Electric cars are a pipe dream

[adoucette]

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.

Nope.

If consumption is greater than discoveries, then your reserves will be going down. When fields begin producing doesn't impact evaluation of amount of reserves left.

If reserves are going UP, which is what I wrote, then that also means we are finding more than we are consuming.

If as you wrote, "if reserves are going UP but less rapidly than consumption": all that means is that if nothing changes to those RATES, then eventually reserves will start to go down, which is why I wrote I'm not worried as long as reserves are STILL going up.

 

[Billy T]

... If consumption is greater than discoveries, then your reserves will be going down.
If reserves are going UP, then that also means we are finding more than we are consuming.

Yes, if level of current consumption is greater than the expansion of oil supply (not discoveries) the volume of oil in storage will be going down. That is the current case. Many old (typically smaller) oil tankers were storing oil in expectation of price increase and that volume is decreasing now with higher prices, but there is still a lot of stored oil, both floating and in "strategic reserves". Also you still don´t seem to understand the effect of at least a four year time lag between addition to proven reserves and oil production / available oil. I will explain it again but with actual example, not general discussion this time:

About 10 years ago off the coast of Brazil an exploratory well found sweeter crude below the nearly mile thick salt layer. More exploratory wells began to define the extent of this new field. For about 8 years the world´s proven reserves were rapidly expanding. Now, however, the rate of expansion these exploratory wells are making is about 10%, not doubling every year or so as in the first years. Also some modest production has begun. Thus currently the net addition to below salt layer proven reserves is about 5%, and proven reserves are still growing globally (as your table showed).

China has a very rapid increase in rate of oil consumption – at least 15% annually. Thus world is currently in the condition that its proven reserves are expanding but at a lesser rate than consumption (5% is less than 15%) This is a strong signal, a useful “red flag” I spoke of, that tells the oil companies that more exploratory efforts are needed to avoid demand over taking available supply, and they are doing so, especially off both coasts of Africa. Off west coast is the same deep salt layer as in Brazil (was once unified when there was no Altantic ocean). Off the east coast of Africa the new discoveries being made seems to be mainly NG.

 

[adoucette]

Billy I have no idea where you come up with these numbers about a 15% increase in Oil consumption, but the IEA expects oil consumption to rise 0.9 percent in 2012.

More to the point, over the last decade, oil consumption has grown at a rate of 1.1% per year while Proven Reserves has grown at a rate of 1.7% per year.

Thus world is currently in the condition that its proven reserves are expanding but at a GREATER rate than consumption (1.1% is less than 1.7%)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-consumption/2012/02/10/gIQA9rjy3Q_story.html

http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481

 

[adoucette]

No, he's right. It would be much more practical to just mount the solar panels on your roof and recharge your car from there. Otherwise you're just carrying around all that extra weight. You can already buy a practical electric motorcycle.
http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/2012-zero-ds-review-91239.html

Well that's if you don't mind spending a small fortune on a mileage, power limited one.

In combined freeway and city riding, I did a best of 62 miles on one charge before chickening out and plugging it back in. There were still two bars left and they were flashing, indicating approximately 10 miles more range were still available, but I erred on the side of caution. (AD => so ~same as Leaf as far as range)

Duke logged a 33.3-mile trip, much of it on the freeway and in high-speed urban areas, which Is less-than-ideal usage for economical range. It sapped enough juice to leave the gauge two notches below half. He estimates this kind of hard running would’ve left him stranded after 50 miles.

Charge time using a standard 110v wall outlet, is nine hours for the ZF9 power pack, or 2.4 hours with the accessory 4x Quick charge unit ($595.00) which would require 240v and a dedicated circuit.

The biggest limitation for the electric bike market is cost. With a base price of $11,495, the Zero DS is approximately four times that of an equivalent ICE dual-sport machine. As tested with the ZF9 power pack, our 2012 DS jumped to $13,995. (AD: => about 5 times, YIKES)

 

[spidergoat]

70 miles is very practical for this sort of machine. Same range (probably more) than a Leaf at half the price and twice the fun!

If that's not economical enough for you, this motorized bicycle has a range of 25 miles (no pedaling) for $5,000.
http://www.electricrider.com/electricrider/options.htm

Note that I don't think this sort of vehicle is any kind of long term solution to our transportation problems, as they still rely on a robust financial and industrial base.

 

[adoucette]

70 miles is very practical for this sort of machine. Same range (probably more) than a Leaf at half the price and twice the fun!

Not much fun at night when no one can see you or when it's 98 degrees and raining or 10 degrees and snowing.
Or when you are waiting hours to recharge the battery.
Or when you run out of juice before you get home.
And the testers did say that 70 miles was more a hope than a reality.
50 miles is what they gave it.

More to the point, this costs less and provides FAR better transportation.

http://www.hyundaiusa.com/accent/

If that's not economical enough for you, this motorized bicycle has a range of 25 miles (no pedaling) for $5,000.
http://www.electricrider.com/electricrider/options.htm

Note that I don't think this sort of vehicle is any kind of long term solution to our transportation problems, as they still rely on a robust financial and industrial base.

Thanks, but I'd much rather actually save a bit of money in the long run and buy the accent. You would need 4 of those bikes to go 100,000 miles over 10 years, so you wouldn't save a dime.

 

[spidergoat]

But you would have to be sure both the price and the availability of gasoline remained more or less the same over the next 10 years.

 

[billvon]

Thanks, but I'd much rather actually save a bit of money in the long run and buy the accent.

You do that! I have an ebike that I use to get to work. Helps me stay in shape, is much cheaper than a car, is faster in traffic, can park anywhere and allows shortcuts through local canyons and hiking paths.

 

[adoucette]

But you would have to be sure both the price and the availability of gasoline remained more or less the same over the next 10 years.

No reason it shouldn't.

 

[adoucette]

You do that! I have an ebike that I use to get to work. Helps me stay in shape, is much cheaper than a car, is faster in traffic, can park anywhere and allows shortcuts through local canyons and hiking paths.

Got you beat.
I work from home.

Much cheaper than an ebike.

And much safer:

While motorcycles account for only 2% of vehicles on the road, they make up more than 10% of all crashes.

And the crashes have much worse results, both in fatalities and injuries.

Between 1997 and 2005, fatality rates for motorcycle occupants rose 115 percent, to 42 fatalities per 100 million motorcycle VMT.

During the same period, fatality rates for car occupants dropped steadily, to less than 1.2 fatalities per 100 million passenger car VMT.

So if you want to up your risks 35 times per mile you drive, knock yourself out and drive a DONER-cycle.

Personally I'm all about the advantages of anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, seat belts and air bags.

 

[spidergoat]

No reason it shouldn't.

That's where you are mistaken.

 

[adoucette]

That's where you are mistaken.

Possibly, but not likely as we continue to increase our use of alternate fuels (Bio, NG and Electrcity), as our CAFE standards ratchet up and thus reduce our daily need, as Iraq's output starts to climb, they finally allow drilling in ANWR, build the new pipeline and when Iran's politics gets sorted out and that issue goes away and because this trend is likely to continue: over the last decade, oil consumption has grown at a rate of 1.1% per year while Proven Reserves has grown at a rate of 1.7% per year. etc etc.

 

[spidergoat]

Oil will decline shortly after 2015, says former oil expert of International Energy Agency

OR: Afterwards, in my view, we will have to face a decline of the production of all forms of liquid fuels somewhere between 2015 to 2020. This decline will not necessarily be rapid, however, but it will be a decline, that much seems clear.

MA: You state “not necessarily rapid”. Why?

OR: This will all depend on the speed at which streams of non-conventional oil will be able to be developed. Conversion of coal and natural gas to liquid fuels will remain infinitesimal. For first-generation biofuels, I believe we are already approaching the maximal limit. As for second-generation biofuels, we are still at the stage of industrial pilot projects. It should take another quarter century before we achieve a significant production on a world scale, let’s say around 2.4 mb/d.

MA: In your view, will all of this be insufficient to compensate for the decline of existing conventional oil fields?

OR: Insufficient, yes.

 

[adoucette]

Oil will decline shortly after 2015, says former oil expert of International Energy Agency

He's just an ECONOMIST.

As your article also points out:

His forecasts for future petroleum production are now much more pessimistic than those published by the IEA.

Don't believe every pessimist you read.

Over the last decade, oil consumption has grown at a rate of 1.1% per year while Proven Reserves has grown at a rate of 1.7% per year.
Similarly Natural Gas Proven reserves have grown at 2.2% per year while consumption is at 2% per year.

 

[spidergoat]

Right, because oil companies have no interest in inflating their projections...

 

[adoucette]

I have no reason to believe they would, but besides,

The IEA isn't an oil company.
The EIA isn't an oil company.

And FYI, the less oil that is presumed to exist, the more valuable it appears to be.

 

[spidergoat]

Oil reserve figures: 'There's suspicion the IEA has been influenced by the US'

Terry Macalister on a whistleblower warning that oil reserves have been overestimated

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/audio/2009/nov/10/oil-international-energy-agency

Nomura Says IEA May Be Overestimating Outlook for Non-OPEC Crude Supplies

Did the US Pressure the IEA to Distort Peak Oil Forecast?

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Exclusive: Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.​

 

[adoucette]

Listened to it.

Total BS.

The LOGIC given as to the reason behind why the US's Bush Admin would be pushing the IEA to overstate the amount of OIL is said to be because "if there is no shortage of Oil, there's no reason to sign the Kyoto Protocol".

Which is the DUMBEST thing I've ever heard.

The fact that there is so much oil, NG and Coal is exactly why the IPCC says we need Kyoto.

Indeed, if we were running out of oil, NG and Coal in the next 50 years there would indeed be no need for anything like Kyoto 2.

Finally, these are the most recent figures and the Bush Admin is long gone, so if this were the case then why is not the Obama Admin pushing just the opposite?

Well because you can't push fake public figures like this on anyone.
They come in from totally independent sources and you can't just fudge them to suit some agenda.

Other parts of articles are also just so wrong as to be comical, like the reserve figures are inflated becaue the IEA has overestimated the chances of discovering new fields, except the chances of discovering new fields has nothing to do with the amount of Proven Reserves.

Don't believe every pessimist you read.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...on-opec-crude-supply-outlook-nomura-says.html has nothing to do with reserves.

 

[billvon]

Got you beat.
I work from home.

That's another good option!

And much safer:

Car injury rate: 987/million people, 99/million miles
Car fatality rate: 12.9/million people, 1.3/million miles

Bike injury rate: 453/million people, 15/million miles
Bike fatality rate: 2.5/million people, .2/million miles

Personally I'm all about the advantages of anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, seat belts and air bags.

And I'm all about letting you sit in your car in the middle of the freeway - hoping that 18 wheeler stops in time - while I stick to bike paths and canyons.

 

[spidergoat]

The whole industry from oil to automobiles is engaged in an informal conspiracy to delude themselves and the public about the true nature of our fossil fuel supplies. A pessimist would ignore the issue and wait for our inevitable collision with reality.