Geopolitical potential for a game-changing gas shortage?

[johnrhansen]

I suppose it would be interesting to note history. I remember when I was a kid in 1974 during the Arab oil embargo. Suddenly small cars became FAR more popular, and remained so for quite some time... but eventually, big gas guzzlers came back! I can imagine that if a similar situation happened today it would play out about the same. The shock would move people towards the most efficient forms of transportation, which in my mind are electric vehicles. Now if that jump start could improve electric vehicle technology so they could compete with ICE powered vehicles in ways other than efficiency, they could become mainstream, provided they don't cost any more than an ICE car initially. The masses have shown over and over that what something costs over the long run really doesn't matter to them.

 

[klapauzius]

I think today we are getting more of the slow creeping up than the sudden jolt.
Whatever happens in the world, there is no way that oil prices will fall long term.

The bummer is we have to go through all the iterations of ICE retro-steampunk tech slowly and painfully...Yes, there will be a return of the diesels
to the US market...more hybrids, VWs ridiculous 261 mpg car....(which is in my opinion is like using CAD and 3D printing to design the best, most efficient stone hand axe ever).

 

[cwerdna]

The bummer is we have to go through all the iterations of ICE retro-steampunk tech slowly and painfully...Yes, there will be a return of the diesels...

And diesels save oil?

Per http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, a barrel of oil produces 19 gallons of gasoline and 11 gallons of diesel, in addition to other products.

 

[klapauzius]

And diesels save oil?

Per http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, a barrel of oil produces 19 gallons of gasoline and 11 gallons of diesel, in addition to other products.

In a way...My old Passat TDI could go 50 mpg. Also, from that graphic it looks like you get both gasoline AND diesel from oil, so you get the diesel without losing the gas. Now, instead of commercial vehicles, you will also have the consumer competing for it because of its perceived efficiency.

Anyway, Audi and VW apparently bet on a comeback of the diesel to the US market.

 

[donald]

Also, from that graphic it looks like you get both gasoline AND diesel from oil

:shock:

If that's news to you, then I think that throws a different light on your above comments. Look up 'distillation' and 'cracking'.

John calls it spot on, IMHO - there will be a short term blip as drivers get worried about their own teeny little insignificant world of rat-races to work, but at the end of the day it will be immaterial. Will it prompt technology improvement? Well, CARB/legislation is capable of doing that, without having to go through the pain of risking infrastructure issues, and that's what is currently has, and is currently, happening.

I had a Skoda Octavia with one of the most efficient engines of all time, the 1896 cc Volkswagen/Audi variable geometry turbo. I used to average 85mpg on my commutes to work with a little bit of hypermiling (well, just driving slowly, actually!). The cradle-to-grave oil usage from that car for 100k miles would have been lower than a current EV.

It depends how efficiently an EV is manufactured and where the electricity comes from that determines if it competes with ICE on oil consumption over its whole life, and EVs don't compete that well at the moment. To pejoratively call modern ICE's 'steam-punk' and an efficient 'stone-axe' is ridiculous.

 

[cwerdna]

Also, from that graphic it looks like you get both gasoline AND diesel from oil

:shock:

If that's news to you, then I think that throws a different light on your above comments. Look up 'distillation' and 'cracking'.

I know about fractional distillation and cracking, but I do have a basic question about how much "typical" crude oil(s) used by US refineries "naturally" yield during distillation and whether the ratio is due to the demand ratios in the US. I'd also want to know how much energy is used by cracking to convert to other forms.

 

[klapauzius]

Also, from that graphic it looks like you get both gasoline AND diesel from oil

:shock:

If that's news to you, then I think that throws a different light on your above comments. Look up 'distillation' and 'cracking'.

John calls it spot on, IMHO - there will be a short term blip as drivers get worried about their own teeny little insignificant world of rat-races to work, but at the end of the day it will be immaterial. Will it prompt technology improvement? Well, CARB/legislation is capable of doing that, without having to go through the pain of risking infrastructure issues, and that's what is currently has, and is currently, happening.

I had a Skoda Octavia with one of the most efficient engines of all time, the 1896 cc Volkswagen/Audi variable geometry turbo. I used to average 85mpg on my commutes to work with a little bit of hypermiling (well, just driving slowly, actually!). The cradle-to-grave oil usage from that car for 100k miles would have been lower than a current EV.

It depends how efficiently an EV is manufactured and where the electricity comes from that determines if it competes with ICE on oil consumption over its whole life, and EVs don't compete that well at the moment. To pejoratively call modern ICE's 'steam-punk' and an efficient 'stone-axe' is ridiculous.

Too much assumptions...No it isn't news to me. Did I write that?

I think there exist other threads on the CO2 balance of EVs vs. ICE, so no need to discuss that here.

A while ago people were claiming that a Hummer over its life-time would produce less CO2 than a Prius.
I think somehow arguments of this type will never lose its appeal to certain people. I am sure the stone-axe proponents back then had similar things to say about the first bronze tools.

Anyway, I will make a 'bold' prediction:
ICE technology will not be around in significant quantities 100 years from now.

I think that is not too difficult to see, since eventually all oil will have been effectively used up by then.
So, like the stone axe, ICEs will become obsolete.

 

[donald]

Too much assumptions...No it isn't news to me. Did I write that?

yes.

A while ago people were claiming that a Hummer over its life-time would produce less CO2 than a Prius.
I think somehow arguments of this type will never lose its appeal to certain people. I am sure the stone-axe proponents back then had similar things to say about the first bronze tools.

Well, that's showing a tendency to use a form of ridicule in your argument.

There is a peer-reviewed presentation from Ricardo, a very well regarded organisation, who show that an EV just scrapes in lower in CO2 emissions through-life than most others, based on 8 year battery life [which we know is far from guarnateed]. But add in one battery change to 10 year life, and all of a sudden a small-gasoline mild hybrid pops up as lower CO2 overall than an EV.

I'll find a peer reviewed reference to the Ricardo article.

In the meanwhile, please find a peer reviewed article saying a Hummer produces less CO2 than a Prius, or otherwise stop citing tittle-tattle hearsay as if it were as plausible as any other suggestion.

Anyway, I will make a 'bold' prediction:
ICE technology will not be around in significant quantities 100 years from now.

I think that is not too difficult to see, since eventually all oil will have been effectively used up by then.
So, like the stone axe, ICEs will become obsolete.

My points above seem to have gone waaaaaay over your head, then. OK, so what do you see as replacing engines in haulage trucks? A typical long-distance haulage truck has, and needs, a 1000 litres of fuel tanks to do its job properly. That's ~10,000 kWh. At current battery densities of 1kWh/10kg, that'll be a 100 tonne truck without a load. So battery tech needs to improve by an order of magnitude at least, and get to the point where if your Leaf could have a similar battery it'd do 1,000 miles on one charge, yet at the moment, the battery technology we have available has pretty much plateaued in its specific mass/energy.

If you sat down to create the most ideal way of carrying large amounts of energy around, you'd devise liquid hydrocarbons. So the ICE is here to stay. What might be more worthwhile, in the context of this thread, is to concern yourself with how we get that liquid hydrocarbon. Maybe in the future we will learn how to synthesise hydrocarbons from nuclear power and CO2 absorbed into the oceans. But one way or the other, ICEs are here to stay on our roads. The mix will change over time, but it will never disappear. In fact, if someone invents a way to synthesise liquid HCs from electrical power at 80% efficiency, then there would no longer be any argument for EVs at all!

 

[cwerdna]

A while ago people were claiming that a Hummer over its life-time would produce less CO2 than a Prius.
I think somehow arguments of this type will never lose its appeal to certain people.

Unfortunately, the above thoroughly debunked CNW junk science and repeated by countless others thru various means (they heard it from someone, Top Gear, etc.) still REFUSES to die. :evil: It hasn't gone away. Unfortunately, it seems some use that junk science as a basis for attacks on EVs.

For anyone who believes or hears that garbage, one can point them to http://prius.wikia.com/wiki/Environmental" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and also reply "Hummer more environmentally friendly than a Prius? Congratulations. Where are the GM press releases proclaiming this?"

 

[klapauzius]

My points above seem to have gone waaaaaay over your head, then. OK, so what do you see as replacing engines in haulage trucks? A typical long-distance haulage truck has, and needs, a 1000 litres of fuel tanks to do its job properly. That's ~10,000 kWh. At current battery densities of 1kWh/10kg, that'll be a 100 tonne truck without a load. So battery tech needs to improve by an order of magnitude at least, and get to the point where if your Leaf could have a similar battery it'd do 1,000 miles on one charge, yet at the moment, the battery technology we have available has pretty much plateaued in its specific mass/energy.

Yes, you are right of course. I never thought of it but now that you explained it to me, I noticed that the Leaf is kind of heavy.
Must be the 370 kWh battery (typical 10 gallon tank = 37 L) ....no wonder it has such a low range!

And of course, who would ever want to get rid of a machine that converts energy at 18% to 20 % efficiency, is noisy , has lots of moving parts and requires intensive maintenance?

No, surely the ICE is here to stay.

Yes, you really wrote that:

ICEs are here to stay

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Rackham" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty – a fad,"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[donald]

Yes, you are right of course. I never thought of it but now that you explained it to me, I noticed that the Leaf is kind of heavy.
Must be the 370 kWh battery (typical 10 gallon tank = 37 L) ....no wonder it has such a low range!

YOU may be able to get what you need from a Leaf's range. But a distribution haulage truck is as much use as a chocolate crankshaft if it has an 80 mile range.

There is viability in light trucks for local distribution, I grant you. And the tech that EVs drive may also show promise for pushing light truck into a completely different model of distribution (e.g., electric trains into depots, goods delivered locally), but it is a big change not only of transportation, but population distributions and city design.

 

[johnrhansen]

I wonder if it would ever get to the point where it would be worthwhile to electrify a lane so that big trucks can take power from the grid through a catenary like an electric train does. It wouldn't even have to be continuous, just enough to keep the battery charged along the way.

 

[DaveEV]

I wonder if it would ever get to the point where it would be worthwhile to electrify a lane so that big trucks can take power from the grid through a catenary like an electric train does. It wouldn't even have to be continuous, just enough to keep the battery charged along the way.

Google "Long Beach Electric Truck" for information about a project to do that along a stretch of freeway there. Buses in San Francisco are one city which uses overhead lines to power large road vehicles.

 

[klapauzius]

YOU may be able to get what you need from a Leaf's range. But a distribution haulage truck is as much use as a chocolate crankshaft if it has an 80 mile range.

There is viability in light trucks for local distribution, I grant you. And the tech that EVs drive may also show promise for pushing light truck into a completely different model of distribution (e.g., electric trains into depots, goods delivered locally), but it is a big change not only of transportation, but population distributions and city design.

I think the LEAF has a less than optimal range. Tesla shows what is possible. I think 200+ miles is probably good enough.

Since electric long range hauling of goods has been a reality in Europe for a long time (via trains), the problem would really only be the distribution at population centers. I think no one would seriously consider moving 40 tons for thousands of miles with a battery.

Economically, EVs are most cost efficient in a high-mileage scenario (if you would be so kind as to ignore the unknown battery replacement costs at the moment ) , which would be almost always the case for commercial applications.

 

[klapauzius]

I wonder if it would ever get to the point where it would be worthwhile to electrify a lane so that big trucks can take power from the grid through a catenary like an electric train does. It wouldn't even have to be continuous, just enough to keep the battery charged along the way.

In which case maybe building an electrified railroad track would be a serious alternative....

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

In which case maybe building an electrified railroad track would be a serious alternative....

Wandering further from the thread topic (which is fine, this is just a cocktail party without the drinks) let me add that most of the freight on the highways should be put back on the rails where it belongs.

 

[GRA]

In which case maybe building an electrified railroad track would be a serious alternative....

Wandering further from the thread topic (which is fine, this is just a cocktail party without the drinks) let me add that most of the freight on the highways should be put back on the rails where it belongs.

Much of it has moved that way especially with containerization, but trucks still provide the door-to-door service and flexibility that trains don't (which is one of the reasons that trucks took over most of the freight business for other than bulk cargo in this country, when energy costs and pollution weren't that big a deal).

We'll have ICE long-haul trucks for a few decades yet (I expect increasingly LNG), and then I expect we'll eventually move to fuel cells once we've got a way to produce H2 sustainably and cost-effectively. Or maybe we'll pony up the money to embed the electric power source in the interstates, but I think that's less likely.

 

[smkettner]

..Yes, there will be a return of the diesels

a barrel of oil produces 19 gallons of gasoline and 11 gallons of diesel, in addition to other products.

Should have a glut of diesel as commercial hauling converts to natural gas.

 

[edatoakrun]

I wonder if it would ever get to the point where it would be worthwhile to electrify a lane so that big trucks can take power from the grid through a catenary like an electric train does. It wouldn't even have to be continuous, just enough to keep the battery charged along the way.

IMO, neither train tracks or large batteries are the future for hauling either freight or passengers.

The much more extensive network of roads than of rail lines in the USA caused trains to lose most of the passenger business, and allowed less-efficient trucks to take a large share of the freight business as well.

Charge-while-driving along major highways will allow electric trucks, Busses, and cars to use heavy and expensive battery kWh only for the first and final miles of each trip.

...Watch the video at the link below. They say they have plans for more OLEV pilot projects all over Korea, and also for Boston's Logan airport and a three-bus city route in Macallen Texas.

Two cordless rechargeable Hyundai battery electric buses have been put in service this week in a pilot program in Gumi, South Korea.

The Online Electric Vehicle (OLEV), developed by the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), is an electric vehicle that can be charged while stationary or driving, thus removing the need to stop at a charging station. Likewise, an OLEV tram does not require pantographs to feed power from electric wires strung above the tram route.

Two OLEV buses will run an inner city route between Gumi Train Station and In-dong district, for a total of 24 km roundtrip. The bus will receive 20 kHz and 100 kW (136 horsepower) electricity at an 85% maximum power transmission efficiency rate while maintaining a 17cm air gap between the underbody of the vehicle and the road surface...

Power comes from the electrical cables buried under the surface of the road, creating magnetic fields. There is a receiving device installed on the underbody of the OLEV that converts these fields into electricity. The length of power strips installed under the road is generally 5%-15% of the entire road, requiring only a few sections of the road to be rebuilt with the embedded cables.

OLEV has a small battery (one-third of the size of the battery equipped with a regular electric car)...

http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2013/08/worlds-first-road-embedded-wireless.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9733&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;