Electric cars are a pipe dream

[spidergoat]

I agree when you say people might just have to become accustomed to being less mobile. One way to do this is getting used to bicycles or motorized bicycles and trikes. Since they weigh much less, they will always be more efficient than a car.

 

[elte]

We are agreed about that because I am a bicycle supporter and use mine for as much as possible, even carrying groceries.

 

[adoucette]

Yeah, yet I'm talking about the need for a very new way of doing things. A type of vehicle like that, but a car, will never be affordable because the cost will probably continue to be high regardless of any technological breakthroughs as the average real income drops in the future. There are plenty of folks like me who no longer care for a motorcycle or who have never cared to have one.

And you just presume you are right.
That our real income will drop.

Yet if you compare the AVERAGE American today to say one from the 60s we are far better off.
We live longer
We love longer.
We are healthier, and deal with normal aging issues far better.
We eat a far more diverse diet.
We live in better more efficient housing.
We have much better "tools for living".
We have FAR better personal transportation.
We all fly now, not just the "jet set"
We have FAR better INFORMATION.
We have FAR better COMMUNICATION.
We are much better educated.
We have many more options in our lives to pursue.
And at the same time we are nearing racial and sexual equality, which means that a LOT of disadvantaged people are FAR better off then they were before.

This drumbeat that things are worse is not only wrong, but it is not helpful.

I'm not trying to argue over small changes to make our diminishing resources last longer.

Except for the most part they aren't diminishing.

Even the ones most people think we are running our of remain in huge supply;

Here's a snapshot of our proven reserves of fossil fuels:

OIL

Year	Reserves	Used
1980	644 <== Billion Barrels of Reserves in 1980	
1990	1,002	225 <== Billion Barrels used since 1980
2000	1,016	256 <== Billion Barrels used since 1990
2009	1,342	300 <== Billion Barrels used since 2000

Total Used since 1980 = 781 Billion barrels (140 Billion more than our estimated reserves in 1980)

Reserve growth even after using 781 Billion Barrels was 698 Billion Barrels, more than doubling our proven reserves.

Natural Gas

Year	Reserves	Used
1980	73 <== Trillion m^3 reserves in 1980	
1990	114	17 <== Trillion m^3 used since 1980
2000	147	23 <== Trillion m^3 used since 1990
2010	190	30 <== Trillion m^3 used since 2000

Total Used since 1980 = 70 Trillion m^3, or essentially all of what we had in reserves in 1980, yet today's reserves are nearly 3 times what they were back then.

Coal

The estimate for the world's total recoverable reserves of coal as of January 1, 2009 was 948 billion short tons, or well over a century at current usage rates, but if you double the price you are willing to pay, the amount of coal goes up significantly.

Oops.

Now at the same time our reserves of these are going UP, we are, on a global scale installing substantial amounts of Wind, Solar Thermal, Solar PV, Hydro, Geothermal and Biofuel.

Each year.

At the same time we are increasing our efficiency of our homes, cars, lights, offices and factories.

And at the same time we are increasing our recycling and reducing our pollutions of most toxic elements like Lead, Mercury, SOx, NOx, CFCs etc.

So no, the future is not at all bleak.

I hope to see a soft landing for humanity that gives everyone alive now a full, decent life, sustainably.

And there is no reason for any landing.
The world is becoming more prosperous, not less.
It

I agree, I'd like to have enough solar panels on every house to replace wired-in power at present consumption levels, yet that would be a monumental task. I know the future is unpredictable, yet the way things are going, energy use will have to be cut drastically.

Why would we have to cut energy use?
We only use a TINY fraction of the solar energy we get from the sun each day as it is.

The non-gambling way to cut resource use, to allow resources to be focused on essentials involving food, clothing, and shelter, is to cut use to the bone anywhere possible sooner rather than later.

And yet we have no shortage of energy, food, clothing or shelter.
Indeed we are working HARD at bringing electricity to the 1/4 of the global population that has never turned on a light switch, which will drastically improve their lives.

 

[adoucette]

I agree when you say people might just have to become accustomed to being less mobile. One way to do this is getting used to bicycles or motorized bicycles and trikes. Since they weigh much less, they will always be more efficient than a car.

No need, we have plenty of energy to keep us mobile and multi passenger cars are as efficient at bikes when passenger miles are considered.

 

[spidergoat]

We have the illusion of plenty because we haven't yet hit the peak. The downhill side of the peak will be rocky even though half the oil that will ever be produced will still be there.

 

[billvon]

don't think I'm alone in wanting a car that is very low cost, something that operates more like a simple bicycle--virtually no care needed for it. Something that gets occasional use, that would be used mostly for short trips. What I would like for myself is an EV that has solar panels on the top surface of the body, that I drive occasionally, and that could charge up for several days between uses. So, I would get groceries in it, park it, and basically forget it. (It could also be plugged into an external AC power source for quicker charging.)

A car like this could come with a battery that gives only a short range. For unusual times when the destination is farther away, a small generator could be carried on the vehicle.

You can do that today. Golf carts are generally 36 or 48 volt systems and you can connect solar panels to the batteries through a standard charge controller. (36 volt would require 3 panels, 48 would require 4.) You could get the cart for $8000 new ($2000 used) and the panels for $2000. Typical speeds are 15mph and typical ranges are 30-40 miles.

From there you can get a 25-35mph NEV that will support the same kind of charging. You also get cooler doors and whatnot.

 

[adoucette]

We have the illusion of plenty because we haven't yet hit the peak. The downhill side of the peak will be rocky even though half the oil ever produced will still be there.

Nah, we will just start moving things off of oil as the price rises.

Of course, as the price rises, more oil becomes available.

And it's not like it's the only fuel we can use.

 

[elte]

And you just presume you are right.
That our real income will drop.

Yet if you compare the AVERAGE American today to say one from the 60s we are far better off.
We live longer
We love longer.
We are healthier, and deal with normal aging issues far better.
We eat a far more diverse diet.
We live in better housing.
We have much better "tools for living".
We have FAR better personal transportation.
We all fly now, not just the "jet set"
We have FAR better INFORMATION.
We have FAR better COMMUNICATION.
We are much better educated.
We have many more options in our lives to pursue.
And at the same time we are nearing racial and sexual parity, which means that a LOT of disadvantaged people are FAR better off then they were before.

This drumbeat that things are worse is not only wrong, but it is not helpful.




Except for the most part they aren't diminishing.

Even the ones most people think we are running our of remain in huge supply;

Here's a snapshot of our proven reserves of fossil fuels:

OIL

Year	Reserves	Used
1980	644 <== Billion Barrels of Reserves in 1980	
1990	1,002	225 <== Billion Barrels used since 1980
2000	1,016	256 <== Billion Barrels used since 1990
2009	1,342	300 <== Billion Barrels used since 2000

Total Used since 1980 = 781 Billion barrels (140 Billion more than our estimated reserves in 1980)

Reserve growth even after using 781 Billion Barrels was 698 Billion Barrels, more than doubling our proven reserves.

Natural Gas

Year	Reserves	Used
1980	73 <== Trillion m^3 reserves in 1980	
1990	114	17 <== Trillion m^3 used since 1980
2000	147	23 <== Trillion m^3 used since 1990
2010	190	30 <== Trillion m^3 used since 2000

Total Used since 1980 = 70 Trillion m^3, or essentially all of what we had in reserves in 1980, yet today's reserves are nearly 3 times what they were back then.

Coal

The estimate for the world's total recoverable reserves of coal as of January 1, 2009 was 948 billion short tons, or well over a century at current usage rates, but if you double the price you are willing to pay, the amount of coal goes up significantly.

Oops.

Now at the same time our reserves of these are going UP, we are, on a global scale installing substantial amounts of Wind, Solar Thermal, Solar PV, Hydro, Geothermal and Biofuel.

Each year.

At the same time we are increasing our efficiency of our homes, cars, lights, offices and factories.

And at the same time we are increasing our recycling and reducing our pollutions of most toxic elements like Lead, Mercury, SOx, NOx, CFCs etc.

So no, the future is not at all bleak.



And there is no reason for any landing.
The world is becoming more prosperous, not less.
It



Why would we have to cut energy use?
We only use a TINY fraction of the solar energy we get from the sun each day as it is.



And yet we have no shortage of energy, food, clothing or shelter.
Indeed we are working HARD at bringing electricity to the 1/4 of the global population that has never turned on a light switch, which will drastically improve their lives.

A couple paraphrases of famous quotes come to mind as I first say that I appreciate your diligence. Past performance isn't an indicator of future returns, and there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I'm sorry, if the Republicans haven't been able to turn me optimistic lo all these years, you are long way from being able to. We will just have to disagree.

 

[elte]

You can do that today. Golf carts are generally 36 or 48 volt systems and you can connect solar panels to the batteries through a standard charge controller. (36 volt would require 3 panels, 48 would require 4.) You could get the cart for $8000 new ($2000 used) and the panels for $2000. Typical speeds are 15mph and typical ranges are 30-40 miles.

From there you can get a 25-35mph NEV that will support the same kind of charging. You also get cooler doors and whatnot.

I wish those types of things were street legal in a lot more places.

 

[spidergoat]

Nah, we will just start moving things off of oil as the price rises.

Of course, as the price rises, more oil becomes available.

And it's not like it's the only fuel we can use.

There is nothing that can replace light sweet crude at the scale of energy required to run our society as it is now. The price cannot rise forever. At some point high prices lead to demand destruction.

 

[adoucette]

There is nothing that can replace light sweet crude at the scale of energy required to run our society as it is now. The price cannot rise forever. At some point high prices lead to demand destruction.

No, rising prices make alternatives feasible.

Demand for mobility however won't go down.

Of course we will continue to increase our miles per gallon of oil as we blend in bio-fuels and use alternate fuels and electricity.

 

[adoucette]

A couple paraphrases of famous quotes come to mind as I first say that I appreciate your diligence. Past performance isn't an indicator of future returns, and there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Well the historical numbers on the the reserves as stated at those times is accurate and the amount of the reserves that we used over each of those decades is also accurate and the current reserves are tallied by multiple independent sources and are reasonably accurate.

The point being that in the last 30 years, all since the club of Rome, our reserves have done nothing but rise.

Go ahead, be a pessimist it you want to, but the fact is, if we were running out of oil and gas and coal no one would worry about increasing CO2 causing Global warming.

 

[elte]

Okay, I appreciate your improved tone. I don't worry about global warming because I'm of the opinion that by the time it can happen big time, things for us on this planet will have changed a ton in so many other ways.

Those reserves get harder and harder to get to, too. But maybe we will somehow stay ahead of difficulties (as return on investment declines on harder to get fossil fuel) like I think you mean . I'm very, very far from convinced.

 

[adoucette]

Those reserves get harder and harder to get to, too.

No, those figures are what I quoted for PROVED reserves, which we can recover economically today.

If you add in reserves that we know are there but we don't know yet how to get them economically, then the amount of all of those would SOAR.

 

[Billy T]

...
Year Reserves Used
1980 644 <== Billion Barrels of Reserves in 1980
1990 1,002 225 <== Billion Barrels used since 1980
2000 1,016 256 <== Billion Barrels used since 1990
2009 1,342 300 <== Billion Barrels used since 2000....

more meaningful if two other considerations are mentioned:

(1) At the then current rate of consumption, how many years do those reserves represent.

(2) What was the then current interest rate for corporate oil companies borrowing? When it is low then it is not so expensive to borrow and explore more - build up reserves. When it is high, the converse. Crudely speaking if interest rate to oil company doubles, then the optium expenditure looking for / expanding reserves should be about cut in half, assuming changes in both are reasonable smooth. I suspect the more than doubling from 1980 to 2009 has a lot to do with the fall in interest rates by more than a factor of two. - I.e. to have double the reserves at half the interest rate cost the same, but finding oil is harder and more expensive now too and that must be considered too.

There are other factors: One very important one is if the rate of sales increase less than the rate of reserves increase? I.e. is the company going dry - will it need to buy oil from others for its down steam operations?

Summary: It is much more complex than just number of barrels in reserves if you want to really understand what is happening and why.

 

[adoucette]

1 only becomes meaningful when the amount of reserves start to go down.

Consider if you asked that question in 1980

In 1980 we had 644 Billion Barrels of Reserves.

We were using them at a rate of over 20 Billion barrels per year, thus we should have run out by 2010.

In fact our usage went up and we ended up using 781 Billion barrels by 2009, or ~140 Billion barrels more than we even new about in 1980
But at the same time, new reserves more than doubled our existing reserves over 1980's level to 1,342 Billion barrels.

As to interest rates, without actually checking, I suspect the interest rates as low now as they were any time in the last 30 years.

 

[elte]

No, those figures are what I quoted for PROVED reserves, which we can recover economically today.

If you add in reserves that we know are there but we don't know yet how to get them economically, then the amount of all of those would SOAR.

Okay, let me just say, we'll know before long if it really can work, and if improved efficiency can compensate for the economic model for the developed world--an economic model that involves needing constant growth. We'll just have to see if the whole system can survive because I don't see very much erring on the side of caution.

 

[Billy T]

1 only becomes meaningful when the amount of reserves start to go down.

No it is always meaningful. For example, if reserves are going UP but less rapidly than consumption - you don´t think that is a meaningful red flag?

... In 1980 we had 644 Billion Barrels of Reserves. We were using them at a rate of over 20 Billion barrels per year, thus we should have run out by 2010. ...

Again false, because it is silly to assume the rate of use is unchanged and project when we will run out. In fact the amount of oil per unit of GDP has fallen greatly since 1980 - You should not / cannot make the simple projection of a run out date you did.

 

[adoucette]

No it is always meaningful. For example, if reserves are going UP but less rapidly than consumption - you don´t think that is a meaningful red flag?

Not as long as reserves keep going up.

Again false, because it is silly to assume the rate of use is unchanged and project when we will run out. In fact the amount of oil per unit of GDP has fallen greatly since 1980 - You should not / cannot make the simple projection of a run out date you did.

So, our rate of use is still going up because our GDP is going up.

In the decade of the 80s we used 225 Billion Barrels
In the decade of the 90s we used 256 Billion Barrels.
In the first decade of the new century we used over 300 Billion barrels, and yet the reserves continue to go up.

And I wasn't actually projecting when we would run out, I was just using that extrapolation to show that it was in fact meaningless.

 

[Billy T]

Not as long as reserves keep going up.

But that is impossible for long if consumption is greater than new discoveries. The reserves will be going down within four years; but reserves can still be going up for some years as the proven reserves discovered three to six years ago begin to produce.

Typically there is at least a four year delay before current increase in proven reserves is an increase in available oil - I.e. The ratio of new proven reserves to comsumption can be less than unity even with reserves going up; however if that ratio is less than unity, it is at least a four year leading indicator (and very useful early warning or "red flag" of coming trouble) even if for a few years more, the reserves are still going up.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there is at least four year lag before newly discovered proven reserves are supply oil. This leading indicator of impending trouble is very useful - what oil companies use to know they must invest more in discovery efforts EVEN IF CURRENTLY RESERVES ARE STILL GOING UP (due to discoveries of a few years ago)

Your "instanteous effects" POV is too simple minded. Again:

No it is always meaningful. For example, if reserves are going UP but less rapidly than consumption - you don´t think that is a meaningful red flag? ...