Economics of Electric Vehicles Mean Oil's Days as a Transport Fuel Are Numbered(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Economics of Electric Vehicles Mean Oil's Days as a Transport Fuel Are Numbered
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2019/09/02/economics-of-electric-vehicles-mean-oils-days-as-a-transport-fuel-are-numbered/#3e32d4605102
123 comments
That really is a remarkable visualization! So much so that I had to compute it for myself - 27,000 liters of gasoline will move an average car 287,000 km assuming 9.4L/100km which is the average 2017 fuel economy for a "car, light truck, SUV" in the US.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles
Relatedly, fuel consumption can be measured in square meters:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/325733/why-can-f...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/325733/why-can-f...
Yes, and the grandparent's calculation can be accomplished by simply dividing the fuel volume by the "area" of the car's efficiency (or multiplying if using MPG, which is inverse area)
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%283m%29%5E3*24.9mpg
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%283m%29%5E3*24.9mpg
Pico hectares are a good unit of area to use for this. For a car that gets N miles/gallon, for 1/N gallons/mile, that works out to 235/N pico hectares.
That results in nice small, but not too small, numbers for most current cars, around 50 pico hectares for a Humvee in the city to around 4 pico hectares for a Prius on the highway.
That results in nice small, but not too small, numbers for most current cars, around 50 pico hectares for a Humvee in the city to around 4 pico hectares for a Prius on the highway.
Square centimeters or millimeters seem easier to visualise. The area represents the size of the tube that feeds the engine to get this mileage. You could even express it in the form of a radius.
I cannot really find a standard definition of pico hectares, but am I correct in assuming we're talking about 0.01 mm²? Or 1 square hecto-micrometre, I guess.
2 other numbers I read today on HN that made me look at things differently, although I knew them in other units but those didn't 'click' as much: air (including the water in it) weighs about 4 kg/m3 (much more than I would have intuited), and the whole US uses 'only' 1.3 km3 of water per day.
[deleted]
With existing infrastructure, for most locations, electricity is far easier to transport than gas. Even with some necessary scaling to support widespread car charging, electrical infrastructure is far more robust, redundant and safe than the gas.
Not sure that's true. A gallon of gas has 33.4 kWh in it, and the US limits fuel pumps to 10 gallons per minute - it's moving 334 watt-hours per minute, or moving 20 megawatts.
It looks like electrical equipment of that scale tends to confined to substations, power plants, and other controlled areas.
When it comes to robustness, you often see power after a hurricane supplied by gasoline powered generators, with the gasoline supplied by any means necessary. (When the last hurricane hit here, gasoline was available for quite a long time before the grid was repaired.)
It looks like electrical equipment of that scale tends to confined to substations, power plants, and other controlled areas.
When it comes to robustness, you often see power after a hurricane supplied by gasoline powered generators, with the gasoline supplied by any means necessary. (When the last hurricane hit here, gasoline was available for quite a long time before the grid was repaired.)
>Not sure that's true. A gallon of gas has 33.4 kWh in it, and the US limits fuel pumps to 10 gallons per minute - it's moving 334 watt-hours per minute, or moving 20 megawatts.
This is something often overlooked when comparing fossil to electric fuels, on any average car you can "charge" enough fuel for 600miles in 10min whereas on an electric you need to charge for 75min to be able to make 350miles and that's if you have a supercharge station available.
This is something often overlooked when comparing fossil to electric fuels, on any average car you can "charge" enough fuel for 600miles in 10min whereas on an electric you need to charge for 75min to be able to make 350miles and that's if you have a supercharge station available.
You should define “most locations”, because in my opinion that term does not include an entire continent, Africa, where power blackouts are more than common (that is where the power network had indeed arrived). You can also add an entire sub-continent, India, which granted doesn’t fare as bad as Africa but which also has its share of power cuts. And probably some parts of South America too, Venezuela most likely. This US- and Europe-centric view doesn’t do anyone any good.
Transport != store. I can transmit, assuming there's a sink on the other end (though loss is an issue over distance). Considering there is neither enough lithium nor enough cobalt to make a Tesla for every American, battery tech will be a huge bottleneck.
Who says that we don't have enough lithium?
There's likely plenty:
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-enough-lithium-in-the-world-t...
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-enough-lithium-in-the-world-t...
Future lithium batteries won't use cobalt.
Any source on this? I understand there alternative technologies, but most have disadvantages in terms of power density, longevity, price, etc.
Cobalt reduction has already been happening at a rapid pace. 2018 article mentioning Tesla cut their Cobalt needs by volume over 60%: http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/te...
Even if we can't get Cobalt to 0% (and there is plenty of research into other battery composites happening right now), the problems with Cobalt seem less to do with scarcity and a lot more to do with geopolitics (Cobalt is primarily sourced today as byproduct extracts of mines for minerals such as nickel in countries like Columbia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). There's even indications that cobalt could be recycled from existing battery composites (as we do today already for lithium), but no economic incentive to do such because it isn't scarce enough to try.
Even if we can't get Cobalt to 0% (and there is plenty of research into other battery composites happening right now), the problems with Cobalt seem less to do with scarcity and a lot more to do with geopolitics (Cobalt is primarily sourced today as byproduct extracts of mines for minerals such as nickel in countries like Columbia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). There's even indications that cobalt could be recycled from existing battery composites (as we do today already for lithium), but no economic incentive to do such because it isn't scarce enough to try.
That's a nice image, but you are making a case for storage, not transport.
Transportation of (flammable) liquids require either vehicles (and hence roads or rails if you go inland) down to the last mile. Electricity requires a wire, which is far less costly to build.
Also if you consider the logistics of bringing energy to different places of a building, wires are much easier to lay down than pipes.
Transportation of (flammable) liquids require either vehicles (and hence roads or rails if you go inland) down to the last mile. Electricity requires a wire, which is far less costly to build.
Also if you consider the logistics of bringing energy to different places of a building, wires are much easier to lay down than pipes.
Electricity requires a wire, which is far less costly to build.
Have you tried?
The marginal cost of driving an existing truck 10 mile down an existing road is negligible. Getting electricity to a place that is even half a mile from the nearest place that currently has electricity can be incredibly expensive and time consuming. Even just applying for the right permits and getting the go ahead from the local power company to start pricing out the job can take months.
Have you tried?
The marginal cost of driving an existing truck 10 mile down an existing road is negligible. Getting electricity to a place that is even half a mile from the nearest place that currently has electricity can be incredibly expensive and time consuming. Even just applying for the right permits and getting the go ahead from the local power company to start pricing out the job can take months.
Tried what? Running a wire vs building a road?
Of course non-existent wire vs existing road is not competitive.
If both exist, electricity wins. If neither exists, electricity wins. And electricity has that added advantage that you can buy an equipment that will produce it in place without consuming additional resources.
The only case where fuel is competitive is when roads exist, electricity distribution doesn't, and diesel generators are installed.
Of course non-existent wire vs existing road is not competitive.
If both exist, electricity wins. If neither exists, electricity wins. And electricity has that added advantage that you can buy an equipment that will produce it in place without consuming additional resources.
The only case where fuel is competitive is when roads exist, electricity distribution doesn't, and diesel generators are installed.
If neither exists, electricity wins.
Are you sure? I'm not. Especially not when we're talking the sort of electrical infrastructure that can support charging multiple electric cars and trucks (although there's no point in having an electric car if there aren't any roads).
Obviously electricity is the right long term answer and where we should be going, but I doubt it is the cheapest immediate solution in many parts of the world.
Are you sure? I'm not. Especially not when we're talking the sort of electrical infrastructure that can support charging multiple electric cars and trucks (although there's no point in having an electric car if there aren't any roads).
Obviously electricity is the right long term answer and where we should be going, but I doubt it is the cheapest immediate solution in many parts of the world.
Electricity moves itself. You apply power on one end and it flows down the line at about the speed of light. There is literally nothing (other than superconductors) with lower marginal cost per joule transmitted than wire.
Wires never blow a tire, head gasket, or transmission - and in fact they cannot even crash into and kill people on the highway. They're just long pieces of copper or steel tied to a tower. How convenient!
If you instead compare the fixed costs, as you seem wont to do, you'll find that HV (500 kV) transmission lines and towers capable of carrying several gigawatts [1] continuously have substantially lower initial and lifetime costs per Joule-kilometre than oil pipelines, rail, trucks, tankers, or anything else that has to move oil. [2]
[1] https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your...
Wires never blow a tire, head gasket, or transmission - and in fact they cannot even crash into and kill people on the highway. They're just long pieces of copper or steel tied to a tower. How convenient!
If you instead compare the fixed costs, as you seem wont to do, you'll find that HV (500 kV) transmission lines and towers capable of carrying several gigawatts [1] continuously have substantially lower initial and lifetime costs per Joule-kilometre than oil pipelines, rail, trucks, tankers, or anything else that has to move oil. [2]
[1] https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your...
Since you need the road for the car to drive on, it's kind of fair to assume the road is a given.
Why did you compare existing sunk cost with non existing future Capex? The road will need replacing. The truck sending fuel will need replacing. These costs have to be borne. Yes a road exists. But electricity supply also exists.
Compare like with like please.
Compare like with like please.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of gas cans hurtling down the highway?
I guess that's a valid point, but mailing DVDs still lost out to streaming, same as trucking and piping gas will lose to wiring.
I guess that's a valid point, but mailing DVDs still lost out to streaming, same as trucking and piping gas will lose to wiring.
>A cube 3 meters on a side can contain enough gasoline to power the average car for its entire lifespan.
A cube 3 meters on a side can also contain almost 160,000 meters squared of solar cell wafers, given a common wafer thickness of around 170 micrometers.
Assuming around ten square meters per car, that could keep nearly 16,000 cars on the road for decades.
edit - to take this further, a standard shipping container could contain enough wafers for nearly 20,000 cars and in 2012, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were 254,639,386 registered vehicles in the US.
So that comes to under 14,000 shipping containers full of wafers, which could fit in one single ship delivery, for all of the vehicles in the USA.
A cube 3 meters on a side can also contain almost 160,000 meters squared of solar cell wafers, given a common wafer thickness of around 170 micrometers.
Assuming around ten square meters per car, that could keep nearly 16,000 cars on the road for decades.
edit - to take this further, a standard shipping container could contain enough wafers for nearly 20,000 cars and in 2012, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were 254,639,386 registered vehicles in the US.
So that comes to under 14,000 shipping containers full of wafers, which could fit in one single ship delivery, for all of the vehicles in the USA.
> given a common wafer thickness of around 170 micrometers
> So that comes to under 14,000 shipping containers full of wafers, which could fit in one single ship delivery, for all of the vehicles in the USA.
Taking the thickness of 170 micrometers and extrapolating this measure of a solar waffer to the needs of US cars is just ... unreal. The OP came up with a serious relation. How many containers would be needed when you measue the thickness of handable solar cells, like 3mm?
> So that comes to under 14,000 shipping containers full of wafers, which could fit in one single ship delivery, for all of the vehicles in the USA.
Taking the thickness of 170 micrometers and extrapolating this measure of a solar waffer to the needs of US cars is just ... unreal. The OP came up with a serious relation. How many containers would be needed when you measue the thickness of handable solar cells, like 3mm?
I don't quite see why you think transporting wafers 170 micrometers thick is unreal or in some way extreme. 170 micrometers is the same thickness as 135 gsm art paper.
edit - Also, 170 micrometers is positively beefy compared to what is coming down the line. 1 micrometer thick flexible cells have already been developed - https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/06/20/New-flexible-sol... -
edit - Also, 170 micrometers is positively beefy compared to what is coming down the line. 1 micrometer thick flexible cells have already been developed - https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/06/20/New-flexible-sol... -
About 40 times as many. So 40 ships.
> much easier to transport
I understand this to mean “cheaper to transport at scale”. You need to truck gasoline to a gas station every time. Once cables are laid, electricity transport is practically free.
I understand this to mean “cheaper to transport at scale”. You need to truck gasoline to a gas station every time. Once cables are laid, electricity transport is practically free.
Imagine the delta between the electric infrastructure we need when we have a car fleet that is electric vs the electric infrastructure we need when we don't.
Given we need to transport electricity for a bunch of other things, this delta is small.
It's big relative to the electric fleet size when the fleet is small, but it's tiny when the electric fleet is a substantial fraction of the car fleet.
Given we need to transport electricity for a bunch of other things, this delta is small.
It's big relative to the electric fleet size when the fleet is small, but it's tiny when the electric fleet is a substantial fraction of the car fleet.
It's a shame that we don't have the technology to pull energy from the sun and turn it into electricity.
>“For a given capital outlay on oil and renewables, how much useful energy at the wheel do we get? Our analysis indicates that for the same capital outlay today, new wind and solar-energy projects in tandem with battery electric vehicles will produce six to seven times more useful energy at the wheels than will oil at $60 per barrel for gasoline powered light-duty vehicles, and three to four times more than will oil at $60 per barrel for light-duty vehicles running on diesel,”
If these figures are even in the rough ballpark of being correct, then it is all over bar the shouting.
>"More than a third (36%) of the crude oil produced today goes to fuel vehicles susceptible to electrification"
https://www.electricclassiccars.co.uk/
If these figures are even in the rough ballpark of being correct, then it is all over bar the shouting.
>"More than a third (36%) of the crude oil produced today goes to fuel vehicles susceptible to electrification"
https://www.electricclassiccars.co.uk/
Coffin nail for small internal combustion engines is maintenance and life span. I think maintenance is around 5 to 10 cents a mile. And the engines only last 4-8000 hours. Maintenance on electric motors is nil. And the life span is 25-50,000 hours at least for industrial motors.
Kicker once price parity is archived gasoline powered cars will be more expensive to operate even if the cost of gasoline was zero.
Kicker once price parity is archived gasoline powered cars will be more expensive to operate even if the cost of gasoline was zero.
> renewable electricity has a short-run marginal cost of zero
This seems to be the crux of the argument. It certainly doesn't make sense to me. Obviously oil would find it hard to compete with electricity if it was free, but amortizing the cost of renewable power plants means that is unlikely any time soon.
This seems to be the crux of the argument. It certainly doesn't make sense to me. Obviously oil would find it hard to compete with electricity if it was free, but amortizing the cost of renewable power plants means that is unlikely any time soon.
Marginal cost = cost of producing one more unit of something (energy in that case) once your capital has been spent.
It just says that if you have a solar panel, you don't need to spend additional money to make it produce electricity. Unlike, say, a diesel generator. It is purely capital spending, zero marginal cost.
Another way of counting would be to say that _not_ producing costs you money as you are losing capital over the panels' lifetime.
It just says that if you have a solar panel, you don't need to spend additional money to make it produce electricity. Unlike, say, a diesel generator. It is purely capital spending, zero marginal cost.
Another way of counting would be to say that _not_ producing costs you money as you are losing capital over the panels' lifetime.
There are times of the year where renewable energy is free right now, and production is curtailed.
There are also some places where prices go slightly negative because the producers' tax credit schemes give them revenue in excess of the negative price.
There are also some places where prices go slightly negative because the producers' tax credit schemes give them revenue in excess of the negative price.
Bloomberg has a study.[1] But they see electric vehicles hitting 50% of new sales about 20 years out.
The battery Ford F150 is two years out.. At that point, most consumer vehicles can potentially be electric, but the electrics will not be lower in initial cost yet. Bloomberg sees that happening in 2024.
Conversion may happen faster in China. Already, there are heavy incentives to go electric in Beijing. As in, you can get a car license much more easily.
[1] https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/
[2] https://thinkprogress.org/electric-vehicles-cheaper-gasoline...
The battery Ford F150 is two years out.. At that point, most consumer vehicles can potentially be electric, but the electrics will not be lower in initial cost yet. Bloomberg sees that happening in 2024.
Conversion may happen faster in China. Already, there are heavy incentives to go electric in Beijing. As in, you can get a car license much more easily.
[1] https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/
[2] https://thinkprogress.org/electric-vehicles-cheaper-gasoline...
FYI we are at about 5% yearly now. More than half the EVs produced last year were produced in China, where the government strong subsidizes electric vehicles and taxes fuel vehicles.
There is also another strong incentive for EVs in a renewable electricity scenario: smoothing the intermittence.
Nowadays, electricity grids try to incentivize consumers to use electricity at night more, as they try to smoothen the consumption baseline. With solar and wind, you have huge spikes of production and some gaps as well. Expect electricity to be very expensive at some time and very cheap (even free or negative price) at some other time. In such a context, storage capacity becomes very quickly a good investment.
Nowadays, electricity grids try to incentivize consumers to use electricity at night more, as they try to smoothen the consumption baseline. With solar and wind, you have huge spikes of production and some gaps as well. Expect electricity to be very expensive at some time and very cheap (even free or negative price) at some other time. In such a context, storage capacity becomes very quickly a good investment.
The Forbes summary of the report it's covering says this only covers light duty vehicles and up to 40% of oil production. So still plenty of demand for oil for long haul ships and trucks I imagine.
Some of the more sustainable long haul truck routes are likely going to go electric.
Hydrogen fuel cells likely won't be cost effective for cars, but may disrupt diesel in long haul ships and may be competitive against fast charging for the wilder long haul trucking routes.
Hydrogen fuel cells likely won't be cost effective for cars, but may disrupt diesel in long haul ships and may be competitive against fast charging for the wilder long haul trucking routes.
No, this also is where things are going for trucks, it just will happen maybe 5 years later.
I have questions about the environmental impact of EV batteries when it comes time to replace or dispose of them. I've read a few things, including an old statement by Tesla on the topic.[1]
> Tesla: "our lithium ion cells contain no heavy metals, nor any toxic materials. In fact, our cells and Energy Storage System, by law, could be disposed of by putting them in a landfill. However, we have no intention of landfilling our ESS." They go on to say a recycling plan is being implemented. Cool.
From an RoHS POV, sure, no heavy metals. But "no toxic materials" and "ready for landfill" blows my mind. Am I naive?
I'll assume Tesla is one of the Good Guys, but I predict worse players in the industry will take advantage of loose disposal regulations if there is short term benefit.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling-our-...
> Tesla: "our lithium ion cells contain no heavy metals, nor any toxic materials. In fact, our cells and Energy Storage System, by law, could be disposed of by putting them in a landfill. However, we have no intention of landfilling our ESS." They go on to say a recycling plan is being implemented. Cool.
From an RoHS POV, sure, no heavy metals. But "no toxic materials" and "ready for landfill" blows my mind. Am I naive?
I'll assume Tesla is one of the Good Guys, but I predict worse players in the industry will take advantage of loose disposal regulations if there is short term benefit.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling-our-...
People will buy completely wrecked Teslas for $5-20k just to extract and resell the battery modules. Each of the 16 battery modules from an S goes for about $1200 a pop. The secondary market will buy essentially any quantity of lithium cells if the price is below $200/kWh, no questions asked.
Recycling efforts are almost always for show. If a cell or module has at least 30% of its original capacity remaining, people will reuse it for stationary storage or weight-insensitive vehicles. Shredding and recovering cathode materials from lithium cells is about as economically nonsensical as recovering silicon from cell phones.
There is such a massive worldwide shortage of batteries right now that worrying about dumping them in landfills is beyond pointless. You may as well worry that we're throwing away too many gold bars.
Recycling efforts are almost always for show. If a cell or module has at least 30% of its original capacity remaining, people will reuse it for stationary storage or weight-insensitive vehicles. Shredding and recovering cathode materials from lithium cells is about as economically nonsensical as recovering silicon from cell phones.
There is such a massive worldwide shortage of batteries right now that worrying about dumping them in landfills is beyond pointless. You may as well worry that we're throwing away too many gold bars.
Lithium-ion battery construction has been constantly changing since its invention in the 90s, but the basics have been the same rather consistently. The batteries are fairly universally "non-toxic" assortments of "light" metals and salts in organic (Carbon-based) solvents. (Lithium itself is Atomic Number 3 on the periodic table; it's an incredibly common light metal. Cobalt and Nickel in the high-20s are generally the highest atomic numbers you see in any of the battery formulas, and many of the compounds are "organic". Neither of which is a direct link between atomic number and organic nature to toxicity of the final compounds using it, see ethanol, but as a first order approximation it's an okay start.)
None of the big battery manufacturers (LG Chem and Panasonic are too other huge manufacturers to compare to Tesla for instance) are doing much at all different from Tesla.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Environmen...
None of the big battery manufacturers (LG Chem and Panasonic are too other huge manufacturers to compare to Tesla for instance) are doing much at all different from Tesla.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Environmen...
There is a lot of FUD spread over EVs right now. There seems to be a lot of people hating to see them branded as "green" technology. I think both the oil industry and the "return to nature"-type ecologists don't like this narrative, but from all I have seen, in terms of environmentalism, EVs are a huge step up.
This writer works through some upper limits of vehicle electrification, based on cobalt reserves:
https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2015/12/cobalt-requirements-for-...
https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2015/12/cobalt-requirements-for-...
The writer doesn't seem to distinguish between reserves and resources, a common mistake in these kinds of articles. In normal mining use reserves are areas of ore you've mapped out and shown to be economically extractable by drilling holes, taking samples etc, resources are the amount or stuff out there. Reserves always only go a few years ahead because it takes money to find them, drill them and so on. That doesn't mean we're running out.
> Economics of Electric Vehicles Mean Oil's Days As A Transport Fuel Are Numbered
I know the article was about cars, but fossil fuel will always have a place as aviation fuel. The only thing I can currently see ending that trend is widespread use of vacuum tunnel trains.
I know the article was about cars, but fossil fuel will always have a place as aviation fuel. The only thing I can currently see ending that trend is widespread use of vacuum tunnel trains.
I see the claim that we need fossil fuels for airlines and rockets raised frequently, but once we have widespread renewable electricity, what’s the barrier to creating fuel from air and water, using electricity?
AFAIK, it’s not really fossil fuels that are needed for planes and rockets, but high energy density liquid fuels, and these can surely be created renewably once we have a renewable energy infrastructure.
Or have I missed something?
AFAIK, it’s not really fossil fuels that are needed for planes and rockets, but high energy density liquid fuels, and these can surely be created renewably once we have a renewable energy infrastructure.
Or have I missed something?
Yes.
And small electric planes are in fact beginning to show up. It is my understanding that going electric enables more efficient designs, and with those one or two decades of further battery tech development might actually get us large planes too.
And small electric planes are in fact beginning to show up. It is my understanding that going electric enables more efficient designs, and with those one or two decades of further battery tech development might actually get us large planes too.
That Israeli company Eviation is claiming their yet to fly electric plane will have a range of 500 miles. I'm reserving judgement till I see it. If they pull that off it's a line in the sand.
This electric aircraft gets 60 minutes endurance and is flying today (apparently):
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-04/first-electric-plane-...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-04/first-electric-plane-...
Be interesting to talk to someone that has real experience with those.
> what’s the barrier to creating fuel from air and water, using electricity?
> it’s not really fossil fuels that are needed for planes and rockets, but high energy density liquid fuels
The energy density of liquid hydrogen is really low, so that idea won't work. You want hydrocarbons of some sort, because they have the required energy density, so you could probably switch planes to run on some sort of biodiesel instead of fossil fuel.
> it’s not really fossil fuels that are needed for planes and rockets, but high energy density liquid fuels
The energy density of liquid hydrogen is really low, so that idea won't work. You want hydrocarbons of some sort, because they have the required energy density, so you could probably switch planes to run on some sort of biodiesel instead of fossil fuel.
The energy density doesn't matter if the engine efficiency goes up. Early experiments with electric engines for planes seem to suggest that efficiency may go up enough that hydrogen fuel cells may be viable, whether or not battery tech gets there.
Bio fuels for cars are unsustainable because you will need even more bio fuels to produce fertilizer and to power the farming equipment but if you merely use bio fuels for energy storage in aviation then most problems disappear.
But if you have enough energy, isn’t it possible to synthesise fuel directly using CO2 and H2O? No need to use biomaterial as feedstock... assuming the energy is renewable.
Maybe I’m overly optimistic?
Eg here is how to create methane https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140106094557.h...
Maybe I’m overly optimistic?
Eg here is how to create methane https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140106094557.h...
Hydrocarbons will have a place as aviation fuel for the foreseeable future. It is unlikely that they'll be made with fossil carbon for much longer.
But all the small electric cars are just starting at the shamed price of 35/40k € ( Peugeot 208, VW ID.3 and so on).
That is a huge barrier of entrance. At the same price, one can buy a BMW or Audi. We need an economic model to let the EV industry boom
That is a huge barrier of entrance. At the same price, one can buy a BMW or Audi. We need an economic model to let the EV industry boom
One probably needs to develop and produce EVs in cheaper country than Germany. BMW and VW engineers earn ~100k € early, they are unionized and can’t be fired. As a result one gets ID.3 for 40k€. That’s already very expensive car for most Germans despite some pre-orders: https://electrek.co/2019/07/22/vw-zwickau-factory-electric-c...
Last but not least: electricity. If you don’t have a garage, EV does not make sense. No easy overnight charging, I don’t want to park mile or tho away my car for few hours just for charging. And taxes! Most of petrol/diesel price in Germany are taxes, electricity is taxed much lower. Can government loose this stream of income that easy? Or electricity will be taxed same way in the future?
Last but not least: electricity. If you don’t have a garage, EV does not make sense. No easy overnight charging, I don’t want to park mile or tho away my car for few hours just for charging. And taxes! Most of petrol/diesel price in Germany are taxes, electricity is taxed much lower. Can government loose this stream of income that easy? Or electricity will be taxed same way in the future?
With range now at 500km+ for many cars that's not a huge issue for most people. If you can't charge at home, maybe you can charge at work, at least sometimes? Or the grocery store has a fast charger so you can charge when you shop? Or the shopping mall or whatever. Unless you have an extreme commute you don't have to charge every day.
ICEs are affordable. Engineer wages don't seem to be the limiting factor. The problem is that the car companies don't want to invest into battery factories because they hope someone else pays the bill first.
You are right, Sono Motors in Munich did their development on shoestring budget. I was asked to join electric camper startup, they estimated their development budget under 2M€ using off shelf parts.
Or you just tax fuel appropriately and suddenly the BMW or Audi isn't attractive anymore.
Fuel prices need to go up a lot for that. Over 100,000km an EV costs around €3000 - €6000 less to run than an efficient ICE. Increasing fuel prices will also mean people scrap perfectly good but inefficient older cars.
Governments need to make EV ownership more appealing (in my country you can drive in bus lanes, so avoid rush hour traffic), increase incentive payments, or charge higher taxes on new ICE vehicles.
Governments need to make EV ownership more appealing (in my country you can drive in bus lanes, so avoid rush hour traffic), increase incentive payments, or charge higher taxes on new ICE vehicles.
Supply is constrained for nearly all electric vehicles right now, I wanted to buy a Golf GTE but VW haven't be accepting orders for a long time.
As supply increases I expect those prices will fall.
As supply increases I expect those prices will fall.
VW seems to think the efficiencies of scale for EV production will catch up real fast to ICE vehicles. They think as soon as next year (and almost definitely by 2021) their EV cars will be cheaper than their equivalent ICE models.
There is going to be a really interesting tipping point in the very near future where the simplicity of electric drive trains is going to outcompete the very complicated supply chains of ICE engine parts. I've got a feeling VW is correct.
There is going to be a really interesting tipping point in the very near future where the simplicity of electric drive trains is going to outcompete the very complicated supply chains of ICE engine parts. I've got a feeling VW is correct.
The price problem is because the batteries are so expensive, but they are rapidly getting cheaper. They dropped 35& in 2018. The experts say around 2023 ev's will be sticker-price comparable with ice autos at the high end, and in succeeding years move down the line to smaller ones.
The auto industry realizes this is going to happen, and much of it is scrambling like crazy to be ready when it happens.
The auto industry realizes this is going to happen, and much of it is scrambling like crazy to be ready when it happens.
The question on my mind is what else will this freed up oil will be used for? One area could be cheaper fuel for aviation? More plastics? This of course ignores the environmental cost of continuing to use oil.
If oil demand falls a lot of tar sands and offshore and fracking and other hard to get oil will become uneconomical to extract, causing (paradoxically) supply to appear to contract too. The oil age could ratchet down via a series of price spikes and contractions just as it ratcheted up via price spikes and expansions.
Thing I read about the history of oil is energy return on investment went from about 125:1 in 1920 to about 10:1 now and tar sands are worse than that.
If countries start slapping carbon taxes on oil, you can quickly see where that goes.
If countries start slapping carbon taxes on oil, you can quickly see where that goes.
It costs so much less to drive an EV per mile largely because we get electricity from sources with a much higher EROEI than present day oil. Gas, coal, solar, wind, nuclear, and hydro are all much better. The low energy return of current oil is priced in.
BTW it's not just obtaining the oil but refining it. Oil refineries use a ton of power usually from electricity, gas, or by burning some of the oil itself. Heavier oil like tar sands and shale takes more energy to refine, as does high sulfur oil.
Tar sands is so bad I've heard it described as being almost more a way of very indirectly converting other sources of energy into oil than a source of energy.
BTW it's not just obtaining the oil but refining it. Oil refineries use a ton of power usually from electricity, gas, or by burning some of the oil itself. Heavier oil like tar sands and shale takes more energy to refine, as does high sulfur oil.
Tar sands is so bad I've heard it described as being almost more a way of very indirectly converting other sources of energy into oil than a source of energy.
Yes. From an energy efficiency point of view we'd be better off burning the oil used to make gasoline in a thermal power plant.
Your comment about Tar Sands reminds me of a quote I read a long time ago about the price of coal being linked strongly to the price of diesel. Not to mention fracking boom is just a way to turn free central bank loans into Nat Gas.
Your comment about Tar Sands reminds me of a quote I read a long time ago about the price of coal being linked strongly to the price of diesel. Not to mention fracking boom is just a way to turn free central bank loans into Nat Gas.
I think new uses and new users will continue to abound, so I don't think humans will radically reduce their consumption.
One evidence of this is just the sheer number of cars on the road these days. Human population is increasing, and an abundance of cheap ICE cars means everyone is driving to work at least in suburban areas. In the past, busses and bikes were selected because cars weren't economical for certain individuals.
Now nearly everyone at our office drives a car by themselves to work. No more car pooling, biking, ubering, bus, train, walking, etc.
One evidence of this is just the sheer number of cars on the road these days. Human population is increasing, and an abundance of cheap ICE cars means everyone is driving to work at least in suburban areas. In the past, busses and bikes were selected because cars weren't economical for certain individuals.
Now nearly everyone at our office drives a car by themselves to work. No more car pooling, biking, ubering, bus, train, walking, etc.
Where do you work? That is not the case at anyplace I've ever worked
In Nassau County NY where the majority of buildings here are either single family homes or corporate office buildings with giant parking lots.
Of course just 30 miles east you have NYC where probably less than 5% of people drive to work or own a car, period. But on a geographical basis, most of this population center is designed for cars and it is very common for a 1 hour trip (60 miles) to take 2.5 hours during rush hour(s).
Of course just 30 miles east you have NYC where probably less than 5% of people drive to work or own a car, period. But on a geographical basis, most of this population center is designed for cars and it is very common for a 1 hour trip (60 miles) to take 2.5 hours during rush hour(s).
If the cost of extracting it is too high, it stays in the ground. Otherwise, it gets used as a precursor for higher value products like plastics.
The caloric value of a hydrocarbon is approximately the minimum price it can be sold for. Almost any other use will give higher returns to justify paying a higher price. Though hopefully it doesn't just mean more plastic everything, that would be disappointing.
The caloric value of a hydrocarbon is approximately the minimum price it can be sold for. Almost any other use will give higher returns to justify paying a higher price. Though hopefully it doesn't just mean more plastic everything, that would be disappointing.
Saudi Arabia extracts oil at $7-$15/barrel. The price should go up over time, but constant innovation in exploration and extraction drives it down also. Their reserves haven't gone down for 20 years because they are constantly exploring more fields.
Currently their economy can probably remain stable until as low as $70/barrel for long periods of time although growth would be difficult. If their diversification efforts succeed in the next decade they will be less reliant and will be able to sustain much lower prices.
Every last drop in the Persian Gulf is economical for the foreseeable future. Fuel is the least profitable and they are already switching to petrochemicals. Oil is not going away this century.
Currently their economy can probably remain stable until as low as $70/barrel for long periods of time although growth would be difficult. If their diversification efforts succeed in the next decade they will be less reliant and will be able to sustain much lower prices.
Every last drop in the Persian Gulf is economical for the foreseeable future. Fuel is the least profitable and they are already switching to petrochemicals. Oil is not going away this century.
>Oil is not going away this century.
No, it is going to go away. That is because most governments are scared to death of global climate change and are passing laws to do away with fossil fuel consumption. It's not happening all at once, but basically as fast as the technology comes into place to replace fossil fuels.
No, it is going to go away. That is because most governments are scared to death of global climate change and are passing laws to do away with fossil fuel consumption. It's not happening all at once, but basically as fast as the technology comes into place to replace fossil fuels.
Even if we stop fossil fuels tomorrow oil is here to stay. How long would it take to develop new aircraft? How long would it take to stop all industries from using plastic, and all agriculture from using petrochemical fertilizer?
Not all governments are in on some grand conspiracy. Many governments would greatly benefit. But to make the switch now would mean severe damage to their economy and wellbeing. Even medicine relies heavily on petrochemicals inside and outside of the hospital.
Even if a country chooses to sacrifice itself to benefit the common good, it might not be enough to affect actual environmental change.
Not all governments are in on some grand conspiracy. Many governments would greatly benefit. But to make the switch now would mean severe damage to their economy and wellbeing. Even medicine relies heavily on petrochemicals inside and outside of the hospital.
Even if a country chooses to sacrifice itself to benefit the common good, it might not be enough to affect actual environmental change.
Petrochemicals are still an important component of industrial agriculture needed for feeding 7 billion people around the world.
If oil prices fall too low, Persian Gulf and Russian borders become unstable and from there its any ones guess, how things would take shape.
Energy is heavily interlinked with geo-politics and if Persian Gulf is out of the game even for few months - millions of people will starve to death. The only silver lining is that North America is self-sufficient in ONG for the coming years, and that is not the case for much or Europe, Asia and Africa.
If oil prices fall too low, Persian Gulf and Russian borders become unstable and from there its any ones guess, how things would take shape.
Energy is heavily interlinked with geo-politics and if Persian Gulf is out of the game even for few months - millions of people will starve to death. The only silver lining is that North America is self-sufficient in ONG for the coming years, and that is not the case for much or Europe, Asia and Africa.
Honestly the electrification of farm equipment is coming too. For a tractor you want two things: weight and torque. Electric drivetrains provide both.
Tractors have way more complex transmissions(HST, Power Shuttle, etc) that all goes away with a VFD electric drivetrain. Large traction motors already exist(all cargo trains these days are diesel-electric). The lower operating costs and lower maintenance help as well.
If I could have bought our Kubota in an electric drivetrain I would have done it in a second
Tractors have way more complex transmissions(HST, Power Shuttle, etc) that all goes away with a VFD electric drivetrain. Large traction motors already exist(all cargo trains these days are diesel-electric). The lower operating costs and lower maintenance help as well.
If I could have bought our Kubota in an electric drivetrain I would have done it in a second
I think they are talking about fertilizers, not fuel.
It's a good question. Along with oil came a tremendous amount of dependence. See railroads 50 years before that. Everyone who remembers those battles is dead. But that bargan with the devil is still with us and is likely heat back up as governments try get out from under it.
~70% of oil is used for transportation. Take away the ability to amortize the enormous infrastructure costs at the gas pump and it's not clear that oil will get cheaper, the exact opposite may happen.
Great!
Now all we need is an electric car that fits the economic footprint of a gas car and provides decent range. I'll take a performance model, please.
Now all we need is an electric car that fits the economic footprint of a gas car and provides decent range. I'll take a performance model, please.
Lead time on a Performance Model 3 is 2-3 weeks. I know because I just ordered one today for my brother. Order away!
Which car runs on a gas?
Toyota Mirai, Honda Clarity, Hyundai Nexo just to name a few.
Note that this is a "Forbes Contributor", i.e. a user of the Forbes blogging platform. I wish HN wouldn't label these with "forbes.com" because it's even shittier quality than Forbes.
Lithium batteries aren’t green at all. Going to EVs just changes the impact on the environment.
If we can’t solve the end of life issues with lithium batteries, we need to look at them as a technology adjacent to petroleum when it pertains to environmental impact. A true step forward would be an innovation of power storage itself, rather than the mechanisms around it. Build a better gas tank.
If we can’t solve the end of life issues with lithium batteries, we need to look at them as a technology adjacent to petroleum when it pertains to environmental impact. A true step forward would be an innovation of power storage itself, rather than the mechanisms around it. Build a better gas tank.
It seems likely that the end of life for vehicle lithium ion batteries will look roughly similar to end of life for vehicle lead acid batteries today. Namely, lead acid batteries are recycled at a rate of 99.3% in the US, making them the most recycled consumer good. The demand obviously doesn't exist right now because so few electric cars have reached end of life, but it seems like the transitioning the world to battery power will require a one-time investment of a bunch of materials (nickel arguably being the most important) then those same materials will just cycle around the economy for centuries.
https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/battery-council-inter...
https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/battery-council-inter...
Some family members of mine work for a company that makes lead-acid batteries- and that same company also just happens to be the largest lead-recycling company in the world as well- because mining it costs more than recycling it.
I look forward to the future here- it doesn't seem like an unsolvable problem for the engineers at ${battery recycler} to go from lead-acid to NiMH or LiFePo4 or LiPo or whatever it is.
Awesome username, by the way.
I look forward to the future here- it doesn't seem like an unsolvable problem for the engineers at ${battery recycler} to go from lead-acid to NiMH or LiFePo4 or LiPo or whatever it is.
Awesome username, by the way.
Seems unlikely. The reason that lead acid batteries are so recyclable is that they contain big slabs of pretty much entirely lead, which makes recovering it fairly cost effective. Lithium ion batteries contain relatively small amounts of the valuable metals that went into making them, and those are mixed with a whole bunch of lovely flammable and pyrophoric chemicals.
tesla's plan for old car packs that lost some range is to turn them into home battery packs.
Originally the PowerWall was meant to be all recycled batteries, though there aren't generally enough vehicle batteries to recycle yet, so far as I know Tesla has never sold a PowerWall with recycled batteries.
Nissan actually drew up a plan for a PowerWall competitor before Tesla even announced theirs, but has never produced one. Nissan has claimed to actually be waiting for the point in time where Leaf and other Nissan batteries are recyclable (and also that it has so far been pleasantly surprising how long the batteries are lasting in "first use" life).
Nissan actually drew up a plan for a PowerWall competitor before Tesla even announced theirs, but has never produced one. Nissan has claimed to actually be waiting for the point in time where Leaf and other Nissan batteries are recyclable (and also that it has so far been pleasantly surprising how long the batteries are lasting in "first use" life).
Location matters a lot with pollution. A ton of pollution in the form of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere is generally going to have a much larger impact than, say, a ton of pollution in the form of a solid pile of toxic waste.
Does producing lithium batteries produce much pollution in the atmosphere or in lakes, rivers, and oceans, or is it more in the toxic pile category?
Does producing lithium batteries produce much pollution in the atmosphere or in lakes, rivers, and oceans, or is it more in the toxic pile category?
Lithium itself is often mined from salt brines in lakes/rivers, and that will pollute such water sources (though not with lithium, more with dirt and rust and miner garbage) when done incorrectly or too cheaply. But that too is a localized pollution problem and certainly something downstream users want fixed when it happens.
Lithium itself isn't toxic and doesn't produce toxic piles, though. (Solid piles, certainly, but non-toxic, certainly not like lead.)
Lithium itself isn't toxic and doesn't produce toxic piles, though. (Solid piles, certainly, but non-toxic, certainly not like lead.)
I've searched extensively for the environmental damage from lithium batteries, and find very little except vagueness. Can you point out why you think they are not green?
I can find much more about humanitarian concerns for the non-lithium metals in the batteries.
I can find much more about humanitarian concerns for the non-lithium metals in the batteries.
Recovery of cobalt from spent lithium-ion batteries using supercritical carbon dioxide extraction - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1...
The Role of Sub- and Supercritical CO2 as “Processing Solvent” for the Recycling and Sample Preparation of Lithium Ion Battery Electrolytes - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314243271_The_Role_...
Graphite Recycling from Spent Lithium‐Ion Batteries - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cssc.2016010...
The Role of Sub- and Supercritical CO2 as “Processing Solvent” for the Recycling and Sample Preparation of Lithium Ion Battery Electrolytes - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314243271_The_Role_...
Graphite Recycling from Spent Lithium‐Ion Batteries - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cssc.2016010...
I am starting to think that the lithium-scare is funded by oil companies. They manage to make these "common wisdom" without ever sourcing it.
"EVs changes the impact on the environment". Yes, by lowering it by an order of magnitude. It does not emit CO2 (and far less overall even including CO2 emission during production, which personally I think is fraudulent reasoning) it emits far less particles, no gases.
Its recycling indusrty is new because, guess what, there are far less discarded EV than regular ones nowadays, but batteries are notorious for being recyclable in a lot of ways. And with the increasing demands for renewable energy, the demand for intermittence smoothing will rise a lot. I can see old batteries that can only run at 40% capacity being reused to make powerwalls.
"EVs changes the impact on the environment". Yes, by lowering it by an order of magnitude. It does not emit CO2 (and far less overall even including CO2 emission during production, which personally I think is fraudulent reasoning) it emits far less particles, no gases.
Its recycling indusrty is new because, guess what, there are far less discarded EV than regular ones nowadays, but batteries are notorious for being recyclable in a lot of ways. And with the increasing demands for renewable energy, the demand for intermittence smoothing will rise a lot. I can see old batteries that can only run at 40% capacity being reused to make powerwalls.
OPEC and the United States keep fossil fuels artificially inflated through constant wars and their barbaric sanctions against Iran & Venezuela. How much would a barrel of oil cost if they were allowed to sell on the free market?
"fossil fuel" is a limited resource (not renewable) full of interesting chemical molecules. It is a shame that it is wasted for energy production. IMHO, it is too cheap.
The entire article is 100% bullshit and has nothing to do with EV per se. All you need to do is look at general electricity prices, which have been going up, not down, especially in the countries that have the highest renewable rate (Denmark or Germany).
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Line-graph-of-average-el...
Once electricity prices start collapsing and battery capacity issues are resolved, I'll start believing the story.
Once electricity prices start collapsing and battery capacity issues are resolved, I'll start believing the story.
Here in the UK the price of petrol has gone up more than 50% in the past 20 years. So long as electricity is increasing in price more slowly its still more attractive as a fuel source.
I imagine that has more to with taxes than anything else. Adjusted for inflation, petroleum is quite low compared to it's price over much of the last 3-4 decades.
The underlying cause doesn't make any difference to the consumer though. If you're saying people don't want electric cars because the cost of electricity is increasing you have to weigh that against the cost of alternatives, and electricity is still better.
Time is not an axis in the graphs you linked, so they don't support your statement.
Neither Denmark nor Germany have the "highest renewable rate" of the countries listed on that graph. Denmark is 4th and Germany is 17th in the EU.
Germany always had very high electricity prices. Even if you eliminated the renewable surcharge it would still have higher prices than Belgium.
Hmm, not sure about that "much easier to transport" part. A cube 3 meters on a side can contain enough gasoline to power the average car for its entire lifespan. The gasoline is a liquid, it is relatively easy to move it between containers. Any technology that is capable of moving macroscopic amounts of matter is capable of moving gasoline. You can haul it on a bicycle, you can haul it on an airplane. To transport electricity you need to make sure there are power lines and batteries arranged in a certain way.