EVs and Oil Demand

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, taamvan said:

EV will not affect oil demand very much until 2050.   However, it is the continuous growth of oil demand that drives price up--and all that it takes to affect markets and suppress price long term is the possibility or sentiment that there will be some future where demand growth slows or stops and that a technological alternative exists to the status quo, that at some future point, will destroy a substantial part of that demand.   

Look at what affects the price, and an arbitrary date does not.

There will likely be an inflection point where BEVs affect on oil demand will lead to a continuous glut.  I see that probability occurring between 2025 and 2030.  The reason this is important is that BEV demand growth is presently exponential, so once the inflection point is reached the game is over for oil prices, in that they will be rock bottom.

The only thing likely to change that scenario is if there is some presently unknown additional demand factor for oil which would prevail in the interim.

[Refman + 207]

3 hours ago, taamvan said:

EV will not affect oil demand very much until 2050.   

taamvan: Can you quantify "very much" ? Are you talking about 5%, 20% or more?

[JR EWING + 123]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 4:12 AM, markslawson said:

The IEA guy is right. Even if the exponential growth of EVs continue, and there are real production bottlenecks, it is hard to see how EVs could be anything other than a bit player for many years to come. What if there were 300 million EVs on the roads as the IEA guy speculates? There are 1.2 billion cars on the roads already according to this report, with double that expected by 2050 and if car ownership in China reaches US levels there would be more than one billion cars in China alone. To expect EVs to make a difference to petrol consumption anytime this century is fantasy.. 

and then there's the airplanes, the boats and the power demand and the plastics and everything else in our lives thats energy dependent ..................it just seems endless. 

[David Jones + 84]

 EVs will eventually affect oil demand, there does not seem to be any way around this. The oil guys are very conservative with their expectations for EV growth, most of the cars, trucks, and heavy land equipment as well as ships produced will likely be alternative fuel or hybrids by 2050, electricity will likely also rely mainly on alternatives to fossil fuels. Batteries are multifaceted in their material possibilities, they are not just lithium so it's unlikely that any specific material will put a stop to expansion once it gets under way in the 2020s. There might be some demand for oil then but it'll mainly be specific use cases. Most of the big oil companies will either transition to alternative business/products or disappear during the second half of this century.

In terms of EVs, these grew by 72% last year while the overall car market grew by something like 4%. At an average rate of 50% year on year sales increase, EVs will be the dominant platform for personal vehicles in about 10 years time, so before the end of the 20s. There won't be 300million EVs in 2050, it's more likely that there'll be over 2 billion which means most if not all cars will be EVs by then.

EVs also complement renewable energy electricity alternatives as their batteries could potentially be used to create a new kind of grid. EV batteries can also be reused for diverse purposes as older vehicles are retired. There will be a lot of potential for these secondary uses with hundreds of millions or even billions EVs on the roads that will further degrade fossil fuel dominance. The best option for the fossil fuel industry is to become and energy industry instead of focusing on finite fuels.

Edited February 1, 2019 by David Jones

[gchakko + 8]

On 1/29/2019 at 3:33 PM, entertenter said:

 

GC to Bobby P

You are mistaken. I never said oil market will collapse in 50 or 100 years. Oil market has its own future due to chemical, petro-chemical and medicine’s industries based on the benzene molecule, even if a part of its energy market is taken up by EV’s.  I only suggested that hydrogen has a better potential as automobile fuel of the future due its environment-friendly nature when it burns, provided the storage problem can be solved securely and massive investments are made for production changes in the automobile industry worldwide and hydrogen storage technology. But such visionary changes can only happen gradually over decades. One only needs to think of Volkswagen’s Beetle’s resilient hold over market for several decades before the last Beetle rolled out into market not so long back.

G.Chakko, Vienna (Austria), 01/02/ 2019     21:31 hrs CET     

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/26/2019 at 12:31 AM, JunoTen said:

Electric cars are only part of the picture. The immediate threat to oil demand are automonous electric vehicles. Those will be deployed very soon.

The question is how long will it take. We need to wait until actual vehicles are running. I think they will eventually. Truck drivers are

hard to find and expensive. Sounds like ten years to just start seeing them doing much at all. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/28/2019 at 2:44 AM, gchakko said:

There are a good number of fallacies and embedded ignorance in this proposition of EV’s substituting current oil-run automobile market (OAM). Let me point to few.

1) No established market, esp. when it is global, what the OAM definitely is, can impossibly be substituted by any radical new innovation in a short time of one dozen years. It will take very many decades. To give you an example: A developing country like India put out a small electric motor-bike at the Hannover Industrial Trade Fair in 1984 which I visited. Japanese visitors most carefully studied this vehicle due to its compactness despite the electric batteries used. But whatever happened to this Indian innovation? Market forces gobbled it up or what? Today Indian roads are full of millions of petrol-run motor-bikes, including Harley-Davidson, but not a trace of that 1984 EV-bike anywhere.

2) EV’s almost by definition will have to rid of their outworn unusable batteries. Special underground storage for poisonous battery waste is expensive, making battery-waste disposal a ruinous contentious issue for all environment health seeking world citizens. Even rechargeable batteries have a defined life-time. We know from radioactive nuclear waste storage as to how expensive all deep underground storage is. EV tech is nothing new; it has been limitedly used in-house in German industries even before and during WWII. But cut for the road they were not.

3) A much better proposition will be hydrogen run cars which will boot out EV’s. In the mid-eighties Daimler, BMW and GM had brought out hydrogen run cars. GM even claimed its H2 car run up to 500 miles without need to tank. When hydrogen burns only water is produced. The big problem with H2 is storage. But technologists are working on it to generate a network of underground storage system. Desalinate sea water or use excess Canadian snow ice, you can electrolyse and produce any number H2 filled cylinders for cooking and automobile use. H2 commuter busses  are already plying Californian cities.

4) Hybrid fuels are being developed to down-peddle gasoline prices which would only further consolidate the OAM.  

These and many more new developments presage EV’s limited future. But I I do wish that hydrogen-run vehicle market will catch up substituting benzene, so that the remaining crude oil under our Earth’s crust can be used for pharmaceutical and chemical industries and not extravagantly burnt for energy-fuel purposes. We have to keep in mind that today’s 7.5 billion inhabiting the Earth will be over 9 billion by 2050 and the medical needs of that population to be covered by vanishing crude oils is extremely high.

George Chakko, former U.N. correspondent and oil-watcher, now retiree in Vienna, Austria.

Vienna, 28/01/ 2019,  11:45 hrs  CET

Natural gas vehicles are far more likely to take over than hydrogen IMHO. Hydrogen would cost more and have little additional benefit. Natural gas is practically free and is used all over the world to run cars, trucks, and ships. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle

http://www.ngvglobal.com/

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas vehicles are far more likely to take over than hydrogen IMHO. Hydrogen would cost more and have little additional benefit. Natural gas is practically free and is used all over the world to run cars, trucks, and ships. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle

http://www.ngvglobal.com/

Id agree with that. Methane is much easier to store in a compressible format suitable for HGV's. The Bodyshop in the Uk were doing this in the 1990's. 

I'd disagree that NG is the natural successor to gasoline/ diesel in light vehicles but it would be a definite plus if used extensively for HGV's and bises / coaches where I think it is best placed. 

 

[markslawson + 1,057]

7 hours ago, David Jones said:

At an average rate of 50% year on year sales increase, EVs will be the dominant platform for personal vehicles in about 10 years time, so before the end of the 20s. There won't be 300million EVs in 2050, it's more likely that there'll be over 2 billion which means most if not all cars will be EVs by then.

David - this repeats all the stuff that has been debunked in earlier posts. The problem is the 50 per cent increase assumption. Sorry, totally unrealistic. The EV market is expanding, sure, but when will the market niche dominated by rich greenies be saturated? EVs have no market edge over combustion cars and several disadvantages. Massive subsidies plus green sentiment has got them as far as they have and may continue the sales growth spurt for a while, but to expect them to become a dominant force in the market is wishing for the moon. Forget it. 

[David Jones + 84]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

David - this repeats all the stuff that has been debunked in earlier posts. The problem is the 50 per cent increase assumption. Sorry, totally unrealistic. The EV market is expanding, sure, but when will the market niche dominated by rich greenies be saturated? EVs have no market edge over combustion cars and several disadvantages. Massive subsidies plus green sentiment has got them as far as they have and may continue the sales growth spurt for a while, but to expect them to become a dominant force in the market is wishing for the moon. Forget it. 

I'm not sure what you consider a "debunk" and why you are somehow under the impression that EVs are only for "rich greenies". EVs have multiple price segments even today and they have plenty of market edge over combustion engines as a product. They produce no noise, no smell, have a solid ride experience with low centre of mass, have greater control over acceleration, the convenience of "fuelling" at home and so on and so forth. You are simply mistaken to assume that this is just about subsidies and green sentiment. The technology, while still in it's infancy compared to the ICE, is superior to combustion at it's core and many people clearly want it based on reservations for incoming models.

Somehow you are also under the impression that prices for EVs have remained the same, I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Tesla, which offer some of the costliest but also most capable EVs, have lowered the price of their vehicles with subsequent generations. Where initial vehicles cost about 100k for a range of about 250 miles, the Model 3 today, 10 years later, costs about 45k. In another 10 years, we'll have far cheaper vehicles with similar capabilities than we do today and likely not just price parity with ICEVs but lower costs overall and in 20-30 years, people will be wondering how anyone could endure the many downsides of ICEVs.

The 50% expectation is based on history where over the past 7 or more years, EVs have increased their global sales by about that much or more in some cases. The loss of subsidies will likely affect EV sales but only temporarily and once price parity with ICEVs is reached around 2025, subsidies will not be much of an element to consider. As I've mentioned above, EVs are already superior to ICEVs in many ways which makes them the more luxurious vehicle platform by default.

The larger car companies have started to adopted proper EV platforms now and with all these new development funds and many minds working on the remaining issues, the technology is actually more likely to advance quicker than before. Range is already more or less a solved issue at the medium/higher end with 310 miles for the Model 3 being within the 300-400mile range many ICEVs have traditionally been targeted for due to the way cars are actually used generally. Charging speed will be next.

Also, EV support infrastructure from legacy car companies has been lacking substantially up to recently. Now, as they introduce actual EV platforms instead of dabbling here and there, the global EV sales will increase further. A lot of LV3/LV3+ support infrastructure will be coming online over the next 5 years which will reduce and potentially remove another limiting factor on EVs sales, further increasing their general adoption.

Edited February 2, 2019 by David Jones

[David Jones + 84]

10 hours ago, markslawson said:

David - this repeats all the stuff that has been debunked in earlier posts. The problem is the 50 per cent increase assumption. Sorry, totally unrealistic. The EV market is expanding, sure, but when will the market niche dominated by rich greenies be saturated? EVs have no market edge over combustion cars and several disadvantages. Massive subsidies plus green sentiment has got them as far as they have and may continue the sales growth spurt for a while, but to expect them to become a dominant force in the market is wishing for the moon. Forget it. 

In addition it's probably a good idea to keep in mind that by the looks of it, those "greenies" as you have labelled them, are the most important segment of the population in terms of the future. Most members of the younger generations are generally leaning toward modernisation and effective political efforts to curb anthropogenic climate change. Those that don't believe this to be a serious issue are generally on the road to extinction (although they tend to vote more consistently thus still managing to squeeze out the majority of the population, this won't last) and political actions supported by the ever increasing younger segment of the voting population in order to mitigate this issue will likely include actual bans on ICEVs once EV technology has matured sufficiently which should be in the 2030s. China will ban these vehicles for sure, they are already on their way to doing this. It is in their strategic interest to do so. India will likely witness major damages from anthropogenic climate change with it's vulnerable population and they are unlikely to be swayed substantially from their modernization efforts either. The USA, Europe, China and India comprise a large portion of total sales and potential growth.

[markslawson + 1,057]

15 hours ago, David Jones said:

I'm not sure what you consider a "debunk" and why you are somehow under the impression that EVs are only for "rich greenies". EVs have multiple price segments even today and they have plenty of market edge over combustion engines as a product. They produce no noise, no smell, have a solid ride experience with low centre of mass, have greater control over acceleration, the convenience of "fuelling" at home and so on and so forth.

David - The marketing edges you cite don't exist. Sorry. Dunno where you got the greater control over acceleration from but there is no functional difference between petrol and ICE in the points you make. Where there is only a tiny fraction of the market - that may include you - would appreciate the difference. For the noise and smell factors you cite, for example, I suggest you find a modern petrol car and an EV and then ask yourself whether those factors - considering that modern petrol cars and quiet and the exhaust has been cleaned up a lot - would be enough to influence buyers. Then consider the disadvantages including range and long refuelling times and then ask yourself why consumers would bother with EVs. Sure people other than rich greenies buy the car but it has been remarked often that the main demographic is just that. There is a lot more I could say, but you should get the idea. All the marketing experience of EVs to date suggest that substantial incentives are required to drive consumers to buy those things. No incentives no sales. Leave it with you.

[gchakko + 8]

On 1/29/2019 at 3:33 PM, entertenter said:

GC to Ronwagen & David Jones et al

MC

 

Natural gas run vehicles are in a way not problem free. There is a significant methane leakage during extraction, production and transport of natural gas. In a recent citation in the scientific journal ‘Science Direct’, a study done in 8 Chinese cities on natural gas vehicles (NGV’s) one statement points out (Atmospheric Environment, Volume 187, August 2018, Pages 374-380)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.06.007

 

“Overall, the NGV CH₄ emission factor in these cities is 0.022 ± 0.0033 kg m⁻³, about 8 times the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) default factor for NGVs and is more than 100% higher than the mean NGV tailpipe emission factor found in the published literature. That the overall emission factor is much larger than the tailpipe emission factor indicates that on-road vehicle gas leakage is a widespread problem.”  Also we are told, “When an engine burns LNG, unburned methane escapes through the exhaust and leakages may occur during storage. Methane is also released ‘upstream’ during the production and transportation of fossil gas”. https://www.transportenvironment.org/people/jori-sihvonen

 

We all know that Methane is a virulent GHG. So all is not that well with LNG-powered gas vehicles! We also forget, both oil and natural gas are limited. So I would still vote for hydrogen cars, if the electrolysis cost can be covered by a cogeneration system based on concentrator modules with high-power multi-junction solar cells with 30-40 pc efficiency with a co-generation system converting additional 20 pc electricity in an overall 55- 60 pc efficient solar-hydrogen plant. Because Sun energy is free and our Earth Crust is covered over 75 pc water, also free, this seems the most logical natural option open to us. 

Although we are debating and making all kinds of alternative energy applications proposals here, it is ultimately the market that decides. Within next 30 years the market will show how far our predictions have come true. Till the fusion energy becomes reality, the automobile market will be a highly competitive arena of multifarious technologies that Darwin’s “survival of the fittest “stands to be the winner.

George Chakko.Vienna (Austria), 03/ 02/ 2019    00:43 hrs CET

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by gchakko

[Red + 252]

 

35 minutes ago, markslawson said:

David - The marketing edges you cite don't exist. Sorry. Dunno where you got the greater control over acceleration from but there is no functional difference between petrol and ICE in the points you make. Where there is only a tiny fraction of the market - that may include you - would appreciate the difference. For the noise and smell factors you cite, for example, I suggest you find a modern petrol car and an EV and then ask yourself whether those factors - considering that modern petrol cars and quiet and the exhaust has been cleaned up a lot - would be enough to influence buyers. Then consider the disadvantages including range and long refuelling times and then ask yourself why consumers would bother with EVs. Sure people other than rich greenies buy the car but it has been remarked often that the main demographic is just that. There is a lot more I could say, but you should get the idea. All the marketing experience of EVs to date suggest that substantial incentives are required to drive consumers to buy those things. No incentives no sales. Leave it with you.

Not every country is like Norway, but it shows your ideas are antiquated.

Your ideas about purchasing decisions are also not supported anywhere (at least not nowadays).

There is a lot more I could say, but you can happily live in ignorance.

[David Jones + 84]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

David - The marketing edges you cite don't exist. Sorry. Dunno where you got the greater control over acceleration from but there is no functional difference between petrol and ICE in the points you make. Where there is only a tiny fraction of the market - that may include you - would appreciate the difference. For the noise and smell factors you cite, for example, I suggest you find a modern petrol car and an EV and then ask yourself whether those factors - considering that modern petrol cars and quiet and the exhaust has been cleaned up a lot - would be enough to influence buyers. Then consider the disadvantages including range and long refuelling times and then ask yourself why consumers would bother with EVs. Sure people other than rich greenies buy the car but it has been remarked often that the main demographic is just that. There is a lot more I could say, but you should get the idea. All the marketing experience of EVs to date suggest that substantial incentives are required to drive consumers to buy those things. No incentives no sales. Leave it with you.

"Dunno where you got the greater control over acceleration from but there is no functional difference between petrol and ICE in the points you make" - this remark in particular suggest that you do not understand the differences between ICEVs and EVs. Did you know that Tesla vehicles sometimes offer 3 different acceleration profiles? What ICEV passenger car provides this on such a level where acceleration can be a lot softer as well as extremely rapid? This is control over acceleration because the electric engine works directly, it does not have to ramp up explosions. In fact, I doubt ICEVs can technically provide different acceleration profiles since their acceleration seems to be more or less an intrinsic property, at least not without making the engine overly complex.

You also seem to lack imagination (the ability to internally visualise a city that has no ICEVs in it) and apparently have never walked the streets of a city filled with ICEVs and observed an EV such as a Tesla pass by. These cars are very noticeable for the fact that they carry what can be described as a "sound dead zone" compared to the general traffic. While all those ICEVs grunt like barbarians, the Tesla glides past effortlessly. I've seen and heard plenty of ICEVs that are modern, none compare even remotely either in their general motion or in their sound related properties.

Ah that range, always a sticking point with people who do not know their own driving patterns or have very specific needs. Most drivers will be perfectly fine with >300 miles range and these types of EVs will be prevalent during the 20s. Porsche, Tesla and others are already working on improving charging speed, you seem to assume that this is an issue that will remain indefinitely, it will not. There are also supercapacitor batteries on the horizon for the second half of the 20s that will charge in more or less the time that you fuel up. You are also completely ignoring the fact that if you live in a house and can charge at home, it does not matter that the vehicle takes hours to do so during the night. In terms of effort, it's far easier and more convenient to go straight home and plug an EV after a long day at work, than to have to drive around to some stench filled petrol station and potentially wait before you can fill up your ICEV.

Apparently you are also not aware of the fact that ICEVs lose range both with cold and when carrying more weight:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml

Obviously you can't actually see this on your fuel meter so the government ends up having to inform people about these issues, this is a downside to ICEVs since you are left more or less blind. EVs provide far more precise observations of range and energy availability/consumption. This is another EV perk btw. 

Edited February 3, 2019 by David Jones

[MaxNix + 12]

Hi, with all due respect I think we're talking past the issue.  The impact of electric vehicles will not wait until they displace a majority of internal combustion engines .....BUT.... how much gasoline demand to they have to destroy to change the market dynamics?  One, two, three MMBB/day?  Some other number?   And when (or will) we get there?.

Thanks for your time.

[David Jones + 84]

6 hours ago, MaxNix said:

Hi, with all due respect I think we're talking past the issue.  The impact of electric vehicles will not wait until they displace a majority of internal combustion engines .....BUT.... how much gasoline demand to they have to destroy to change the market dynamics?  One, two, three MMBB/day?  Some other number?   And when (or will) we get there?.

Thanks for your time.

Well, according to this oil demand grew by 1,330,000 barrels from Q3 2017 to Q3 2018:

https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/

Now, this is a very rough estimate but I would say that currently there're about 3,000,000 BEVs in the world. The sales in China have now reached about 1,000,000 for BEVs and Tesla alone sells 250,000 BEVs. There're more BEVs but let's say we had 1,250,000 BEVs and an average driving distance of 6000 miles per year (just under 10000km) and an average fuel efficiency for the ICEV fleet of 7l for every 100km. That's 7/100=0.07l per km and 10000km*0.07l = 700l. One barrel of oil contains about 159l so 700l/159l = 4.4 barrels per vehicle. So 1,250,000*4.4=5,503,145 barrels per year and / 365 = 15,077 b/d. That is what 1.25 million BEVs remove from oil demand in this rough calculation.

So assuming I didn't mess up my calculations above, if we say we have 3,000,000 vehicles so far, that's (3,000,000 * 4.4)/365 = 36,164 b/d or about 2.7% of the current demand growth for oil. So it's likely that BEVs by themselves are already influencing demand growth noticeably.

Now, if we say EV growth continues at an average of 50% for the next 5 years, we will have ((((1.25*1.5)*1.5)*1.5)*1.5)*1.5 = about 9,490,000 BEVs sold in 5 years time. Adding the intermittent sales from now until then gives us a fleet of about 26,000,000 BEVs in 2023. That is equal to 26,000,000 * 4.4 barrels = 114,365,625/365 = 313,330 barrels per day

So if demand growth is the same at 1,330,000, that would be (313,330 / 1,330,000)*100= 23.56% of demand growth gone by 2023. If growth in EVs continues at 50% year on year, things will get dicey for oil demand growth just a few years later.

Note that the above does not consider any of the other hybrid vehicles or PHEVs. Even if EV sales growth drops substantially in a few years time, demand growth for oil will likely be wiped out completely by the end of the 20s and will begin to contract thereafter.

I'd say that once demand growth turns negative in the early 30s if not before, that'll be a major shakeup of oil markets and the industry as a whole.

Looking at the numbers now, since it's actually the first time I've done something like this, one thing becomes clear. The EV market up to now has been too small to be directly visible in it's effect on oil demand growth. Since demand growth is around 1,330,000 b/d and EVs have previously sold less than 1,250,000 BEVs annually, that's about 15,000 b/d demand or less. That would be within the margin of error or basically within demand growth fluctuations. So it's clear that EVs need to sell millions annually to affect this and now we are at a point where their demand absorption power should begin to show assuming the EV sales growth remains steadily in the 40-60% year on year range. Having said that, 1,000,000 vehicle sin the USA are worth a lot more demand which is likely why there has been such attacks on Tesla. The only company on track to single-handedly produce this many BEVs in just a few years time.

Edited February 3, 2019 by David Jones

[MaxNix + 12]

Thanks for going to the trouble to put some numbers to the question.  If I understand correctly, demand for gasoline (not crude oil) will drop by about 12,000 b/d per million BEVs.   I won't complicate the issue by including buses and trucks, unless that 7liters/100 km figure averaged cars, trucks, and buses together.  Not to mention diesel vs. gasoline.

Gives me some background to do more thinking.

 

[John N Denver + 25]

4 hours ago, David Jones said:

Well, according to this oil demand grew by 1,330,000 barrels from Q3 2017 to Q3 2018:

https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/

Now, this is a very rough estimate but I would say that currently there're about 3,000,000 BEVs in the world. The sales in China have now reached about 1,000,000 for BEVs and Tesla alone sells 250,000 BEVs. There're more BEVs but let's say we had 1,250,000 BEVs and an average driving distance of 6000 miles per year (just under 10000km) and an average fuel efficiency for the ICEV fleet of 7l for every 100km. That's 7/100=0.07l per km and 10000km*0.07l = 700l. One barrel of oil contains about 159l so 700l/159l = 4.4 barrels per vehicle. So 1,250,000*4.4=5,503,145 barrels per year and / 365 = 15,077 b/d. That is what 1.25 million BEVs remove from oil demand in this rough calculation.

So assuming I didn't mess up my calculations above, if we say we have 3,000,000 vehicles so far, that's (3,000,000 * 4.4)/365 = 36,164 b/d or about 2.7% of the current demand growth for oil. So it's likely that BEVs by themselves are already influencing demand growth noticeably.

Now, if we say EV growth continues at an average of 50% for the next 5 years, we will have ((((1.25*1.5)*1.5)*1.5)*1.5)*1.5 = about 9,490,000 BEVs sold in 5 years time. Adding the intermittent sales from now until then gives us a fleet of about 26,000,000 BEVs in 2023. That is equal to 26,000,000 * 4.4 barrels = 114,365,625/365 = 313,330 barrels per day

So if demand growth is the same at 1,330,000, that would be (313,330 / 1,330,000)*100= 23.56% of demand growth gone by 2023. If growth in EVs continues at 50% year on year, things will get dicey for oil demand growth just a few years later.

Note that the above does not consider any of the other hybrid vehicles or PHEVs. Even if EV sales growth drops substantially in a few years time, demand growth for oil will likely be wiped out completely by the end of the 20s and will begin to contract thereafter.

I'd say that once demand growth turns negative in the early 30s if not before, that'll be a major shakeup of oil markets and the industry as a whole.

Looking at the numbers now, since it's actually the first time I've done something like this, one thing becomes clear. The EV market up to now has been too small to be directly visible in it's effect on oil demand growth. Since demand growth is around 1,330,000 b/d and EVs have previously sold less than 1,250,000 BEVs annually, that's about 15,000 b/d demand or less. That would be within the margin of error or basically within demand growth fluctuations. So it's clear that EVs need to sell millions annually to affect this and now we are at a point where their demand absorption power should begin to show assuming the EV sales growth remains steadily in the 40-60% year on year range. Having said that, 1,000,000 vehicle sin the USA are worth a lot more demand which is likely why there has been such attacks on Tesla. The only company on track to single-handedly produce this many BEVs in just a few years time.

China is adding 100,000 (and accelerating) electric buses per year to the world.  From what I remember average diesel bus uses 1/2 barrel of oil in the form of diesel.  That alone is a lot of demand gone.

I would also note that EVs are not the only source of oil demand destruction.  Many, if not all, islands have been dependent on oil to generate electricity.  They are now moving to wind/solar/batteries.  Hawaiian Electric is now ~27% RE produced electricity with most of the rest being from oil.  This type of change will be happening a lot faster.

Edited February 3, 2019 by John N Denver

[markslawson + 1,057]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 11:16 AM, Red said:

 

Not every country is like Norway, but it shows your ideas are antiquated.

Your ideas about purchasing decisions are also not supported anywhere (at least not nowadays).

There is a lot more I could say, but you can happily live in ignorance.

Norway is a prime example of subsidies distorting the market, as I noted earlier .. look at this article from the Guardian and count the subsidies/tax breaks. EVs in Norway have an enormous advantage over petrol/diesel cars in price and running costs simply through government action. EVs have no marketing edge but where they are favoured by enormous subsidies then sales grow. No subsidies, no sales. I am not the one living in ignorance.  

[David Jones + 84]

10 hours ago, John N Denver said:

China is adding 100,000 (and accelerating) electric buses per year to the world.  From what I remember average diesel bus uses 1/2 barrel of oil in the form of diesel.  That alone is a lot of demand gone.

I would also note that EVs are not the only source of oil demand destruction.  Many, if not all, islands have been dependent on oil to generate electricity.  They are now moving to wind/solar/batteries.  Hawaiian Electric is now ~27% RE produced electricity with most of the rest being from oil.  This type of change will be happening a lot faster.

Looking at some of the available information from a quick google search, in London average distance travelled for busses is about 57000km every year. I think something like the Citaro from Mercedes is at 38.7l/100km so 0.387l per km and with 57000km that's 22059l per bus so 100k BEV buses would be something like ((100k*22k)/159l)/365 = 37,900b/d. Yeah, that's as much as the entire current BEV fleet combined assuming it's 3,000,000 although according to this Bloomberg article the b/d value is even higher:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/electric-buses-are-hurting-the-oil-industry

Still buses don't sell as much as cars so in the 2nd half of the 20s their contribution to oil demand growth reduction could be less than pBEVs if the latter push past 50 million annual sales say around 2028/2029 (assuming 50% growth holds until then that is what will happen). That would be an additional 600,000 b/d removed each year from 50 million passenger BEVs and a total of about 200 million pBEVs on the road at that point which is worth 200M*(4.4/365)=about 2,411,000b/d off the market. So if we include the additional demand growth reduction from BEV buses, there's quite a decent chance that substantial negative oil demand growth will be witnessed in the second half of the 20s.

Also, once pBEVs reach such sales numbers, 50 million annual sales results in 6,000,000b/d demand removal from oil within 10 years, so by the end of the 30s assuming no further sales growth, although growth is likely to continue. 10,000,000 b/d demand removal from pBEVs by the end of the 30s is possible assuming no technological hard limits are reached in terms of production. Such loss of demand would be catastrophic for the oil industry and the OPEC rosy demand projections of >300 million b/d in a few decades seem majorly flawed in view of the above.

Going further, by the end of the 30s we should have reached 100 million BEV sales annually. So by the end of the 40s, oil will be looking at about 1.7 billion BEVs on the road or more, equal to more than 20,000,000b/d demand loss just from these vehicle sales.

Edited February 4, 2019 by David Jones

[entertenter + 24]

On 1/30/2019 at 11:53 PM, gchakko said:

There is another problem no one has touched upon seriously today is the the artificial electro-magnetic fields masses of EV's will create disturbing or interferering with the human "biotronic" spheres or fields.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This is entirely pseudo problem along with "electrosensitivity" which claims Wifi signal being dangerous. More over, all the electric equipment in cars must comply to regulations and not interfere with much more sensitive receivers etc. stuff that we are massively surrounded with. Humans have been in contact with much more massive magnetic fields than cars can generate daily basis for 100 years. I mean electric city transportation. So far no problems discovered, though it is generally known at what strenght magnetic fields must be kept, for them to be safe to humans. 

 

[Red + 252]

10 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Norway is a prime example of subsidies distorting the market, as I noted earlier .. look at this article from the Guardian and count the subsidies/tax breaks. EVs in Norway have an enormous advantage over petrol/diesel cars in price and running costs simply through government action. EVs have no marketing edge but where they are favoured by enormous subsidies then sales grow. No subsidies, no sales. I am not the one living in ignorance.  

All subsidies affect markets - so what.

EVs everywhere have an advantage over ICEv in terms of running costs, and it has zero to do with government actions.

Your claim that EVs have no marketing edge is fanciful - you are free to remain as ignorant as you write.

[Red + 252]

30 minutes ago, David Jones said:

Looking at some of the available information from a quick google search, in London average distance travelled for busses is about 57000km every year. I think something like the Citaro from Mercedes is at 38.7l/100km so 0.387l per km and with 57000km that's 22059l per bus so 100k BEV buses would be something like ((100k*22k)/159l)/365 = 37,900b/d. Yeah, that's as much as the entire current BEV fleet combined assuming it's 3,000,000 although according to this Bloomberg article the b/d value is even higher:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/electric-buses-are-hurting-the-oil-industry

Still buses don't sell as much as cars so in the 2nd half of the 20s their contribution to oil demand growth reduction could be less than pBEVs if the latter push past 50 million annual sales say around 2028/2029 (assuming 50% growth holds until then that is what will happen). That would be an additional 600,000 b/d removed each year from 50 million passenger BEVs and a total of about 200 million pBEVs on the road at that point which is worth 200M*(4.4/365)=about 2,411,000b/d off the market. So if we include the additional demand growth reduction from BEV buses, there's quite a decent chance that substantial negative oil demand growth will be witnessed in the second half of the 20s.

This link gives a good picture of the status of demand destruction a year ago.

"For every 1,000 battery-powered buses on the road, about 500 barrels a day of diesel fuel will be displaced from the market, according to BNEF calculations. "

I suspect your calculations will be overtaken by reality.

[gchakko + 8]

On 1/29/2019 at 3:33 PM, entertenter said:

 

GC to Entertenter

The jury on this problem is not out and probably will never be out for a long-time due commercial interests interfering. Have you checked the medical history of those humans who were long exposed to massive electro-magnetic fields? The WIFI radiation can be avoided if one keeps a certain distance. Much worse is our normal cell phones if you keep the phone touching your ears, esp. in case of young growing children, that high GHz waves can change the glutamic acid content in their brains that can lead to mental degeneracy. Again, many decades ago I read a news report that people living near high-voltage electric transmission cables are prone to develop cancer, something that is now said to be true of people in regular close proximity to microwave owens in operation in kitchen. One can’t dismiss these of as mere controversy. The best test would be to make a thorough medical survey of the inhabitants of a big busy town where only EV’s are used and watch the changes in people over an extended period of 5 years. The results when compared to people living in predominantly gasoline run city will show how far the electro-smog had affected people or not. Without such fundamental medically established studies, any categorical opinion on this issue seems to me meaningless.

G. Chakko, Vienna (Austria), 04/02/ 2019    11:09 am CET