Trumps Oil Industry....

[0R0 + 6,251]

7 hours ago, surrept33 said:

This is a very good point.

I think the biggest knock on EVs is that a full battery EV in many situations actually may cause more net emissions than a ICE, and certainly more than a hybrid (which may a good sweet spot for a long time). This is what happens when you have a vehicle with such a large amount of batteries that are so energy intensive to produce.

But we're very early in the opportunity to optimize BEV both in car and across all aspects of the supply chain including primary power generation. Meanwhile, we're probably near the zenith of ICE.

I think the ship has already sailed in EVs and ICE if you look investment decisions; it's a matter of when, not if, and if there will be alternatives like fuel cell cars.

From Volkswagen:

 

So obviously the correct time environmentally speaking, to buy an EV is when it was used already, so you are not causing the initial pollution.

But for most new car buyers, the 100k mark is already after it is sold on to the used car market. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

25 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

That is also showing the vertical rise of NYC as the mansions that used to line 5th avenue gave way to high rise apartment buildings and large department stores competing to wow the wealthy and out of towners. 

Obviously, EVs do have the potential and are more reliable and thus less costly to operate. Having far fewer moving parts does that for you. However, cars did not have exotic materials necessary in significant quantities to make them work. No Neodymium magnets, no cobalt and no rare metals to line the crucibles to make lithium to run the batteries. We were not at risk of running out of production capacity of the component materials nor had a monopoly on mining the stuff in another country. 

There is allot of mine development work to do to bring us to the same order of magnitude of production as the ICE car. 

Yes but nothing that isn't reasonably doable. Neodymium isn't all that rare as I understand it and Iridium is plentiful in some asteroids. Conveniently Elon seems to be developing the tech to allow for mining asteroids. Price of cobalt has dropped dramatically from its peak a couple years ago.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

“So ICE is also a religion by your description. But as you point out, working on new ICE cars is becoming ever more difficult for gas monkeys and will actually be more difficult than working on an EV because in an EV you don't worry about fuel filters or any number of other moving parts.”

Right, now you have to worry about electrical components that YOU cannot replace! Furthermore, there are only a limited number of service centers for EV’s.

You are at the mercy of the existing centers for availability and cost.

Even worse if you do not live in a city!

[surrept33 + 609]

On 4/25/2020 at 2:34 PM, Valerie Williams said:

Fifth, batteries, part 2: Slave labor. Seriously, everybody needs to quit being mad about slavery hundreds of years ago and be mad about slavery right now.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/children-as-young-as-seven-mining-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnesty

https://medium.com/thebeammagazine/cobalt-the-toxic-hazard-in-lithium-batteries-that-puts-profit-before-people-and-the-planet-ae5a63e0f57c

Keep that in mind, cobalt is being "designed out" from EV batteries.

Different lithium ion chemistries below.

LCO = found in phones and laptops. very high cobalt content.

LMO/LFP = low cobalt = first gen EVs, LFP is also still found in china. Low range/low life.

NMC/NCA = high nickel lithium ion - These are increasingly lowering cobalt content every generation, which also adds capacity/range due to the Nickel content. There has a shift from NMC 111 (1 part nickel, 1 part manganese, 1 part cobalt) to NCM 5:2:3 -> NCM 6:2:2 -> and now EVs with NCM 8:1:1 are coming out.

Probably the generation after that will be NCM 90 (90% nickel) - a lot of research is going into trying to get to cobalt free, although that might be a ways off.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

37 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

“So ICE is also a religion by your description. But as you point out, working on new ICE cars is becoming ever more difficult for gas monkeys and will actually be more difficult than working on an EV because in an EV you don't worry about fuel filters or any number of other moving parts.”

Right, now you have to worry about electrical components that YOU cannot replace! Furthermore, there are only a limited number of service centers for EV’s.

You are at the mercy of the existing centers for availability and cost.

Even worse if you do not live in a city!

Current ICE have almost as many electrical systems as EV. If you can replace it on ICE you can replace it on EV.

Tesla releases new Do It Yourself maintenance instructions for their cars

https://electrek.co/2019/05/20/tesla-do-it-yourself-maintenance/

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

45 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

“So ICE is also a religion by your description. But as you point out, working on new ICE cars is becoming ever more difficult for gas monkeys and will actually be more difficult than working on an EV because in an EV you don't worry about fuel filters or any number of other moving parts.”

Right, now you have to worry about electrical components that YOU cannot replace! Furthermore, there are only a limited number of service centers for EV’s.

You are at the mercy of the existing centers for availability and cost.

Even worse if you do not live in a city!

“When I opened it up, I find out that it’s the easiest car I’ve ever worked on. Easiest device I’ve ever worked on. They built a Lego car. It’s like putting together Legos, taking apart Legos. If you can put together Legos you can put together a Tesla Model S.”  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/tesla-owner-frustrated-so-fixes-his-own-model-s-easy-as-legos.html

[Valerie Williams + 129]

1 hour ago, surrept33 said:

Keep that in mind, cobalt is being "designed out" from EV batteries.

Different lithium ion chemistries below.

LCO = found in phones and laptops. very high cobalt content.

LMO/LFP = low cobalt = first gen EVs, LFP is also still found in china. Low range/low life.

NMC/NCA = high nickel lithium ion - These are increasingly lowering cobalt content every generation, which also adds capacity/range due to the Nickel content. There has a shift from NMC 111 (1 part nickel, 1 part manganese, 1 part cobalt) to NCM 5:2:3 -> NCM 6:2:2 -> and now EVs with NCM 8:1:1 are coming out.

Probably the generation after that will be NCM 90 (90% nickel) - a lot of research is going into trying to get to cobalt free, although that might be a ways off.

 

 

Great progress. We are moving in the right direction. I keep talking about what we have now, and what we don’t have yet. I’m not sure I’m getting that across. The original question that started this discussion of wind/solar was the suggestion that we move to those resources, right now, as a solution to current oil crisis. Which is kind of funny, though, because oil is on sale right now. But anyway, for the sake of exploring an idea, my response was very much about right now. What we could do now, like this year.

The ensuing discussion has been in the realm of emerging capabilities, and expected trends and technologies we’re advancing toward. Those are great, BTW. I am all for that. And, admittedly, some of the gas conversion stuff is not in my wheelhouse, so I’m not going to pretend to have a clue. Thanks a bunch for all the awesome reading material, which is going to be fun.

So put it in this context, to bring it back to the scope of the comment I was responding to: How much of these technologies could truly be implemented right now, if money were no concern? Built on a scale to entirely replace fossil fuels, with current material availability, current technology, without human rights abuses and without causing a worse environmental problem than fossil fuels?

I really hope answers aren’t political, or complaining about nebulous corruption here or there that is preventing things. That’s just not going to be helpful. Those problems exist, regardless of whose country, but I think that if a resource or technology is really a game-changer those hurdles can be overcome.

And this ”right now” vs ”what can/should be” distinction is incredibly important, because in the layman political/social conversation, you have people demonizing, hating, protesting, marginalizing and sometimes persecuting each other in the name of the opposing sides of the climate change/environmental debate. Often, the argument is between people who don’t actually disagree in the sense of values (i,e.: we want to take better care of the planet), but they assume their values are polar opposite because they don’t have the knowledge to talk about the difference between what is currently possible vs what we hope to be able to do later. For example, one alarming comment from an old high school friend:  He is an attorney planning to run for political office, and he thinks people who drill for oil should be put in prison. ”Me?” I asked, “You’d put me in jail?”  “Find a different job,” he said. He thinks that the world can just stop, right this very minute, using oil, and he’s prepared to throw people in prison over it. So make that case for me.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Valerie Williams

[Mitchell123 0]

I found a short and informative about why oil prices dropped to negative. Simplifies it down, definitely worth a listen. Why oil prices went negativehttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1039846/3520228

What are your opinions on what they're saying?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

42 minutes ago, Valerie Williams said:

So put it in this context, to bring it back to the scope of the comment I was responding to: How much of these technologies could truly be implemented right now, if money were no concern? Built on a scale to entirely replace fossil fuels, with current material availability, current technology, without human rights abuses and without causing a worse environmental problem than fossil fuels?

 

And this ”right now” vs ”what can/should be” distinction is incredibly important, because in the layman political/social conversation, you have people demonizing, hating, protesting, marginalizing and sometimes persecuting each other in the name of the opposing sides of the climate change/environmental debate. Often, the argument is between people who don’t actually disagree in the sense of values (i,e.: we want to take better care of the planet), but they assume their values are polar opposite because they don’t have the knowledge to talk about the difference between what is currently possible vs what we hope to be able to do later. For example, one alarming comment from an old high school friend:  He is an attorney planning to run for political office, and he thinks people who drill for oil should be put in prison. ”Me?” I asked, “You’d put me in jail?”  “Find a different job,” he said. He thinks that the world can just stop, right this very minute, using oil, and he’s prepared to throw people in prison over it. So make that case for me.

Does your friend believe that we can solve our problems with renewables and technology? A significant portion of greens are anti technology all together. For example Kunstler https://kunstler.com/ I don't think he has a clue.

If money were no object a few projects I would put money into would be vast solar panel fields in Australia with an underwater electrical cable to SE Asia. (There is a company working on this right now.) Likewise solar arrays in N Africa with cables to Europe.

In the US the game changer is going to be floating wind turbines in the Gulf of Maine, the wind basically never stops blowing there. This is also getting underway.

Space based solar collector tech doesn't seem that far off.

In regard to batteries and cobalt work abuses the simple thing would be to buy the producing region and regulate it.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

 

“So put it in this context, to bring it back to the scope of the comment I was responding to: How much of these technologies could truly be implemented right now, if money were no concern? Built on a scale to entirely replace fossil fuels, with current material availability, current technology, without human rights abuses and without causing a worse environmental problem than fossil fuels?”

 

This is known as a unicorn fart...

[James Regan + 1,776]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Does your friend believe that we can solve our problems with renewables and technology? A significant portion of greens are anti technology all together. For example Kunstler https://kunstler.com/ I don't think he has a clue.

If money were no object a few projects I would put money into would be vast solar panel fields in Australia with an underwater electrical cable to SE Asia. (There is a company working on this right now.) Likewise solar arrays in N Africa with cables to Europe.

In the US the game changer is going to be floating wind turbines in the Gulf of Maine, the wind basically never stops blowing there. This is also getting underway.

Space based solar collector tech doesn't seem that far off.

In regard to batteries and cobalt work abuses the simple thing would be to buy the producing region and regulate it.

 

The main issues that really annoys me is most planet savers have an end game, but have no plan on how to get there? So we will be 2030 fossil free, it ten years we are going to make a transition to free ourselves from fossil fuels where's the plan, lets go even higher and cut them some slack 2050 another 20 years, 30 years this should give enough time to use as much feedstock from fossils as possible, then what? I would like to see a detailed plan for the replacement of all the product and base materials we get from fractional distillation of crude oil.

Does any one have that info?

The power part I get potential energy is harvestable but what about the other side of solid state?

Edited April 28, 2020 by James Regan

[D Coyne + 305]

12 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

God, that would suck. Reminds me of when cell phones used to charge by the minute. Extremely stressful way to use a service.

Valerie,

It would be a choice consumers would make, old school folks (like me, my kids joke with me, hey Dad when did you forget how to use technology when I am fumbling with an iphone or zoom or other new fangled technology, the students have become the teachers in my family) can choose a flat rate, those that want to get new fangled technology will be able to pull up the price on an app on their smart phone and than use another app on their smart phone to adjust their thermostat and other appliances.  No doubt their might be a third app that allows one to control both apps and look at the price and then adjust the theormostat based on price so there would be no stress, it would be automated.

Up to the individual to make the choice.

[Valerie Williams + 129]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Does your friend believe that we can solve our problems with renewables and technology?

Yeah, he thinks the technology is mature and capable of replacing fossil fuels right now, and that the only reason it hasn't is greed and corruption.

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

vast solar panel fields in Australia

 

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Likewise solar arrays in N Africa

Remember, for the goal of my question, it's got to scale large enough to replace fossil fuels. Large solar installations are impacting wildlife habitats in a way that I think would be devastating if scaled to the amount that would be needed. The ones we have now are harming wildlife and ecosystems. You would need to make the harvesters much smaller, so that's future talk.

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

with an underwater electrical cable to SE Asia

 

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

with cables to Europe.

 

 

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

In regard to batteries and cobalt work abuses the simple thing would be to buy the producing region and regulate it.

 

We have here a corporate Imperial Colonist! LOL. Battery minerals - cobalt supply is running low already, other minerals, perhaps better, but again, future talk with improving battery capacity, and the overall toxicity of batteries.

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

floating wind turbines in the Gulf of Maine

Scale

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Space based solar collector tech doesn't seem that far off

Super cool, but future talk.

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Valerie Williams

[D Coyne + 305]

11 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

 

Great progress. We are moving in the right direction. I keep talking about what we have now, and what we don’t have yet. I’m not sure I’m getting that across. The original question that started this discussion of wind/solar was the suggestion that we move to those resources, right now, as a solution to current oil crisis. Which is kind of funny, though, because oil is on sale right now. But anyway, for the sake of exploring an idea, my response was very much about right now. What we could do now, like this year.

The ensuing discussion has been in the realm of emerging capabilities, and expected trends and technologies we’re advancing toward. Those are great, BTW. I am all for that. And, admittedly, some of the gas conversion stuff is not in my wheelhouse, so I’m not going to pretend to have a clue. Thanks a bunch for all the awesome reading material, which is going to be fun.

So put it in this context, to bring it back to the scope of the comment I was responding to: How much of these technologies could truly be implemented right now, if money were no concern? Built on a scale to entirely replace fossil fuels, with current material availability, current technology, without human rights abuses and without causing a worse environmental problem than fossil fuels?

I really hope answers aren’t political, or complaining about nebulous corruption here or there that is preventing things. That’s just not going to be helpful. Those problems exist, regardless of whose country, but I think that if a resource or technology is really a game-changer those hurdles can be overcome.

And this ”right now” vs ”what can/should be” distinction is incredibly important, because in the layman political/social conversation, you have people demonizing, hating, protesting, marginalizing and sometimes persecuting each other in the name of the opposing sides of the climate change/environmental debate. Often, the argument is between people who don’t actually disagree in the sense of values (i,e.: we want to take better care of the planet), but they assume their values are polar opposite because they don’t have the knowledge to talk about the difference between what is currently possible vs what we hope to be able to do later. For example, one alarming comment from an old high school friend:  He is an attorney planning to run for political office, and he thinks people who drill for oil should be put in prison. ”Me?” I asked, “You’d put me in jail?”  “Find a different job,” he said. He thinks that the world can just stop, right this very minute, using oil, and he’s prepared to throw people in prison over it. So make that case for me.

Valerie,

There are always extremists on each side, those that suggest throwing people in jail for producing fossil fuels (dumb idea) and those at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum that suggest higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a good thing, because perhaps the relatively stable atmospheric concentrations from about 258 to 282 ppm that were the norm for about the past 11,000 years (up to about 1750 CE from 11,250 Years before 1950) do not matter.  Note also that the Earth's atmospheric CO2 remained at less than 300 ppm for all of the past 800,000 years up to about 1913.

There are two reasons to move as quickly away from burning fossil fuel as quickly as possible, one is the environmental damage that will occur due to rising atmospheric CO2 (note that the ocean creates a lag in response because at a stable CO2 level it takes about 400 years for the ocean to reach a stable equilibrium temperature with the atmosphere, this hides the problem with the rapid acceleration of atmospheric CO2 over the past 110 years and particularly the past 50 years.  The second problem is that World C+C output is likely to peak in the next 5 to 10 years and then decline, so we need to find a substitute for oil, World coal output may have already peaked (as of 2018 the peak year for coal output was 2013), and natural gas output may peak in 2035.  So we will need to get started on transitioning to other forms of energy for both reasons.

The demand for a plan of how we make this occur overnight, is just silly.  It will take time, we will learn as we go, using wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, EVs, better building design, heat pumps, efficiency in general, HVDC transmission to move electrical energy more efficiently over long distances.

There is a logical middle ground between the extremes.  You should test drive a Tesla Model 3 or Model Y, you will be impressed.  My wife has a Model 3, a fun car to drive, she let's me drive it on the weekend.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

It's really quite odd to see a discussion on EV vehicles during this event, in the mainstream auto industry they are a novelty. Musk has changed that look recently simply due to a strong world economy along with the ever present desire to have something novel and new sitting in the driveway.

There is a need in the US for a inexpensive low emission vehicle that can be made for the masses. And that would be LNG. Actually LNG is plentiful quite cost effective and solves many change over issues. 

Solar/Green energy is far to expensive for a world that will soon wake up to the reality of economics. And there will be quite a bit of angst/discussion on that event.. 

Sticktly a opinion your mileage may vary.

 

 

[Valerie Williams + 129]

13 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

There are always extremists on each side, those that suggest throwing people in jail for producing fossil fuels (dumb idea)

This is my point, yes.

14 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Note also that the Earth's atmospheric CO2 remained at less than 300 ppm for all of the past 800,000 years up to about 1913.

There are two reasons to move as quickly away from burning fossil fuel as quickly as possible, one is the environmental damage that will occur due to rising atmospheric CO2 (note that the ocean creates a lag in response because at a stable CO2 level it takes about 400 years for the ocean to reach a stable equilibrium temperature with the atmosphere, this hides the problem with the rapid acceleration of atmospheric CO2 over the past 110 years and particularly the past 50 years.

I never said I was a climate change skeptic.

15 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

So we will need to get started on transitioning to other forms of energy

Agreed.

16 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

The demand for a plan of how we make this occur overnight, is just silly.

Yes. Ding, ding, ding. Yes. Thank you.

18 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

It will take time, we will learn as we go, using wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, EVs, better building design, heat pumps, efficiency in general, HVDC transmission to move electrical energy more efficiently over long distances.

There is a logical middle ground between the extremes.

Agreed, multiple avenues of attack at the problem. I'm a fan of crowd-sourcing solutions to problems - it's why I believe capitalism works better than communism and socialism. We will get there, but we'll get there faster if emotional zealots don't demonize people just trying to be practical, rational, and measured in their approach. And those of us who geek out over the possibilities of emerging technology need to have a mind to how the layperson interprets what is said in light of highly controversial subjects.

 

23 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

You should test drive a Tesla Model 3 or Model Y, you will be impressed.

Can't afford it. My car is worth about $5000, kiddo's car is worth about $900. Both are paid for and require only liability insurance. Single mom here trying to put kiddo through college without debt and with oil the way it is... Job prospects are looking sketchy. Not gonna be buyin' any fancy cars anytime soon. I would not turn down a Tesla if you gave me one, though. I'm not against them, they are just not the game-changer we all hoped they would be.

[D Coyne + 305]

3 hours ago, James Regan said:

The main issues that really annoys me is most planet savers have an end game, but have no plan on how to get there? So we will be 2030 fossil free, it ten years we are going to make a transition to free ourselves from fossil fuels where's the plan, lets go even higher and cut them some slack 2050 another 20 years, 30 years this should give enough time to use as much feedstock from fossils as possible, then what? I would like to see a detailed plan for the replacement of all the product and base materials we get from fractional distillation of crude oil.

Does any one have that info?

The power part I get potential energy is harvestable but what about the other side of solid state?

James,

If we can only get certain product from crude or natural gas, they can be produced and utilized for those reasons, at some point these resources will peak in output so we need to find a way to reduce our use of them and despite claims to the contrary, it takes a long time for carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to fall once the have risen, on the order of 35,000 years to fall from 460 ppm to 390 ppm with zero net fossil fuel emissions, in the mean time the ocean heats up (about 400 years to reach equilibrium with atmosphere at a stable atmospheric CO2 level).  This would be the level of atmospheric CO2 reached in a medium fossil fuel scenario with 1200 Gt of carbon released into the atmostphere (1750-2100) and little attempt to reduce fossil fuel emissions, it is assumed they fall to zero by 2100 after a peak in 2025.  Peak CO2 is about 515 ppm in 2096 and the average CO2 level is around 480 ppm from 2100-2500 (assuming zero fossil fuel emissions).  If the 3 C increase in temperature associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is correct (this is the mean estimate of many climate scientists), this suggests an equilibrium temperature of about 2 C above preindustrial temperature, most scientists believe 1.5 C above the preindustrial average may be a safe level, so we need to do better. A better plan is to aim for 800 to 900 Gt of total anthropogenic emissions of carbon into the atmosphere.  Note also that this estimate is quite conservative ignoring potential carbon and methane releases fro thawing permafrost as well as methane emissions from methane hydrates in the ocean as it warms.

There are a number of potential tipping points that are not well understood which may make the real number for the Earth system in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 potentially 4 or 5 C of temperature change above preindustrial, humans and other life on the planet will have difficulty adapting to such a change in average Global temperatures, for the scenario I gave this suggests a temperature at equilibrium of about 3.5 C above preindustrial global average temperatures.

As to a specific plan for how to accomplish this see

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html

 

 

[D Coyne + 305]

11 minutes ago, Valerie Williams said:

This is my point, yes.

I never said I was a climate change skeptic.

Agreed.

Yes. Ding, ding, ding. Yes. Thank you.

Agreed, multiple avenues of attack at the problem. I'm a fan of crowd-sourcing solutions to problems - it's why I believe capitalism works better than communism and socialism. We will get there, but we'll get there faster if emotional zealots don't demonize people just trying to be practical, rational, and measured in their approach. And those of us who geek out over the possibilities of emerging technology need to have a mind to how the layperson interprets what is said in light of highly controversial subjects.

 

Can't afford it. My car is worth about $5000, kiddo's car is worth about $900. Both are paid for and require only liability insurance. Single mom here trying to put kiddo through college without debt and with oil the way it is... Job prospects are looking sketchy. Not gonna be buyin' any fancy cars anytime soon. I would not turn down a Tesla if you gave me one, though. I'm not against them, they are just not the game-changer we all hoped they would be.

Valerie,

The test drive is free, understand though, I usually drive my cars till the wheels fall off.  Just an experiment to see how unlike a golfcart a Tesla is. Not a lot of golf carts go 0-60 in 4.4 seconds (long range version for 49k) or 5.3 seconds (standard+ for 40k).

Not for everyone, maybe consider a used one when you replace your car in 4 or 5 years.

They have changed things for BMW and Mercedes, and prices will continue to fall, it will just take a little more time.  pretty sure oil prices won't be this low in 12 months and in 36 months things will look very different ($70+/bo is my guess in 2023).

Chart below considers car sales, once Model Y crossover ramps same might occur for luxury small and medium SUV sales for luxury brands, the model 3 was the 8th best selling car in the US in 2019, not bad for a new comer.

Edited April 28, 2020 by D Coyne

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

Yeah, he thinks the technology is mature and capable of replacing fossil fuels right now, and that the only reason it hasn't is greed and corruption.

 

Remember, for the goal of my question, it's got to scale large enough to replace fossil fuels. Large solar installations are impacting wildlife habitats in a way that I think would be devastating if scaled to the amount that would be needed. The ones we have now are harming wildlife and ecosystems. You would need to make the harvesters much smaller, so that's future talk.

 

 

We have here a corporate Imperial Colonist! LOL. Battery minerals - cobalt supply is running low already, other minerals, perhaps better, but again, future talk with improving battery capacity, and the overall toxicity of batteries.

Scale

Super cool, but future talk.

 

Renewables won't have zero negative impact, they just need to have less impact than fossil fuels.

Cobalt is not running low. Its price is back to normal. The price increase led to an increase in mining investment. Same happened to Lithium. A few years ago everyone was saying we didn't have enough Lithium, price went up and the miners went after it. Now we have a glut.

Area required for solar panel coverage to power US is 21,000 square miles. The yellow square shows the size but the place to put it is the Permian Basin! Seriously, it is the best location with plenty of sun, central location, flat geography that has already been disturbed. https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

Floating wind turbines are tremendously scalable!!! Build them on a production line and tow them to where they are needed.  https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/worlds-largest-floating-wind-turbine-connected

Edited April 28, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

I recommend this talk on exponential energy economics:

Edited April 28, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Gregory Purcell + 94]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

It's really quite odd to see a discussion on EV vehicles during this event, in the mainstream auto industry they are a novelty. Musk has changed that look recently simply due to a strong world economy along with the ever present desire to have something novel and new sitting in the driveway.

There is a need in the US for a inexpensive low emission vehicle that can be made for the masses. And that would be LNG. Actually LNG is plentiful quite cost effective and solves many change over issues. 

Solar/Green energy is far to expensive for a world that will soon wake up to the reality of economics. And there will be quite a bit of angst/discussion on that event.. 

Sticktly a opinion your mileage may vary.

 

 

This is exactly what Russia is doing.

" The sales of natural gas via Gazprom's refueling facilities continue to grow, demonstrating a 30 per cent increase in 2019. The Company actively cooperates with federal and regional authorities, as well as equipment manufacturers, to expand the NGV market. Among the priority areas of work is the creation of infrastructure for refueling cars, passenger and freight vehicles with compressed and liquefied natural gas on federal highways, such as M-1 Belarus, M-4 Don, М-5 Ural, М-7 Volga, М-10 Russia, М-11 Neva, and the Central Ring Road."   https://www.gazprom.com/press/news/2020/march/article503094/

 

"May 2017

KAMAZ PTC (part of Rostec State Corporation) is completing factory tests and preparing the first batch of trucks running on liquefied natural gas (LNG) for delivery to Gazprom's divisions.

With comparable prices, the main competitive advantage of LNG trucks over trucks powered with compressed natural gas (CNG) is the volume and number of tanks. When LNG trucks have one tank for 700 kilometers of running, CNG vehicles have to fill about 13 standard cylinders for the same travel. This not only significantly increases the weight of the truck, reducing the payload weight, but it also requires an extended frame so that, along with the body or the superstructure, the cylinders themselves can be placed on it."  https://kamaz.ru/en/press/news/first_lng_kamaz_trucks/

   

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

[Marcin2 + 724]

It was always very interesting for me how people can concentrate on NOT IMPORTANT part of ecological footprint, like using EV cars instead of ICE, especially in the United States.

Car, average mileage 12,000 miles a year (19,000 km/year). CO2 emission: 120g/km * 19000 = 2.3 ton CO2 /year

Lets assume that EVs in the future become as user-friendly as ICE cars.

And that EVs would improve technologically so that they would have on average only 50% of ICE car emission during their lifetime.

So you decrease emission from 2.3 ton CO2/year

to 1.15 ton CO2/year, so you prevent emission of 1.15 ton CO2/ year.

A lot but US emission of CO2 per capita is 16.5 tons.

So if EV cars become really ecological we would go down from 16.5 to 15.4 tons CO2 per capita.

If you really want to be ecological on personal level:

- build or buy ecological home and/or decrease the floor area of place where you live.

The largest ecological footprint comes from house and amenities in it.

And become vegetarian, to further decrease the ecological footprint.

Nobody really wants to be ecological because it means vegetation, not decent life.

Indians, Rwandans are ecological.

Being ecological means being hypocrite or a bum.

Bums living on a street are most ecological of all people.

But if you are preaching about "ecology" like EV while writing at oilprice.com it is 1st category, for sure.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

21 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

It was always very interesting for me how people can concentrate on NOT IMPORTANT part of ecological footprint, like using EV cars instead of ICE, especially in the United States.

Car, average mileage 12,000 miles a year (19,000 km/year). CO2 emission: 120g/km * 19000 = 2.3 ton CO2 /year

Lets assume that EVs in the future become as user-friendly as ICE cars.

And that EVs would improve technologically so that they would have on average only 50% of ICE car emission during their lifetime.

So you decrease emission from 2.3 ton CO2/year

to 1.15 ton CO2/year, so you prevent emission of 1.15 ton CO2/ year.

A lot but US emission of CO2 per capita is 16.5 tons.

So if EV cars become really ecological we would go down from 16.5 to 15.4 tons CO2 per capita.

If you really want to be ecological on personal level:

- build or buy ecological home and/or decrease the floor area of place where you live.

The largest ecological footprint comes from house and amenities in it.

And become vegetarian, to further decrease the ecological footprint.

Nobody really wants to be ecological because it means vegetation, not decent life.

Indians, Rwandans are ecological.

Being ecological means being hypocrite or a bum.

Bums living on a street are most ecological of all people.

But if you are preaching about "ecology" like EV while writing at oilprice.com it is 1st category, for sure.

What no citations? One might think you just made that up.

EV's won't improve technologically in regard to CO2, it depends on how the electricity is produced. Today in California CO2 emissions for a BEV are 1/6th that of an ICE. https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html

Edited April 29, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[James Regan + 1,776]

I was watching MSN and CNN in particular and its amazing, after only a couple of days of the country lightly trying to start up with controls, CNN are reporting spikes blamed on the opening of restricticted businesses, only two or three days and places are spiking, doesn't covid19 have a 14 day +/- incubation period, the increase is obviously due to more testing. I then managed to find BBC phew what a relief it was like watching Al-Jazira a breathe of fresh air.

CNN will send you to a special place indeed with all foam on the inside.