil consumption very quickly, if we wanted to. If the alternative were really economic doom, carpooling wouldn't seem so bad, would it?
9 comments:
First of all a comment on your first paragraph. Industrial revolution was created primarily due to the availability of cheap and abundant fossil fuels. We moved from coal to oil/NG because it was BETTER, easier to handle, more energy dense. The problem is that there isn't anything else like it, the other alternatives have lower energy density (especially per m²) are intermittent and quite costly in their initial installation.
Oil is the basic fuel for ship and airplane transportation and that is not likely to change (though globalization might change). Electric trains and public transport is surely the way to go as are hybrids (especially plug-in hybrids). EVs with current battery technology cannot replace ICE cars. There are huge steps we can walk in terms of energy efficiency (US oil consumption per capita says it everything, especially compared to other OECD members). Cars must get smaller, more energy efficient and hybrid.
But all these require money to buy them and money to invest in industrial capacity. Debt unfortunately IS a real problem, if the economy has no way of replacing it's means of production it will just carry on with what it has available and (in this case) go into recurring recessions.
We moved from coal to oil/NG because it was BETTER, easier to handle, more energy dense. The problem is that there isn't anything else like it
Nothing identical, but heat pumps are better than heating oil; wind power is cheaper than oil-fired generation; EREVs like the Volt give better performance at a comparable cost (with economies of scale).
Oil is the basic fuel for ship and airplane transportation and that is not likely to change
See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-shipping-survive-peak-oil.html
Debt unfortunately IS a real problem, if the economy has no way of replacing it's means of production it will just carry on with what it has available
Debt is a real problem, but it can be managed. Even now, as we deleverage, car sales are still rising.
Nothing identical, but heat pumps are better than heating oil; wind power is cheaper than oil-fired generation; EREVs like the Volt give better performance at a comparable cost (with economies of scale).
You are mostly talking about efficiency gains. I will certainly agree that this is the only truly available way to go but the reality is that we 've been walking down the efficiency road for a long time. It's not something new and efficiency is limited by receding horizons. The required investment is quite large (after all you actually have to buy a new car in order to burn less) and it will eventually hit a thermodynamic wall. As for wind, it might be possible in the US but it's not possible throughout the world. Wind and solar do have energy density and intermittent problems. Wind is quite mature but it cannot fill the gap. I live in Greece. The potential wind capacity is around 10 TWh, while the total energy consumption is much larger than 60 TWh with over 30 TWh produced by lignite fired plants.
Debt is a real problem, but it can be managed. Even now, as we deleverage, car sales are still rising.
Not if the US debt reaches 100%. We 're still living in a world of increasing or steady oil production, i cannot imagine a situation where the world will have >100% government debt, large consumer debt, shrinking oil supply (which will probably be eaten by China instead of OECD) and still be able to replace the car fleet. My experience in Greece so far shows quite the opposite (car sales are on a free fall).
In general, i would say that if we were facing peak oil in 20 years we would not have a real problem gradually reducing out carbon footprint by large efficiency gains and a push of wind/solar power generation. It's just that in the current debt pressured world there really isn't enough capital and net energy available to make a gradual transition away from oil without severely hurting the economy.
You are mostly talking about efficiency gains.
Not really. On the one hand, heat pumps really do provide a nicer experience for home owners, and EV/EREV/HEVs really do give better performance, with less noise and pollution. What's not to like?
On the other hand, a move from oil to wind power isn't efficiency, it's substitution.
The required investment is quite large (after all you actually have to buy a new car in order to burn less
A Nissan Leaf costs less than the average new ICE vehicle. We can do the transition via attrition, and it won't cost any more than Business as Usual.
As for wind, it might be possible in the US but it's not possible throughout the world.
On the one hand, neither is oil drilling, or coal mining - how much of Greek oil and coal is domestic? On the other, I suspect you're underestimating the wind potential - what was the source?
My experience in Greece so far shows quite the opposite (car sales are on a free fall).
Greece is in a difficult position: it can't devalue it's currency to improve it's trade balance, and the Greek public won't happily accept pay cuts to pay for past borrowing.
in the current debt pressured world there really isn't enough capital and net energy available to make a gradual transition away from oil without severely hurting the economy.
There's more than enough. The difficulty with financial capital isn't scarcity, it's fear of investment.
Regarding net energy: we have an enormous surplus, especially in the US. That's what allows single passenger SUVs, and home temperature control within a single degree.
Not really. On the one hand, heat pumps really do provide a nicer experience for home owners, and EV/EREV/HEVs really do give better performance, with less noise and pollution. What's not to like?
We all like it, the fact though is that they are efficiency gains, just like my Golf TSi is a huge efficiency gain over the '80s Golf.
On the other hand, a move from oil to wind power isn't efficiency, it's substitution.
Agreed on that. I presume we will disagree on the level of substitution that is possible, especially after the peak on coal and NG production.
A Nissan Leaf costs less than the average new ICE vehicle. We can do the transition via attrition, and it won't cost any more than Business as Usual.
You are still assuming that consumers will be able to buy a new car. I on the other hand believe that in a contracting economy, with gas and food prices rising sharply as well as unemployment, banks not giving out loans to anyone and governments cutting back on expenditures in order to lower debt there's no way that people will have the option of buying a new car.
Furthermore, replacing an old, big ICE car with an EREV is certainly a gain, something that will happen in the OECD world. If at the same time a Chinese replaces his bicycle with a car (any car) the end result will probably be rising oil consumption. Even IEA projects that OECD will lower it's oil consumption by 6 mbpd by 2035, while non-OECD will increase it by 19 mbpd!!
On the one hand, neither is oil drilling, or coal mining - how much of Greek oil and coal is domestic? On the other, I suspect you're underestimating the wind potential - what was the source?
Coal (lignite) is a large resource in Greece. Oil and NG is imported but is still readily available. As for wind capacity, i can quote various sources but they 're all in Greek :)
Technically available wind potential is something quite different from the practical capacity that can be installed in a small country due to various reasons (land ownership, proximity to towns/villages, etc). Also, the rate of installation is quite important as well as the time that this wind capacity will bocome available as energy production. We have about 1000 MW of installed capacity, with 25% capacity factor which translates to just over 2 TWh energy production. Even if we installed 500 MW/year it would mean adding no more than 1 TWh of production or about 1,5% of total production. In other words, we would probably just be matching probable consumption increases, not replacing coal/NG capacity.
Personally, i 'm more in favor of replacing old coal plants with 32% efficiency to highly efficient "combined-cycle" coal plants (with more than 40% efficiency) than placing our bets on wind.
Greece is in a difficult position: it can't devalue it's currency to improve it's trade balance, and the Greek public won't happily accept pay cuts to pay for past borrowing.
They 're not happily accepting budget/pay cuts but it's happening none the less. As will happen in other countries with large government debt (US included). Agreed on the currency issue, but engaging on a currency was isn't exactly the way to go, combined with the fact that it will just increase the real oil price you pay.
There's more than enough. The difficulty with financial capital isn't scarcity, it's fear of investment.
Fear of investment (and loaning) is more than reasonable if you are faced with someone (individual, government) with large debt. Capital is based on debt, if oil shortages signal economic contraction new loans will be charged more and capital will become scarce. Add to that government budget cuts (so they can service their high, expensive debt) and you get the picture.
Regarding net energy: we have an enormous surplus, especially in the US. That's what allows single passenger SUVs, and home temperature control within a single degree.
Come on now. The US consumes two or three times more energy per capita than the rest of the world and most of it is imported while the fuel taxation is minuscule compared to the EU. It's only possible because China and middle east re-invest the dollars they receive in the US (mostly bonds). If we 're talking about coal or NG i 'll agree, but oil is heavily imported and you need hard currency to buy it. The only thing the US has to offer abroad is Wall Street and government bonds.
they are efficiency gains, just like my Golf TSi is a huge efficiency gain over the '80s Golf.
The heat pump could be, if it's an upgrade from resistance heating. More likely, though, it's a conversion from a conventional fossil fuels furnace, and that's a substitution.
A HEV could be considered an efficiency gain (although you could also see it as harnessing a new energy source: braking energy. OTOH, EREV/HEVs are a substitution.
I presume we will disagree on the level of substitution that is possible, especially after the peak on coal and NG production.
See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-everything-be-electrified.html
I on the other hand believe that in a contracting economy
The world economy isn't doing great, but it looks likely that it will limp along ok. Greece, of course, has bigger problems than most. Greek car sales are down by 70% in the last 3 months, but the OECD overall is only down 13%.
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?querytype=view&queryname=91
If at the same time a Chinese replaces his bicycle with a car (any car) the end result will probably be rising oil consumption.
Electric bikes are outselling ICE vehicles in China 2:1. The Chinese government is pushing EVs - we can only hope they push hard enough.
More later...
A HEV could be considered an efficiency gain (although you could also see it as harnessing a new energy source: braking energy. OTOH, EREV/HEVs are a substitution.
EVs rely on an ICE engine for long distance journeys. Current battery technology will NOT allow an EV to cover large distances on high speed. Simple physics and math shows that you need 120 KWh to have an ICE-car user experience on an EV.
See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-everything-be-electrified.html
Long distance shipping and airplane traveling cannot be electrified (or it's terribly costly and requires total fleet replacement) as well as car long distance travel (unless you can take the train). We definitely agree that trains and metro will be a very important player in a post-peak world.
Greek car sales are down by 70% in the last 3 months, but the OECD overall is only down 13%.
In an era of QE and huge government spending which will definitely NOT happen again. The world (US, most of Europe) is preparing to go down the road Greece is walking.
Electric bikes are outselling ICE vehicles in China 2:1. The Chinese government is pushing EVs - we can only hope they push hard enough.
You 're talking about a country with car sales close to 1,5 million per month and double digit increases. If they 're also buying 30 million Electric bikes is actually not important, the number of cars added to the fleet is important.
Kostas,
EVs rely on an ICE engine for long distance journeys.
80% of personal driving is within a 40 mile range. If all personal driving in the US were done in Chevy Volt-like vehicles, all of the long-distance driving could be powered on current ethanol production alone.
Current battery technology will NOT allow an EV to cover large distances on high speed.
IIRC, the Volt can do 100 MPH, and Leaf is close.
Simple physics and math shows that you need 120 KWh to have an ICE-car user experience on an EV.
Actually, EVs have better handling and performance than ICE vehicles.
Long distance shipping and airplane traveling cannot be electrified
Water travel certainly can - did you read the article in detail?
or it's terribly costly
Again, did you read the article?
requires total fleet replacement
You'd certainly need to replace the engines. Heck, we have plenty of time to do it: water travel can out-bid other uses for a long time.
as well as car long distance travel (unless you can take the train).
Have you looked at Better Place?
We definitely agree that trains and metro will be a very important player in a post-peak world.
I hope so - I like trains. Of course, EVs will do just fine either way.
You 're talking about a country with car sales close to 1,5 million per month and double digit increases. If they 're also buying 30 million Electric bikes is actually not important, the number of cars added to the fleet is important.
Well, the per-vehicle distance traveled and fuel consumed is also crucial.
Post a Comment