Electric cars are a pipe dream

[ElectricFetus]

NO, Your post was in reference to this:

Well, what were you arguing then?

Had you followed the link you would have read of NASA's global satellite study on the impact of recent climate on the planet's Net Primary Productivity.

So? I was not arguing against net increase in productivity, I was arguing that some places would have reduced production and require the movement of millions to areas with neutral or enhance productivity.

And NO, it doesn't mean people have to move to Siberia or Canadian Tundra, again had you taken the time you would have seen that "The largest increase (in NPP) was in tropical ecosystems".

I was using that as an example note the "... could gain say Siberia... as in hypothetical! So now your saying people are going to need to move from USA and Europe to South America, Africa and southern asia, or where ever, its the same problem, climate refugees.

Everything we know about weather points to the fact that a slightly warmer world with slightly warmer oceans will be a slightly wetter world.

Never said it wasn't. So don't know why your stating it.

The point of my posts though is quite clear. We use a huge amount of our oil for transportation and we have already started the process of making our transportation far more efficient and reducing the amount of oil used by our transportation needs. This will take 20 years or more, but our production of oil over the next 20 years will still be sufficient to prevent any major economic issues and thus it's clear to me that we can adapt to the impact of peak oil production being reached in this same time frame.

Already disproven by the oil price spike of 2006-2008 which assisted in the global recession. These are unstable times, argument with evidence that right in front of you.

 

[adoucette]

Pointless discussion about climate refugees, there is no evidence at all that millions of people are going to be displaced because of modest average global temperature changes, any more than people are always displaced by changing natural climate patterns.

Global coarse grain production for 2010/11 is increased 3.4 million tons with corn production up 2.2 million tons, barley production up 0.6 million tons, and oats production up 0.4 million tons. World 2010/11 rice supply and use projections are raised from a month ago. Global rice production is projected at a record 452.4 million tons. Global oilseed production for 2010/11 is projected at 442.6 million tons, up 1.9 million tons from last month.

And the oil price spike wasn't an economic calamity, nor is the recession.
These normal economic cycles help to focus us on making the changes we need to make.
The changes we are making is to begin the several decade process of reducing our use of oil for the transportation sector. This will have modest impact in the next 10 years, but likely a very large impact in the following 10 years.

Arthur

 

[gmilam]

I was talking about amount of energy used for transportation alone that came from petroleum, he was utilizing an unrelated figure.

Actually, from my position as an innocent bystander, you were the one quoting an unrelated figure. Shit like that leads me to suspect that the rest of your argument is just as slimey.

Just a passing observation.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Pointless discussion about climate refugees, there is no evidence at all that millions of people are going to be displaced because of modest average global temperature changes, any more than people are always displaced by changing natural climate patterns.

Aside for the fact hundreds of thousand have been displaced already. But it is rather odd logic to say this will be no worse then equivalent natural climate change, peoples colonies the Americas thousands of years ago because of natural climate change. Again I don't know what your arguing about and why you keep reaffirming my argument that climate change is a problem of long term adaption that is not a serious issue, at least when compared to peak oil.

And the oil price spike wasn't an economic calamity, nor is the recession.

Certainly a matter of opinion, certainly its a calamity to all those unemployed. And certainly if repeated recessions and depressions come out of this more would be incline to call it a "calamity". Now I was never arguing the world will end or we will go Mad Max, more like our present problems although perhaps even a little more so, maybe as bad as a full out depression, but probably not if oil production plateaus as it has.

These normal economic cycles help to focus us on making the changes we need to make.

The great depression was normal too, considering the ignorance and foolish greed of people is normal, so when I say we should have been preparing for this decades ago your response is "well its normal for people to wait until the last second, only when its completely economical necessary to change and then get fucked over in changing after the fact, that normal!" well sure it is, people are stupid, was not arguing that we were not.

The changes we are making is to begin the several decade process of reducing our use of oil for the transportation sector. This will have modest impact in the next 10 years, but likely a very large impact in the following 10 years.

Now there is a statement so general I can agree with it.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Actually, from my position as an innocent bystander, you were the one quoting an unrelated figure.

Lets see adoucette was arguing that "we can move our transportation system off of Oil" (quote from his post #767) and used brazil as an example: "as Brazil has done". I then rightly state that Brazil has not moved its transportation system off of oil, it has only replaced 17.6% of energy it uses for transportation with ethanol, nearly all the rest is oil, ergo Brazil has yet to move off of oil even for transportation.

Now in the context of adoucette original quote he claims "US, the largest user of oil uses over 70% for transportation" what was I suppose to think this value was meant for? If I think was it meant "70% of oil usage in the US goes to transportation" sure that true, but what does that have to do with Brazil (erroneously) being claimed to move its transportation system off of oil? These statements don't follow to make a valid argument. If I supposed he meant "70% of transportation system is fuel by oil, ergo we already got 30% that isn't, like Brazil that has already (erroneously) got more then 50% of its transportation system fuel by alternatives" then the statement makes sense, its not a true statement as 94% off or transportation system is fuel by oil, and more then 80% of Brazil's transportation system is fuel by oil.

Shit like that leads me to suspect that the rest of your argument is just as slimey.

And I should care because... ?

 

[adoucette]

Excuse me, you way over interpreted what I meant by the word DONE.
I certainly didn't mean they were 100% off of oil, I thought they were 50%, but as you pointed out, that's only for gasoline, so yes they still only get ~20% of their transportation sector from sources besides oil, BUT what I meant by "Done" is that they have created the infrastructure (all cars can burn at least 25% alcohol and a lot can burn 100% alcohol fuel) to make that happen and the amount of alcohol they burn is on a clear upward trend, so much so that they haven't imported any oil since 2006, so it is having a significant impact there.

What's also clear was my use of 70% as the amount of oil the US uses for transportation.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

...{Brazil} has only replaced 17.6% of energy it uses for transportation with ethanol, nearly all the rest is oil, ergo Brazil has yet to move off of oil even for transportation. ...

It takes time to change the fleet of cars on the road. Flex fuel cars, only produced for a few years, are now more than 90% of the Brazilian production but rich people still import bigger gas hogs.

I am not sure but think about half the cars on the road now can use alcohol now. In a decade probably alcohol will be at least 50% of the liquid transportation fuel. -Because delivery trucks, that stay inside the city, may well be electric or gas by then. Most of the taxis in Sao Paulo already use natural gas as it is the cheapest fuel and at least 5% of the filling stations offer it too. There are quite a few electric trolleys in operation too still.

A few days ago, PetroBras bought up a major alcohol producer - they can see that the days of gasoline in Brazil are numbered but planning to sell ever more of it to less advanced countries, like the USA, especially when Chavez stops selling to USA as the new heavy oil refineries come on line - no longer will his oil be refined in the US golf coast refineries, which were built for it.

 

[quadraphonics]

In other news, the Nissan LEAF started US deliveries this week. Apparently like 20,000 of them have already been pre-ordered, so we'll be seeing how this works out on a large-ish scale in the coming months.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Excuse me, you way over interpreted what I meant by the word DONE.
I certainly didn't mean they were 100% off of oil, I thought they were 50%, but as you pointed out, that's only for gasoline, so yes they still only get ~20% of their transportation sector from sources besides oil, BUT what I meant by "Done" is that they have created the infrastructure (all cars can burn at least 25% alcohol and a lot can burn 100% alcohol fuel) to make that happen and the amount of alcohol they burn is on a clear upward trend, so much so that they haven't imported any oil since 2006, so it is having a significant impact there.

Again and again, cars are not the only things the run the transportation system, note that they already have 50% of their gasoline replaced yet only 17.4% of their transportation fuel replace, how are they going to upscale ethanol to powering their trucks and trains and planes and ships?

What's also clear was my use of 70% as the amount of oil the US uses for transportation.

Which is irreverent. Right now we got 4% of transport fuel covered with ethanol, of which it represent only 70% of all oil usage so we really got only 3% of all oil usage replace, now you saying we can scale that up in, oh how fast?

 

[Billy T]

... how are they going to upscale ethanol to powering their trucks and trains and planes and ships? ...

Not that it is significant user of fuel but note that for about four years or so, a sub-division of Embaraer has been selling an alcohol powered crop duster air plane.* It even was one of Scientific American's 50, most significant (or something like that) development of the year!

I don't understand why alcohol is not powering trucks. I think it is because diesel is cheaper energy with less refining etc. I also don't know why for sure that diesel cars are illegal in Brazil - I think it is to make all the diesel available for trucks. Brazil rail transport is very under developed. At peak of soy harvest there often is 20 km of trucks slowly moving into the ports! Brazil has too much moved by trucks.

*Fact that it has a lower energy density fuel is unimportant in this application as plane must return to base often to get more spray. Fact that in same engine you get a few percent more power with alcohol than gas also helps. Not sure, but think this is due to higher octane without "knocking" so they can shove more fuel in and more than compensate for the 30% less energy content per unit volume.

 

[adoucette]

Right now we got 4% of transport fuel covered with ethanol, of which it represent only 70% of all oil usage so we really got only 3% of all oil usage replace, now you saying we can scale that up in, oh how fast?

We could triple it overnight if we wanted to.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

We could triple it overnight if we wanted to.

Arthur

Overnight you say, you do relies that even more of an exaggeration then Antarctica as a super power by 2300? I noticed in a thread this long that I'm repeating my self so I'll direct you to post #354

Energy crop needs though will be staggering! For the USA, just to make up the estimated 2.6x10^10 GJ energy usage increase from 2000 to 2020 would require 43-76% of the US total bioenergy reserves, we would need 50%-60% more cropland growing energy crops just to supply the increase in energy demand, we would need 4 times as much to replace all our energy demand!

And Post #416

Lets run the number shalt we? The US requires 1x10^7 Barrels of gasoline per day, That would be nearly 1.3x10^7 barrels of ethanol in equivalent energy per day, or 4.9x10^9 barrels a year. Sugarcane can produce nominally 900 gallons of ethanol per acre per year, or 21 barrels/acre/yr, that would mean to supply just today's USA gasoline demand with ethanol would require 250,000,000 acre of Brazilian cropland, Brazil has 161,000,000 acre of cropland in total today, so it would require 141% increase in cropland for Brazil to managed to supply the USA demand for ethanol in replacement of gasoline!

If the US wanted to supply all of its gasoline needs with cellulosic ethanol, it would require 100-120% increase in cropland growing switchgrass and poplars, or over 400,000,000 acres of cropland!

The shear amount of infrastructure required at the production end to make biofuels take out even a fair chunk of petroleum usage is staggering! Considering that with smart charging off of off-peak power we could replace 80% of cars with EVs without a single new power plant!

There is no fucking way we could do it even in a decade.

 

[Stoniphi]

...and the first all - electric Volt was delivered to its proud new owner yesterday. He traded in his Prius for it.

The US could do a whole lot very rapidly if given sufficient motivation. We just lack that ATM.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

There is no fucking way we could do it even in a decade.

Especially considering that Third World countries are already clear-cutting forests to plant food and building material crops. All we need is to add fuel crops to that pressure.

Biofuels are not a realistic solution unless we make the decision to completely give up on the environment and turn the planet into one giant factory.

And, to repeat myself, the way to cut back on America's petroleum consumption is not to find clever new ways to keep people on the roads, but to encourage them to work at home--where most of them already have the telephones and computers they need for the job anyway. One-fourth of the country's petroleum is expended directly on commuting, and that doesn't even count the second-order effects.

 

[adoucette]

There is no fucking way we could do it even in a decade.

What you seem to forget is the amount supplied as alcohol is a constant, but the percent used has to do with how much we drive. Cut the amount we drive and the percent provided by biofuels climbs.

People can change their behavior by consolidating trips, increasing use of public transit and car-pooling and working from home more, and all these behavioral changes don't take any ramp up at all.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

Especially considering that Third World countries are already clear-cutting forests to plant food and building material crops. All we need is to add fuel crops to that pressure.

Biofuels are not a realistic solution unless we make the decision to completely give up on the environment and turn the planet into one giant factory.

Yes, and No. Biofuels are a realistic solution for a percentage of our fuel needs. For example The USA produces over 300 million tons of biomass waste (forestry waste wood, plant stalks, thrown away cardboard, paper, etc) a year, if that was converted to ethanol it would produce >1.3 billion barrels of ethanol a year, or replace 27% of gasoline. That replacing 27% of gasoline without needing to plant a single extra foot of corp land or use a single grain of food, utilizing what at present is waste and could even get paid to removed some of that waste!

So note that biofuels could be scaled up to replace some of our oil usage relatively quickly (in 2-3 decades) without significant change in crop production, the problems is scaling it past ~30%. Perhaps Algae fuel with algae grown in bags afloat at sea, but in short there are other solutions (electrics) that do not have as low a scaling limit as biofuels and are more near term. Mind you 30% of Oil goes into making plastics and asphalt and jet fuel, things electrics could never replace, that a market bio"fuels" (though now more bioproducts then biofuels) could easily replace. We could actually begin sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and converting it into useful products (plastic, asphalt, composites, etc). Imagine a road made from waste biomass that was pyrolysed into asphalt, that road is now made of carbon that was sequestered out of the atmosphere, we have made a carbon sink, reversing global warming!

And, to repeat myself, the way to cut back on America's petroleum consumption is not to find clever new ways to keep people on the roads, but to encourage them to work at home--where most of them already have the telephones and computers they need for the job anyway. One-fourth of the country's petroleum is expended directly on commuting, and that doesn't even count the second-order effects.

Not everyone could do this, in fact most people probably can't, I'll give you 20% reduction in commuting at best, add in living very close to work and stores and walking/biking instead and maybe 50% reduction, like in the half energy usage of many European cities compared to American cities. Truly a good option (and healthier for people) but not the total solution.

 

[ElectricFetus]

What you seem to forget is the amount supplied as alcohol is a constant, but the percent used has to do with how much we drive. Cut the amount we drive and the percent provided by biofuels climbs.

Refer to post #419

Oh I'm all for that, lets say that we get the average MPG up to 40, and we get incredibly 20% of the population to use high speed rail instead of cars. Great now the amount of ethanol needed is down by 30%, still needed 280,000,000 acres of cropland, try harder.

People can change their behavior by consolidating trips, increasing use of public transit and car-pooling and working from home more, and all these behavioral changes don't take any ramp up at all.

You would have cut transportation energy demand by more then 2/3, that not realistic!

 

[adoucette]

I didn't say we would do it or that we would want to do it, but we could do it.
Look at what we did in WW2 with rationing.
So the point is, we COULD do it.
Which was my only point.
Arthur

 

[jimW]

re post 796. Electric can now be converted to Jet Fuel. Pls dont come back with a lot of charts and arguments. All I am saying is it can be done. And apparently much cheaper than the $500 per gallon for the algae jet fuel. They are both in early stages but GreenGas.cc says lower cost than gas and diesel, but that probably includes second costs.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Always remember that all electric vehicles that need recharging plug into the grid that is mostly powered by oil or coal somewhere. So no matter how green the cars are they get their power from dirty generator plants most of the time.