Game changing technologies do pop up on occasion. If this technology works out it could revolutionize the auto industry with capacity at least double current lithium batteries.
A "digital quantum battery" concept proposed by a physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign could provide a dramatic boost in energy storage capacity--if it meets its theoretical potential once built.
The concept calls for billions of nanoscale capacitors and would rely on quantum effects--the weird phenomena that occur at atomic size scales--to boost energy storage. Conventional capacitors consist of one pair of macroscale conducting plates, or electrodes, separated by an insulating material. Applying a voltage creates an electric field in the insulating material, storing energy. But all such devices can only hold so much charge, beyond which arcing occurs between the electrodes, wasting the stored power.
The amount of oil in the ground is finite. New discoveries are mostly in deep water and very expensive to extract. During a deep recession oil prices are hovering around $75 per barrel. Some experts believe world oil production has already peaked. In the United States 71% of oil gets used for transportation and oil provides 95% of the energy used in transportation. We need the ability to move around without using liquid fuel. We have no shortage of ways to generate electricity. Workable high density and cheap batteries for cars would make the adjustment to Peak Oil very easy to do. Will nanoscale capacitors be the ticket?
By Randall Parker at 2009 December 23 05:15 PM Energy BatteriesActually the zinc-air batteries already have much higher power density than lithium ion batteries, and this has been known for many years. The only problem is that zinc-air batteries are not rechargeable like lithium-ion batteries, and this means that once zinc-air batteries are depleted, the zinc must be recycled. But recycling the zinc in the depleted battery is in fact a way of re-charging that battery because the recycling of this zinc is done electrochemically by de-oxidizing the zinc, which takes more time. But the solution is to swap either the batteries at the gas station (as already demonstrated by Project Better Place) or to replace liquified zinc solution from the battery.
Previously it was mentioned at Parapundit that a Swiss company claims to have a rechargeable zinc-air battery:
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006662.html
but just in case this does not work in practice (like many new "inventions"), we still have the old zinc air batteries that are at least two times better than lithium ion batteries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc-air_battery
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/zinc-air-battery-revolt-3-times-more-energy-lithium-ion-battery-electric-cars.php
Meanwhile there is progress in the ordinary lithium-ion battery front:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/panasonic-20091225.html#more
Thus within a decade there should be cheap enough batteries that can outperform gasoline (when the cost of the battery divided by its useful life, which is currently at least $10,000/(100,000 miles) = $0.1 per mile just for the battery), we will have electric cars. What must be done is to get ready for the year 2020, by installing charging pods in all streets, and also many battery swapping stations. It is calculated that installing charging pods in every street would cost only one year of imported oil.
http://www.betterplace.com/company/video/
but just in case this does not work in practice (like many new "inventions"), we still have the old zinc air batteries that are at least two times better than lithium ion batteries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc-air_battery
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/zinc-air-battery-revolt-3-times-more-energy-lithium-ion-battery-electric-cars.php
Meanwhile there is progress in the ordinary lithium-ion battery front:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/panasonic-20091225.html#more
Thus within a decade there should be cheap enough batteries that can outperform gasoline (when the cost of the battery divided by its useful life, which is currently at least $10,000/(100,000 miles) = $0.1 per mile just for the battery), we will have electric cars. What must be done is to get ready for the year 2020, by installing charging pods in all streets, and also many battery swapping stations. It is calculated that installing charging pods in every street would cost only one year of imported oil.
http://www.betterplace.com/company/video/
While I agree that it would be nice to have other portable energy storage means, what's wrong with using synthesized liquid fuels? Granted, it isn't currently cheap, as it takes more energy to synthesize than is returned, but given cheap energy; fission, fusion, solar, tidal, geothermal, whatever, wouldn't it make more sense to trade off the cost for the convenience of high density energy storage? After all, batteries, infrastructure, and electric drive trains combined probably aren't going to be as cheap as gasoline engines for quite some time. Even with the quantum devices spoken of in the main article, I don't believe that they will have the energy density of liquid fuels.
For the people who believe that Global Warming is caused by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we could synthesize from atmospheric carbon dioxide thus staying carbon neutral.
If you could make batteries with twice the capacity of lithium batteries for the same cost, we would still have a very big problem. I'm guessing you need closer to 5-10x power capacity of lithium batteries ceteris paribus to make the transition to solid fuels easy.
I could image the upsides for the inability (or very expensive) to move things via shipping. Of course, it would be a good thing if ground travel was preserved though. It would be like a tariff on goods though. I do not see any urgent need provide energy for shipping unlike ground transportation.
Randall, the oil sands in Canada has 1.75 trillion barrels of oil, 175 billion is recoverable at current prices. Thats 36 years of current US imports. (At the moment Canada only supplies 20% of US imports).
As technology improves, the total recoverable will only grow. As will production.
The is 100's of years of NG available as well, totally ingoring methane hydrates.
But the foreign trade deficit is decimating the United States (both the US dollar and the unemployment) in such a way that we have no choice but to start by eliminating the need for oil imports.
> Thats 36 years of current US imports.
Its a good thing we are the only country that uses oil.
OneDay it would be perfect if we could reduce atmospheric CO2 to methane with nuclear power and then burn it again. But I suspect you would be a 100 billionaire if you knew how to do this without breaking the bank on reactor equipment and/or energy.
Your obvious energy source, nuclear, costs about the same as coal-fired electricity. Though it may cost a lot less if you can do it out in the Sahara with less safety redundancy.
There is no way to turn CO2 to hydrocarbons like oil or natural gas, without pouring in tons of energy and achieving a net loss of energy. All reactions are either exothermic or endothermic, regardless of conditions or the process of the reaction.
There is a guy who talks about hooking up a bunch of nukes (or even fossil fuels) to a process that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. This is very nice. Its a little better to strike at the root rather than engineer climate with lofted particulates, and unlike the latter it also stops "the other thing", namely ocean acidification. But it doesnt regenerate hydrocarbons, and the energy consumed is very great, making it much more expensive than lofting particulates. Of course, we could do a little of each:
Bruce,
175 billion barrels is a little over 2 years of world consumption at current rates. There's a world market for oil btw.
OneDay,
There's nothing wrong with using synthetic oil generated using nuclear power if you do not mind paying a few times more per gallon of gasoline. The conversion efficiency would be low.
A gallon of gasoline has about 114,000 BTU. Well, there's 3413 BTU/kwh of electricity. So about 33.4 kwh per gallon. At 10 cents per kwh (annd perhaps that's too high given the electricity would be purchased at wholesale prices) that's only $3.34 of electricity per gallon if you could somehow do it with 100% efficiency. But of course that level of efficiency is impossible to attain. If the efficiency is 25% then multiply by 4. Then add in capital costs for the synthesis plant, distribution, and retailing and taxes. Worth thinking about if the price of oil ever hits $300 or $400 per barrel. But using the electric power in a pluggable hybrid would likely be much cheaper.
E-P,
If you see this what's the likely conversion efficiency for synthetic gasoline using electricity as input to drive the process? Could it even be 25%? What's the conversion efficiency for electrolysis to get the hydrogen? The other alternative is to use specially designed nukes that use intense heat to split water to generate hydrogen. Cheaper in the long run. But probably still a rather expensive way to generate synthetic hydrocarbons.
85 million barrells a day = 31 billion per year = 5.6 years for the oil sands. 56 years if the cost of oil was higher.
But Canada exports to the USA. And Canada has conventional sources as well. And the USA has its own supplies as well.
However, the important to remember is that people like Wolf-Dog and EP and even now planning to shut down the Marcellus Shale NG fracking to ensure the USA stays dependent on foreign oil. People like them want the USA economy to crumble and be at the mercy of foreign governments. They want the people to pay 10x more for electricity generated through ultra expensive wind and solar. They want industries to die and move offshore. Because of they actually cared about the foreign trade deficit, they and the Democrats would allow drilling in Alaska.
If they actually cared they would be pushing for NG and coal and nuclear to replace oil. But they don't.
In-situ biological production of methane from unmineable oil shale, coal, and heavy oil could produce enormous amounts of natural gas. The limits are ultimately going to be set by how much CO2 the atmosphere can take (forget 2x; what about 10x pre-industrial levels?)
Beyond that, there's the chemical energy resources of distributed reduced metal species in the crust (iron in the +2 oxidation state, for example). This resource is ultimately limited by depletion of oxygen in the atmosphere. Not currently feasible to exploit it, though.
Isn't methane a stronger greenhouse gas than C02? Wouldn't production of huge amounts of methane in places where 100% capture will be impossible make global warming an even bigger risk?
Bruce,
Oops, I made a mistake in my calcs. You are right. But I'm not clear on why you are bringing up Canadian reserves. They are already included in calculations made by many analysts for Peak Oil. The last 5 years of a bumpy plateau in world oil production argue against the potential for big increases in world oil production.
US oil supplies: We peaked in in 1970. We import more than half the oil we use. The
Where do Wolf-Dog and E-P call for an end to fracking in the Marcellus Shale?
I think E-P is quite supportive of nuclear power.
Bob,
Yes, methane as a greenhouse gas is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Though their potencies depend on the initial concentration and CO2 does not stay as potent for each incremental increase in concentration according to some accounts I've read.
Methane would be good to release directly into the atmosphere if the Sun went thru an extended period of low output. Though there's the problem of what to do when the Sun's output goes back up again. We really need a way to change global average albedo quickly.
Lithium Electric isn't as far away as some seem to feel. If you will forgive an immense number of oversimplifications I'll try to develop a sample cost.
the development follows a fairly predictable curve. You can get a reasonable feel for it's current state from the amateur environment. We already have 'super-car' (Tesla) commercial systems where cost isn't an option and ranges comparable to gasoline vehicles.
The enthusiast community is making viable vehicles with drive train costs in the $10-$20k range.
50hp 3 phase electric aprox $5k. An array of 2x32 90Ah LiFePO4 batteries at aprox. $12k can provide 100+ Mi range highway speed with a reasonably aerodynamic vehicle. (10-20hp needed to maintain highway speed, the rest is acceleration, and hill climbing)
That means in prototype quantities with off the shelf parts you can in your back yard convert a vehicle to electric for about $20k.
Certainly not inexpensive but consider the following:
* Your batteries can reasonably be expected to last 2000 cycles
* Economies of scale are not yet in place
* Maintenance costs are significantly reduced
* You only need to address a small percentage of vehicles to impact liquid fuel demand and pricing
* DC systems have about twice the power per dollar, slightly less efficiency, and a somewhat less favorable failure profile.
This isn't exactly perfect yet, you can buy a new internal combustion engine for perhaps ten or fifteen percent that much.
In summary watch the market. A number of vehicles are expected in 2010, by 2012 we will have a much better understanding what economies of scale can do to these prices. I would expect mild cost improvements, with dramatic performance improvements, but time will tell.
There are other vendors, I happened to have this one bookmarked. a good place to start on your own research is:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/
Motor system link:
http://www.electricmotorsport.com/store/ems_ev_parts_motors_ac-induction.php
Battery system link:
http://www.electricmotorsport.com/store/ems_ev_parts_batteries_thunder_sky.php
I also forgot to mention lead carbon battery research. Lithium has a supply problem, and arguably a recycling problem.
Lead carbon addresses those, as well as cost. This is the technology the traditional US lead-acid battery companies are pursuing to compete with lithium. They are achieving some success.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/115257-lead-carbon-a-game-changer-for-alternative-energy-storage
From the article:
Lead-carbon batteries are different from other types of batteries because they combine the high energy density of a battery and the high specific power of a supercapacitor in a single low-cost device. The primary goals of lead-carbon research have been to extend the cycle lives of lead-acid batteries and increase their power.
"But I'm not clear on why you are bringing up Canadian reserves"
Because only the 175 billion barrels easily refined at 25-30$ per barrel are counted today. The other 1.575 trillion barrels are not counted in the Peak Oil calculations.
Even upping the number to 350 billion = 72 years of current US imports.
A lot of the oil sand costs are based around NG costs, and with the huge amount of NG available, that won't be a problem.
The Middle East only has around 700billion in proven reserves. The Oil Sands could be double that depending on cost and new technologies.
2 x Middle East = a big discovery
Venezuela has 1.2 - 2.5 trillion in unconventional reserves in the Orinoco area. More of that heavy oil is recoverable at current prices than Canada's tar sands.
Bruce says:
As technology improves, the total recoverable will only grow. As will production.
I'm sorry, but that's utterly insane.
* The technology may make it possible to reach more and more inaccessible reserves, but it will not make them any cheaper; the price of oil will continue to go up, and at some point this will become economically unsustainable.
* If we continue increasing our consumption geometrically, what's the maximum length of time before we consume the theoretical upper limit on oil reserves?
* What's wrong with leaving some reserves against future need, or uses other than fuel? How is it not utterly spendthrift to continue relying on our ability to squeeze ever more blood from the same turnip?
Any money we spend on oil extraction should be just to keep things running until the alternatives are online. It's nasty stuff, and the sooner we're done with it the better.
Also: there is some discussion of cheap gas synthesis here.
OneDay,
It is cheaper to go electric than to go air-synth-fuel
An electric motor is cheaper than a gasoline engine.
A battery is cheaper than an air-synth-fuel plant.
Also energy density isn't that important otherwise diesel engine wouldn't be made as they are much heavier that gasoline engines.
Bruce,
Problem with tar sand is that it uses a lot of natural gas. Making natural gas cars isn't that difficult and its efficiency is close to the natural gas you need to convert tar sand into gasoline. So why go the tar sand route?
Randall Parker
Wrong process to ask about efficiency. It is the gasoline engine what is so incredible inefficient.
Woozle, thats what they said about shale gas in places like Marcellus. They were wrong.
There are new technologies being worked on right now in Alberta that will probably make tar sand recovery cheaper and less energy intensive.
"In its large-scale application in the field, that means oil produced through this process is cheaper to extract. That's because it doesn't require huge volumes of natural gas to boil water, which is used to melt bitumen from the oil sands. It's also more climate-friendly, since it requires less refining."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/battle-for-the-oil-sands/article1406051/
As for ICE's being incredibly inefficient, the fact is pound for pound gasoline is the most effiecent fule there is that is practical to carry. Weight kills car efficiency.
Gasoline has 46 megajoules of energy per kg
Lithium-Ion has .26 megajoules per kg
http://www.science-ebooks.com/ematrix6/battery_versus__ice.htm
The thing about quantum batteries: They're never there unless you observe them.
Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas, over the short term. But an increment of methane is oxidized away within a decade or two. An increment of CO2 will have a portion of it affecting the atmosphereic CO2 level for thousands of years. The time for the oceans to completely absorb the current CO2 injection is likely to be 100,000 years or more. There will be a more rapid initial response as the CO2 dissolved into ocean surface waters mixes into the deep water, but eventually dissolution of calcium carbonate, then neutralization of the ocean by weathering of silicates, will have to occur for full absorption.
Over the very long term, the greenhouse contribution of methane is dominated by the CO2 it oxidizes into.
Paul,
Why do you consider only oceanic absorption? Wouldn't increased photosynthesis in places where CO2 is the limiting factor remove more CO2? Even in the oceans, wouldn't algae blooms be more important than deep water mixing?
P.S. I still don't see how releasing large amounts of methane in places where 100% capture will be impossible will help with any warming we might be having.
Woozle, thats what they said about shale gas in places like Marcellus. They were wrong.What, we're going to get enough oil out of Alberta to bring gas prices back under $1/gallon? For how long? Will tar sand recovery ever be cheaper than old-fashioned drilling was, back when there was still plentiful near-surface oil? For how long will it be cheaper than it is now?There are new technologies being worked on right now in Alberta that will probably make tar sand recovery cheaper and less energy intensive.
I seem to recall that "what they said" about shale gas was that it would be prohibitively expensive. As other sources dry up, the demand increases to the point where even the most expensive technique eventually becomes cost-effective. So yeah, I'm sure the tar sands in Alberta will eventually be cost-effective -- but how much will we be paying for it? Will I be able to afford it? If it costs 10 times as much to move food from one coast to another, how is this likely to affect food prices?
I'm not looking forward to finding out, and I'd rather we took steps so that we don't ever have to.
...and:
pound for pound gasoline is the most effiecent fule there is that is practical to carry. Weight kills car efficiency.If that's the case, then why do hybrids always get much better mileage than equivalent-sized conventional-fuel vehicles?
"What, we're going to get enough oil out of Alberta to bring gas prices back under $1/gallon?
Adjusted for inflation, it was never 1$ per gallon. It was near 1.40 in 1999.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
"why do hybrids always get much better mileage than equivalent-sized conventional-fuel vehicles"
Because it is more efficent to run an engine at a certain consistent output rather than stop and go. The regenerative braking helps as well.
Bruce,
Number of years of US imports from total Canadian tar sands oil reserves isn't the relevant number when thinking about tar sands oil for several reasons:
1) The market for oil is global.
2) World oil demand is growing and so projection from current year consumption rates create a misimpression about how long the oil will last.
3) A barrel of tar sands oil takes a lot more energy to extract. That energy is taken from other possible uses.
4) Flow rates: Scaling up tar sands extraction is limited by water availability, natural gas availability, and other constraints. Read what the Canadian tar sands industry projects for future production rates. I've linked to those numbers previously. They come up way short of replacing declining production in other parts of the world.
Anonyq,
Your reasoning about efficiency makes no sense. What is the purpose of talking about efficiency? To arrive at cost numbers that allow us to compare the ways of powering a vehicle. You seem to miss that.
We already know how many miles per gallon various cars get. Those efficiency numbers are known. We also know quite a bit about the watt-hours/mile numbers for electric cars (usually 250-500). We also know a lot about the prices for gasoline and electricity. What's missing is efficiency in the conversion of electric power to synthetic hydrocarbons. That efficiency will tell us how many kwh it takes to make a synthetic gallon of gasoline. That can be then easily translated into a dollars per gallon cost of the energy (with additional costs for capital plant).
Bruce
every diesel engine + full gas tank > gasoline + full gas tank
Weight is a penalty but not as big as you think. Radius is important and that is were electric failed. But batteries are now getting there and are solved with a Better Place or Prorail solution.
Randall
Assume 100% conversion rate between electric power and gasoline and you will know the answer instantly. Electric is about 4 times more efficient than a diesel engine measured from the plug/pump. Going Prius plug-in makes much more sense in this case than using that electricity for making carbohydrates. The only place this may make sense is in aircraft fuel but even there there are other hybrid solutions which make more sense.
Oil is finite?
Bwa-hahahaa. Amazing. Oil has peaked? Good Lord ... continental United States has more recoverable oil than all other global deposits combined, and hasn't even been touched yet. Oil shale, the Baaken fields, offshore, THE AMAZING NUMBER OF CAPPED WELLS all over the midwest that are still full-production capable. It's the stupendous chemical engine of the earth's core and mantle producing oil, not dead dinosaurs. We're sitting on 500 years of oil without the earth producing anymore.
Go sell this oil-scare bovine scatology to people who can't think and can't read and can't do math. Digital Quantum batteries would be very cool, and I applaud them but that's not a legitimate jumping off point to then shovel oil-related lies.
Geez, no wonder Al Gore and the Warmmongers can sell their tripe.
nonlinear tangent alert: With what seems to me to be the leading/accelerating edge of the permanent demise of newsprint and at least a coming decade's worth of no residential construction and thus dramatically reduce demand for lumber, does anyone have a notion of how many trees will be spared/grown and thus, how much co2 will be transpired that no one is thinking about at the moment?
Jack,
Suppose for a moment that oil is abiotic. That means the global warming scaremongers have every reason to panic. If oil is abiotic, we can drive the carbon in our atmosphere way beyond what was there when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. In that situation, if we keep burning oil, we could drive CO2 levels to the point where we cannot even breathe.
But if it is abiotic, why hasn't the market been able to respond to historically very high prices by increasing supply? Current high prices--even in the face of a global recession and massive demand destruction--suggest to me the supply curve for oil fell over on its side.
David,
The higher the price of oil, the more people will burn firewood.
it takes oil/energy to transport firewood,so it STM that makes it unlikely that the trees spared by tech substitution etc. will be widely used as firewood unless the prices paid equals/exceeds the prices paid for newsprint/lumber
Bob,
Abiotic oil: It wouldn't change anything because it then looks like the abiotic oil process is very slow.
Dave, Bob,
Wood can be used for:
- Building heating.
- Electric power generation.
- Paper.
- Structures.
I am reminded that in the earth 19th century New England was pretty bare due to extensive logging for wood for heat and structures. I've seen a color-coded map (might have been on The Oil Drum) of wood supplies by state. There's no cold weather state where there's enough wood for all heating needs. Given limited fossil fuels we'll go thru the trees rapidly. I push ground sink heat pump installations for this reason. Get away from burning on-site for heat and use the many ways we have to generate electricity.
"Peak oil" is no more about the price of fuel at the pump than "Global Warming" is about climate change. In truth, the free market ensures that we CANNOT EVER run out of motor vehicle fuels. What will happen is that inexpensive sources are exhausted and demand bids up the price to support conversion of other sources hydrocarbons and to support development of improvements in production and use. We are almost awash in hydrocarbons that can be converted into motor vehicle fuels. At a world price of $75/bbl, coal can be converted to diesel fuel at a price that is competitive with that refined from crude oil. It is just silly to fret about "peak oil". The only issue that should matter in a free market is the price of the product that consumers want to buy.
I totally agree BuckWheat. But free markets don't give the statists the agenda they need to control every waking facet of our lives.
Anonyq,
But I know the conversion of electricity to hydrocarbons will be nowhere near 100% efficient.
Why does that conversion efficiency matter? Because batteries cost too much for long range travel. Liquid hydrocarbons beat all major contenders for efficiency of storing energy per unit weight. Liquid hydrocarbons are still the cheapest in almost all use cases one can think to name. PHEVs can only compete now with tax credits and due to the novelty of being the first one in one's social circle to own one.
As Peak Oil hits the real costs of the substitutes will matter. Right now it is hard to know what some of them cost because they are so expensive no company is running the processes needed to make them work.
Abiotic oil: It wouldn't change anything
Au contraire. It would change the total amount of carbon we might put into our atmosphere. If all oil is biotic, at most, we can put into the atmosphere an amount of carbon that was there previously. If we have sources of carbon from deep within the earth that were never in our atmosphere, our ability to change the partial pressure of CO2 is dramatically increased.
Then again, the available evidence suggests we have hit peak oil, which seems to argue against abiotic sources.
The only issue that should matter in a free market is the price of the product that consumers want to buy.
That's all well and good until the product has an effect on economic activity as energy does. A world with an expanding population and a shrinking economy won't be much fun.
Bruce: so you can't claim that weight kills efficiency when adding that weight gives you more of it. This is especially true with regenerative braking, which dampens the energy-cost of extra weight by allowing the vehicle's kinetic energy to be recovered. You can't do that with a combustible fuel, only with electric or inertial (flywheel). Here in Durham (NC), the city just bought 21 new hybrid buses. They get something like 20% better mileage than the regular buses -- and they are much quieter. What's not to like?
and...
"Adjusted for inflation, it was never 1$ per gallon. It was near 1.40 in 1999."I'll rephrase: we're going to get enough oil out of Alberta to bring gas prices back under $1(1999)/gallon? Admittedly, that graph does show a rather different picture than I've seen before -- gas prices declining gradually (with lots of bumps) since the start of the graph in 1918. Is there reason to think that they will continue on this trend indefinitely? I can't see how that makes sense, even if that's the direction the graph seems to be heading.
jack mackenzie: when you can only use argument-by-ridicule to make your point, you prove that you have no point to make.
And... are you seriously proposing that oil is infinite? I mean, you know it's not made by magic elves or sweatshop laborers in China, right?
theBuckWheat: aside from the wishful thinking about the omnipotence of free markets (ensuring that we will always have all the oil and flying ponies that we need by just wishing it so), you seem to be missing a key consequence of your argument: "What will happen is that inexpensive sources are exhausted and demand bids up the price to support conversion of other sources..." Right. The price will rise. That's the problem. We will never completely run out of oil, but as natural sources become scarcer and scarcer demand will drive the price sky-high -- unless we find ways to synthesize it.
Long before that, though, it will be too expensive to use as a fuel for transporting food and other essentials, and there will be a crisis -- unless we have found some other way of powering our transportation. I would rather see that crisis averted. Is this not glaringly obvious?
Josh Reiter: Yes they do. Two words: media consolidation. Of course, media and oil aren't exactly "free markets" either; we're captive to both of them. "Free markets" in the energy field would be oil competing against solar, wind, and nuclear for your family's power dollars -- but I can't choose which power company I buy electricity from any more than I can choose which type of power to use for my 1987 station wagon; I'm captive to Duke Energy for the former and the oil industry for the latter. What we have now is not free or competitive, and it owns Washington -- which is why we're having this stupid argument.
Q: How many oil company executives does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: They don't change it; they just announce that it hasn't really gone out. And anyway, we're probably better off working in the dark. And anyone who tries to change it is obviously being paid off by the lightbulb manufacturers' lobby. And anyone who complains that they can't see what they're doing is just a liberal whiner who needs to get a life. And think of the disruption and inconvenience when they come dragging that huge ladder into the middle of the room! ...and on and on.
We need a new lightbulb. Either help, or get out of the way.
Liquid hydrocarbons don't beat all major contenders for efficiency of storing energy per unit weight as ICE engines are incredible inefficient. They are competitive because the liquid hydrocarbons don't need much processing from the raw material. If your only consumable is electricity than using a redux reaction with a "tankable" metal is much more economical. It would be lighter too as 500 miles of "tankable" metal + reduxer + electric engine + transmission would be lighter than 500 miles of gas + gas engine + transmission
Substitution is run on small scale and theoretical. We know what worst case non hydrocarbons would look like (batch process without any improvements). We know what best case hydrocarbons made from electricity would look like. Non hydrocarbons already win that race so
Bob,
creationist?
Woozle, gas was NEVER 1$ per gallon in todays dollars. In reality the cheap gas of 1999 was the anomaly. Of course 26-63 cents of that is direct gas taxes.
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/Gasoline_Map_10-2009.pdf
Remember, the price of oil dropped so low that the incentive to drill dropped a great deal. The higher the price of oil, the less chance of Peak Oil being true, and conversely when oil is cheap, Peak Oil has more truth in it.
Randall,
thought about it a bit more. We have already an example how a non hydrocarbon powered car would look like in the Clarity.
"Why does that conversion efficiency matter? Because batteries cost too much for long range travel. Liquid hydrocarbons beat all major contenders for efficiency of storing energy per unit weight. Liquid hydrocarbons are still the cheapest in almost all use cases one can think to name. PHEVs can only compete now with tax credits and due to the novelty of being the first one in one's social circle to own one."
Randall, what percentage of fuel consumption is used in "long-distance travel?" What is the definition of long-distance travel? Would batteries suffice for enough people's short distance needs that it significantly reduce oil imports?
Randall, I'm not sure why you can't yet grasp that there is no peak oil threat. I'm asusming you are sincere and not playing dumb just to make Futurepundity more exciting. It is interesting enough without the peak oil crap.
Do you understand the difference between absolute advantage and comparative advantage in trade? That seems like a harder concept to get down, but maybe both are tricky.
anonyq,
First off, ICE and liquid fuels combined are cheaper than electric vehicles that can travel a similar distance. Tried pricing the battery costs for a full sized car that can travel 500 miles? The cost is in 6 figures.
Second, gasoline contains orders of magnitude more energy per pound or kilogram than a charged lithium battery. It is not a contest. Bruce supplied some numbers above. Do you dispute his source?
Electric cars can only compete on cost per mile at shorter ranges where much smaller batteries are used.
anonyq,
"creationist?"
I don't understand your question.
Why do you consider only oceanic absorption? Wouldn't increased photosynthesis in places where CO2 is the limiting factor remove more CO2? Even in the oceans, wouldn't algae blooms be more important than deep water mixing?
Photosynthesis, by itself, removes no CO2 from the atmosphere. This is because, in steady state, the produced biomass gets oxidized, releasing all the CO2 back to the air. There is no net removal.
To remove net CO2 you need to sequester some of the biomass somewhere, either in standing forests, or buried somehow. Algae can act as a CO2 pump, falling into the deep ocean where it is oxidized (but this remixes back into the surface layers on the time scales I was talking about). The quantity of algae biomass that ends up, unoxidized, in sediments is actually quite small.
Bruce: Although you still didn't answer my question (paraphrase: "will it go below $1 again, in 1999 dollars?"), I concede your immediate point; long-term increases in the price of gas appear to be due solely to inflation, not the cost of extraction (if "Financial Trend Forecaster" can be trusted).
I'll rephrase my question: Will it go back below $1.40 in today's prices? Because if it never does, then that means the long slow downward trend has finally bottomed out... which sounds an awful lot like Peak Oil to me.
Next question: we're going to get enough oil out of Alberta to eliminate dependence on Middle Eastern reserves? At a price no more than, say, twice what extraction currently costs? And for how long will that source keep us going? And will Canada be willing to let North America have the lion's share, or might we be outbid by Europe (where they pay much, much more at the pump) and China (to whom we are heavily in debt), and have to make do with a small fraction at higher prices?
And finally... why expend all this energy to defend oil? It's nasty stuff when it comes out of the ground, it's nasty to use, and it pollutes -- whether or not you agree it contributes to global warming. Why can't we just agree that we should be investing in other energy forms and trying to damp down our oil usage as quickly as possible -- if nothing else, to save some for future generations?
How many gasoline cars can drive 500 miles with a full tank? Not all of them. Secondly if cars are switched over to electric drive than Prorail's plan for induction charging on the highway is a given and with that you get unlimited range for electric cars.
It is not the fuel weight that is important but (fuel weight + engine) / range
An electric engine is much lighter and smaller than an ICE so the weight penalty of the battery isn't that large. There is also the expectation that all ICE vehicles will become hybrids like the Prius in which case the battery and electric engine penalty is even smaller.
ps. Induction charging on the highway is already cost competitive with ICE if a significant number of cars could use it.
Bruce has got to be a coal-industry plant. There's no way that anyone could look at my body of work related to oil consumption (not to mention nuclear advocacy) and claim that I want to perpetuate US dependence on foreign energy of any kind. He's just a monkey throwing poo.
He's got his own huge consistency problems. Bruce worries about 100 dead in a cold snap but ignores 56,000 dead of heat in just one incident in 2003. The cold problem is easily handled by building to Passivhaus standards, but Bruce wants... more air conditioners. How to run those air conditioners? He can't say without giving his game away, but the obvious answer is coal.
Hey, Bruce, what's Peabody paying for astroturfing? Is your check laundered through GMI, like so many anti-tobacco propagandists' were?
Randall: I went over the Green Freedom overview again. It's not specific about power and efficiency, but the figures given are no cause for optimism: $4.60/gallon at the pump (page 8). The investment of $9.6 billion for 18,400 bbl/day of gasoline is a cost of more than $500k/bbl/day, compared to $100k/bbl/day for tar sands.
The hypothetical plant produces 5000 tonne/day of MeOH and reforms it to gasoline. The HHV of 5000 tonnes of MeOH is about 114 TJ, while the LHV of 18.4 kbbl of gasoline is about 94 TJ (I am not sure such a high efficiency is realistic). The daily generation of a 1.3 GWe nuclear plant is about 112 TJ, so the author's numbers appear to be off by a substantial fraction; they are not including the energy required for CO2 capture or losses in electrolysis and methanol synthesis. The electrical figures they claim on page 6 are 55 kJ/mole just for CO2 recovery (after the credit for the co-produced hydrogen). The overall electric energy demand is 410 kJ/mol CO2, so the power consumption for just that segment is 790 MW. Each mole of CO2 requires 3 moles of H2 of which only 1 mole is co-produced, so working backwards from their 355 kJ/mol credit an additional 710 kJe/mol CO2 is required for another 1.37 GW. The total electric power required is 2.16 GW, or roughly 1.5-2 Gen III nuclear reactors, not one.
It makes a heck of a lot of sense to compare the energy requirements and capital expense against alternatives, such as PHEVs. 18,400 bbl/day (773,000 gal) at 35 MPG is 27 million miles per day. Putting 2.16 GW into PHEVs at 250 Wh/mi is about 210 million miles per day.
Suppose for a moment that we need to build and power a fleet of 10 million vehicles which drive 40 miles per day each. These can either be Chevy Volts at 250 Wh/mi or next-gen Chevy Aveos at 35 MPG. Fueling the Aveos would require 11.4 million gallons/day or 14.8 "Green Freedom" plants at $9.6 billion apiece, total capital cost $142 billion/year. Charging the Volts would require 4.17 GWe or perhaps 4 AP-1000's at maybe $3.5 billion apiece, total $14 billion. Building the Volts might cost an extra $8000 per vehicle (which will come down) or $80 billion/year, total cost $94 billion/year at the beginning and falling to perhaps half that over time. Residual value of batteries is an unknown, residual value of the vehicles might be a lot higher due to the long life of electrical systems.
"Green Freedom" appears to be aimed at perpetuating the market for petroleum. It isn't competitive until oil is around $150/bbl and the entire downstream infrastructure would still be built around hydrocarbons. If you want to make the USA free of oil imports, nuclear-electric is much cheaper than nuclear-hydrocarbon and puts a much lower cap on the long-term price of oil.
Incidentally, if we use $3.5 billion per AP1000 as the figure for GF also, the nuclear portion of each GF plant costs about $7 billion and the overall plant cost rises to $11.6 billion. This will boost the amortization and per-gallon cost of its product to over $5.00/gallon.
E-P,
Speaking as someone who has been accused of being in the pay of the nuclear power industry (I should be so lucky) I do not think it productive to accuse people of being paid shills. I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that very few people need to be paid in order to get a much larger number of people to agree with them.
I don't really understand why they want to make synth gasoline. Producing methane sounds to me cheaper as it requires less carbon capture and can be used in cars with some small adjustments. Considering the timescale needed for this i would even argue that cars don't need adjustment at all as they will come off the line with a natural gas tank and can be shipped with the existing natural gas pipelines. H2 used in ICE engine has the advantage that H2 sounds to me that it is even cheaper to produce than CH4. H2 used in fuel cell has the advantage that it is more efficient and plug-in ready so you need to make less H2. But fuel cells cost much more. But electrifying the highway sounds cheaper to me.
Electrified rails are going to be much easier and cheaper than electrified pavement. Rails are more durable, and one construction company has created a process to turn ground-up pavement into ballast for less than the cost of new concrete. Given that we are already running short of funds to repair highways, making dual-mode vehicles which get rid of lots of the pavement and most of the liquid fuel consumption will help patch that fiscal pothole.
E-P,
I'd really like to know the real cost of building nukes in the US. I keep reading about big cost increases like this one in San Antonio Texas:
The estimated cost of two new nuclear reactors proposed by CPS Energy has gone up as much as $4 billion, prompting the City Council to postpone Thursday's vote on the project's financing until January.
I read the article to see if it had any hint as to why, and I saw the supplier...
Toshiba.
The dollar is falling, so imports will be more expensive. Especially any financial risk which has to be hedged over a multi-year contract will get pricier.
E-P.
Another account I read said that $2.5 billion of the increase came due to the dollar-Yen exchange rate. But that's less than $4 billion.
Bruce,
This makes no sense to me:
The higher the price of oil, the less chance of Peak Oil being true, and conversely when oil is cheap, Peak Oil has more truth in it.
The market price of oil went way up from 2003 to 2008 and the supply barely changed. That's a sign that supply doesn't increase when prices rise. We still have oil bouncing around between $70 and $80 without a big increase in supply. Why not? The Peak Oil theory provides an explanation. Provide a non-Peak Oil explanation.
BECAUSE OPEC SITS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OIL MARKET AND CURRENTLY HAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF PRICING POWER.
And how does Peak Oil explain the price plummet from over 100 for months, "peaking" (to use a phrase you throw areound) at $145 and crash down to $45?
Peak oil doesn't explain it.
A global recession with massive demand destruction and a flight of speculators explains the short-lived drop in prices. Even with that demand destruction, here we are in the depths of a global recession and oil still costs $70+/barrel.
Two different influences can oppose with one more prominent for a time and another more prominent for a time. Right now, I would say peak oil is prominently holding up the price of oil even in the face of massive demand destruction.
