(Peak Oil)What's wrong with electric cars now?

[Guardsman Bass]

Roads would probably just shrink in size. You'd maintain two lane roads in the cities where you need these electric vehicles for the purposes I mentioned above, but they'd be "Emergency, Repair, and Licensed Vehicles only", with no biking or walking allowed on them. The rural folks away from a rail line wouldn't be getting many consumer products anytime soon, although people who paid for an electric truck to ship goods them could probably make a killing on the exchange.

[K. A. Pital]

Wouldn't wire transport, like trolleybuses, become a lot more common? After all, it's possible to use existing asphalt road infrastructure by creating two powerlines above it and running the trolleybuses.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Wouldn't wire transport, like trolleybuses, become a lot more common? :? After all, it's possible to use existing asphalt road infrastructure by creating two powerlines above it and running the trolleybuses.

You're right. It's a quick and obvious solution, but since only Seattle and San Francisco have such systems in the USA, the average American wouldn't think of it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Sikon, I had been wondering the efficiency of present electric cars, thanks for digging that stuff up.

But I really wonder about the idea that we should make electric trucks. Why? Isn't it more sensible to lay more rail and use trains? Even when the recovery has proceeded to the point that EVs are commonplace, rails will likely remain the main source of long-range transit, so there's not going to be a shortage. Then again, I don't know the efficiency numbers on electric trains to compare to our hypothetical electric trucks, and I'm not skilled in the relevent areas to work it out, so I could be talking out of my ass.

You would still need point-to-point trucks for transport from the marshalling yards of the rail hubs to the sites of demand, just not cross-state or cross-continent transit. To say nothing of the need for intensive construction and excavation equipment that runs on something other than petrochemicals.

That's not entirely true. For example, delivery trucks are unnecessary in cities because the trolley lines can be used to deliver railcars directly to sidings in alleyways behind buildings; that's how it was done in the 1920s. Ultimately, old Chicago-style 2ft gauge underground cargo delivery subways can be built.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's very interesting. You'd probably have some mix of the two, but that definitely helps.

[Sea Skimmer]

I can get on an 3,800-ish tonne auto ferry right now in the city I'm currently living in that has a passenger capacity of 1,500 people and gets me the 27 miles into the heart of downtown Seattle in an hour. Maybe someone should be making plans for how to power it without diesel.

Why? It has a diesel... so absolutely any liquid or gas that burns can be used in its engine with a very minimal of modifications. Mainly you need a different fuel injector, and some way of preheating the fuel. This would be easily accomplish with some electric coils for use on starting, and a fuel line through the exhaust uptake for normal running. This is the kind of thing that could be accomplished in a several week refit, at worst.

We are never going to have such a shortfall of all possible portable fuels that we can’t even power ships. If people are that insanely stupid then we sure won’t have time to manufacture hundreds of tons of batteries and extra shore side power stations!

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well you're not going to want to use anything but biofuel or hydrogen or something, because otherwise you're going to be adding badly unwanted carbon emissions.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well you're not going to want to use anything but biofuel or hydrogen or something, because otherwise you're going to be adding badly unwanted carbon emissions.

We can handle some, obviously, the question is mainly "how much" was being released into the atmosphere at equilibrium. The last thing we want to do is try to take the world's climate to to clean of a state. Overcompensating for a problem can cause just as many problems. The main thing is to simply break the existing warming cycle, and then prepare to survive what's going to happen anyway. I suspect that if automobiles and coal-fired powerplants were eliminated, the former down to 5% of prior use, the later entirely, the collective emissions reduction over the entire world would be sufficient, and global warming would peak in a century or so and decline in another century or century and a half after that. Granted that's if we eliminated all of that right now. The problem probably gets worse at a progressive rate of increase the longer we wait.

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually if you rapidly eliminate all coal fired power stations you’d probably speed up global warming, because right now all the particulate pollution they put out reflect a very significant portion of the suns rays. This particulate pollution would be rapidly washed out of the atmosphere, while CO2 levels would simply remain high.

I’m sure someone’s done a study on rapidly countering global warming via lofting huge quantities of non toxic particulates into the atmosphere, but I suspect we’d need a thousand nuclear reactors to power such an undertaking.

[Sikon]

I’m sure someone’s done a study on rapidly countering global warming via lofting huge quantities of non toxic particulates into the atmosphere, but I suspect we’d need a thousand nuclear reactors to power such an undertaking.

Putting up enough particulates to provide as much negative radiative forcing as coal particulates requires orders of magnitude less power.

In event of using a system powered by a nuclear reactor, actually just one power plant would be sufficient. The key is dispersion at optimal altitude in the stratosphere with sub-micron particles: Very little mass is needed, particularly since they don't quickly settle back to ground like low altitude dust but rather have a long lifetime.

The preceding differs from the vast quantities of the wrong particulates released at low altitude by coal power plants. With high altitude dispersion of the right particulates, there is vastly less mass involved, not high concentrations, and different particle composition. Such avoids reproducing the acid rain problem.

Here's part of my post in an old thread:

Different manmade emissions have caused different radiative forcing, some causing heating and some causing cooling, as discussed in the post here, but the overall effect is net warming, with the best estimate for net radiative forcing being around 1.6 W/m^2.

One of multiple geoengineering techniques to counter such is to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting earth. The amount of dimming can be not an excessive problem because the reduction in sunlight needed is limited. For example, reflecting 1.8 percent of sunlight could compensate for a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from preindustrial levels. Actually, in this scenario, one is able to perform intervention long before CO2 levels reach 540 ppm, so less than that may be sufficient. Just assume countering 1% to 2% is desired. [...]

[Considering] the observed cooling effect of stratospheric dust and particulates from major historical volcanic eruptions [...]

As implied in an article here, stratospheric aerosol methods are affordable particularly because the residence time of particles of appropriate miniscule size dispersed in the stratosphere is orders of magnitude higher than for particles at much lower altitude.

A 1 percent to 2 percent change in solar flux may be obtained by a reflective aerosol dust loading of 0.02 to 0.04 grams per square meter, with particles of around a quarter-micron diameter in the stratosphere. So 10 million to 20 million tons of dust could suffice. Average dust lifetime is ~ 1.25 years or more, determining the rate of replenishment needed. Although even 16-inch cannons could deliver shells with dust to the necessary altitude, aircraft can disperse dust for less cost. At about $1/kg, flight expense might be $20 billion annually.

Yet another dispersion method possibility is mass drivers. Assuming at least 40% overall efficiency with the mass drivers, $0.3 billion of nuclear power plant capital cost provides 0.3 GW of electricity, enough to fire 20 million tons annually to as high as 20 kilometers altitude.*

* Cost per gigawatt economic figures were based on those which were obtained by some nuclear power plants in the 1970s after adjustment for inflation. Such may or may not be obtained again in the future, but the exact figure doesn't matter, just the order of magnitude.

Less than 1% to 2% drop in solar flux and still less than the corresponding slight fluctuation in agricultural yield would be sufficient to counter the loss of coal power plant particulate emissions, as the preceding was talking about countering a lot more than that.

[ray245]

Why can't the US government just apply more tax to the public if you want to own a car?

Make owning a car a luxury for the higher end middle class, so that more people will be forced to take public transport.

And improve on the public transport as well...

[aerius]

Why can't the US government just apply more tax to the public if you want to own a car?

Make owning a car a luxury for the higher end middle class, so that more people will be forced to take public transport.

And improve on the public transport as well...

Considering that most Americans consider owning and driving a car as a god-given right, it would be complete political suicide. You might as well kill a baby and eat it on live TV, and tell the public that if they don't like it, they can all go to Gitmo.

[Valk]

What I really like about gasoline and the biofuel ethanol over hydrogen and batteries is that it is an easy liquid. No high pressure storage, no heavy fuel tanks, and when you are going a long way from a fuel station you can fill some simple jerry-cans with it.

As of yet, ethanol is not viable yet in many parts of the world because large amounts of crops are needed to produce it but a new method promises to improve this or even solve it 'cellulosic ethanol', it can be made from inedible organic matter so it can even be a by-product of food production.
I doubt sufficient quantities can be produced from just by-products but eventually we need solar power, preferably stored in liquid form.

Ethanol fuel cells also exist but they need to become much cheaper first to be viable. The fuel cell is obviously not required to turn ethanol into motion, but it would be more efficient.

[Chardok]

Couldn't we somehow harvest the waste heat from the car's exhaust to drive generators to charge a hybrid system, thereby extending it's range a LOT? Seems like we're just letting it just sort of...go away...

[nickolay1]

Couldn't we somehow harvest the waste heat from the car's exhaust to drive generators to charge a hybrid system, thereby extending it's range a LOT? Seems like we're just letting it just sort of...go away...

Unfortunately, this won't help much. The pressure and temperature of the exhaust are relatively low. Extracting work from it would necessarily result in a low efficiency, and hence only a minor increase in range.

[Chardok]

Couldn't we somehow harvest the waste heat from the car's exhaust to drive generators to charge a hybrid system, thereby extending it's range a LOT? Seems like we're just letting it just sort of...go away...

Unfortunately, this won't help much. The pressure and temperature of the exhaust are relatively low. Extracting work from it would necessarily result in a low efficiency, and hence only a minor increase in range.

I thought temps at the catalaytic converter were quite high (1000+ in some cases) just let that hot gas pass through a heat transfer..errm...thingy...and makey the steam with agua and drive a smallish turbine.

[Alferd Packer]

I thought temps at the catalaytic converter were quite high (1000+ in some cases) just let that hot gas pass through a heat transfer..errm...thingy...and makey the steam with agua and drive a smallish turbine.

BMW was supposedly toying with this idea, making a steam-driven electric/ICE hybrid of sorts. I haven't heard anything about it in a couple of years, though.

[nickolay1]

For that, a large heat exchanger is required. I'm not sure a sufficiently-large mass flow rate would be present to supply ample energy to the water to super-heat it for use in turbine that's large enough to be worth using. Additionally, you'd need cooling equipment to recondense the steam back to water (or a large water tank, if it's not recycled). The additional hardware would be very complex and bulky.

A potentially better solution (with its own disadvantages) is a six-stroke engine with water injection, like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crower_six_stroke

[Sikon]

As of yet, ethanol is not viable yet in many parts of the world because large amounts of crops are needed to produce it but a new method promises to improve this or even solve it 'cellulosic ethanol', it can be made from inedible organic matter so it can even be a by-product of food production.

Yes, though cellulosic ethanol can come from much more than the term food byproducts alone would suggest: wood and paper waste, crop residues, etc.

Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply [...]
A Joint Study Sponsored by
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Agriculture[...]

The purpose of this report is determine whether the land resources of the United States are capable of producing a sustainable supply of biomass sufficient to replace 30 percent or more of the country's present petroleum consumption - the goal set by the Advisory Committee in their vision for biomass technologies. Accomplishing this goal would require approximately 1 billion tons of biomass feedstock per year [3 tons per person annually relative to U.S. population].

The short answer to the question of whether that much biomass feedstock can be produced is yes. [...]

Forestlands in the contiguous United States can produce 368 million dry tons annually. This projection includes 52 million dry tons of fuelwood harvested from forests, 145 million dry tons of residues from wood processing mills and pulp and paper mills, 47 million dry tons of urban wood residues including construction and demolition debris, 64 million dry tons of residues from logging and site clearing operations, and 60 million dry tons of biomass from fuel treatment operations to reduce fire hazards. All of these forest resources are sustainably available on an annual basis.

From agricultural lands, the United States can produce nearly 1 billion dry tons of biomass annually and still continue to meet food, feed, and export demands. This projection includes 428 million dry tons of annual crop residues, 377 million dry tons of perennial crops, 87 million dry tons of grains used for biofuels, and 106 million dry tons of animal manures, process residues, and other miscellaneous feedstocks. [...]

The biomass resource potential identified in this report can be produced with relatively modest changes in land use, and agricultural and forestry practices. This potential, however, should not be thought of as an upper limit [rather, as just what could be involved in meeting the 30% goal without much change in land usage]. [...]

Biomass is already making key energy contributions in the United States, having supplied nearly 2.9 quadrillion Btu (quad) of energy in 2003. It has surpassed hydropower as the largest domestic source of renewable energy. [...]

The FTE identified nationwide about 7.8 billion dry tons of treatable biomass on timberland and another 0.6 billion dry tons of treatable biomass on other forestland (Figure 11; table A.5, Appendix A). Only a fraction of this approximately 8.4 billion dry tons is considered potentially available for bioenergy and biobased products on a sustainable annual basis. Many factors reduce the size of this primary biomass resource (USDA-FS, 2003). [But the available amount is more than sufficient for what was described previously.] [...]

From here

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) believes that biofuels—made from crops of native grasses, such as fast-growing switchgrass—could reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, curb emissions of the "greenhouse gas" carbon dioxide, and strengthen America's farm economy. The Biofuels Feedstock Development Program (BFDP) at DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), has assembled a team of scientists ranging from economists and energy analysts to plant physiologists and geneticists to lay the groundwork for this new source of renewable energy. Included are researchers at universities, other national laboratories, and agricultural research stations around the nation. Their goal, according to ORNL physiologist Sandy McLaughlin, who leads the switchgrass research effort, is nothing short of building the foundation for a biofuels industry that will make and market ethanol and other biofuels from switchgrass and at prices competitive with fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel. [...]

First, a distinction: switchgrass and your suburban lawn grasses—bluegrass and zoysia grass— are about as similar as a shopping-mall ficus and an old-growth redwood. Switchgrass is big and it's tough—after a good growing season, it can stand 10 feet high, with stems as thick and strong as hardwood pencils.

But what makes switchgrass bad for barefoot lawns makes it ideal for energy crops: It grows fast, capturing lots of solar energy and turning it into lots of chemical energy— cellulose—that can be liquified, gasified, or burned directly. It also reaches deep into the soil for water, and uses the water it finds very efficiently.

And because it spent millions of years evolving to thrive in climates and growing conditions spanning much of the nation, switchgrass is remarkably adaptable. [...]

Many farmers already grow switchgrass, either as forage for livestock or as a ground cover, to control erosion. Cultivating switchgrass as an energy crop instead would require only minor changes in how it's managed and when it's harvested. Switchgrass can be cut and baled with conventional mowers and balers. And it's a hardy, adaptable perennial, so once it's established in a field, it can be harvested as a cash crop, either annually or semiannually, for 10 years or more before replanting is needed. And because it has multiple uses—as an ethanol feedstock, as forage, as ground cover—a farmer who plants switchgrass can be confident knowing that a switchgrass crop will be put to good use. [...]

And with recent advances in the technology of gasification, switchgrass could yield a variety of useful fuels—synthetic gasoline and diesel fuel, methanol, methane gas, even hydrogen—as well as chemical by-products useful for making fertilizers, solvents, and plastics. [...]

Annual cultivation of many agricultural crops depletes the soil's organic matter, steadily reducing fertility. But switchgrass adds organic matter—the plants extend nearly as far below ground as above. And with its network of stems and roots, switchgrass holds onto soil even in winter to prevent erosion.

Besides helping slow runoff and anchor soil, switchgrass can also filter runoff from fields planted with traditional row crops. Buffer strips of switchgrass, planted along streambanks and around wetlands, could remove soil particles, pesticides, and fertilizer residues from surface water before it reaches groundwater or streams—and could also provide energy.

And because switchgrass removes carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from the air as it grows, it has the potential to slow the buildup of this greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Unlike fossil fuels, which simply release more and more of the CO2 that's been in geologic storage for millions of years, energy crops of switchgrass "recycle" CO2 over and over again, with each year's cycle of growth and use. [...]

Looking down the road, McLaughlin believes switchgrass offers important advantages as an energy crop. "Producing ethanol from corn [in contrast to cellulosic ethanol] requires almost as much energy to produce as it yields," he explains, "while ethanol from switchgrass can produce about five times more energy than you put in." [...]

Switchgrass also does a far better job of protecting soil, virtually eliminating erosion. And it removes considerably more CO2 from the air, packing it away in soils and roots. [...]

Switchgrass offers excellent habitat for a wide variety of birds and small mammals. [...]

In short, biomass could bring back a 21st-century version of the prairie. And along with the prairie, it could bring a new crop to America's farms, a boost to U.S. energy independence, and brighter prospects for a clean, sustainable future.

From here

To put the topic in intuitive terms, if one takes an airplane flight and flies across a country like the U.S., the bulk of the mass of vegetation one sees below is not food. Even for a food plant, only a portion is what is literally eaten, as opposed to the stalk, roots, or any other parts not consumed. With agriculture, a small portion of the total biomass ends up on the plates of people; pasture and grassland areas are several times as much as cropland in area (and much of the grain production even from cropland becomes animal feed, at 10 to 20 calories per calorie of meat); and there is a vast amount of biomass available as waste, while there is also wood & paper waste, etc.

Iogen uses cereal straws, corn stalks, sawdust, and paper pulp. BC International is applying their process to agricultural residue and forest thinning feedstocks. The plant which is under construction by Range Fuels will use wood waste upon operation next year. Such is renewable, through repeatedly planting new tree plantations, analogously to how agriculture has been sustained for thousands of years, not unsustainably cutting down old growth forests.

In itself, an amount like the USDA's goal of 20 billion gallons from cellulosic ethanol by 2017 (compared to current U.S. gasoline consumption of 140 billion gallons per year) would not be a large percentage of the total. However, the likely percentage drop in conventional crude production between now and then is not a huge percentage of the total either (if such occurs), so, relatively, even 20 billion gallons would be significantly helpful.* So far overall world conventional crude production is mostly remaining constant, although there has been history on a local scale like the average decline rate of conventional crude production among a bunch of countries which had it peak in the past: ~ 2% to 3% average annual decline. Besides, there are simultaneously multiple methods starting to be implemented, beyond cellulosic ethanol alone:

In 2007, the total amount of oil and oil-equivalents for liquid fuels produced worldwide consists of 40% OPEC crude oil, 46% non-OPEC conventional crude oil, and 14% substitutes such as natural gas to liquids (NGL), coal to liquids (CTL), oil sands, biofuels, etc.**

The total amount of multiple substitutes for conventional crude oil in production has gone from 30% as much as non-OPEC conventional crude oil in 2000 to 35% as much in 2006. There is financial incentive today for increased production of the alternatives, as the price of the conventional crude oil competition rises from desired demand growth failing to be met.***

The IEA expects those substitutes to reach 50% as much as non-OPEC conventional crude oil by 2012. That's due to growth in production for those new sources, while meanwhile the amount supplied from non-OPEC conventional crude oil is anticipated to remain mostly constant in that timeframe.

Such is the meaning in context of the IEA's statement:
"As overall non-OPEC liquids capacity increases, this plateau reduces the share of non-OPEC conventional crude supply from 77% in 2000, to 74% in 2006 and 67% in 2012."

As expressed in the preceding statement, the non-OPEC liquid fuel supply was 77% conventional crude oil in 2000 with 23% other sources (NGL, CTL, oil sands, biofuels, etc), which became 74% conventional crude and 26% other sources in 2006, while being expected to reach 33% other sources by 2012.

(* It is not strictly guaranteed that the USDA's goal of 20 billion gallons will be met; however, although alternative fuel progress was ruined when the oil crisis of 3 decades ago ended, current high prices for competing petroleum appear more permanent, so there will likely be as much incentive as the USDA expects, if not more, so chances are excellent for 20+ billion gallons from cellulosic ethanol by 2017).

(** Such liquid fuel production from other fossil fuels is environmentally unfriendly and undesirable but nevertheless of note due to currently being in large-scale use).

(*** Although a part of the price rise to approach $100/barrel is from the decline of the dollar compared to other currencies, that only accounts for a portion of the 500% rise in oil price the U.S. has experienced compared to 1998).

Of course, the IEA figures mentioned earlier are only for liquid fuels. There is also oil substitution able to occur through switching away from liquid fuel usage, such as the electric vehicles discussed in this thread, which, although not a significant portion of the marketplace today, could become a more significant percentage in the longer term future ... with electric transportation very desirable as the most environmentally friendly and efficient method. There is efficiency improvement possible, with vehicles ranging from the average vehicle on U.S. roads being 22 miles per gallon to vehicles like this triple-as-efficient 70 mpg car. And there is conservation, which people do not tend to do for environmental reasons directly (popular in speech but not in actions) yet people do when financially forced to do so.

None of the preceding necessarily prevents continuing or increasing major oil price rise and economic troubles. In recent history, the supply has not gone upwards remotely as fast as desired demand growth driven by factors such as China's economy expanding at ~ 10% annually, leading to high price rise, since oil is almost (but, of course, not entirely) an inelastic good, where much price rise is involved before there is much cutback on usage growth (though, in the end, physical constraints force that in regard to crude oil). And the economic situation could get worse in the future. But the preceding is of significant note as helping keep civilization running.

[Kanastrous]

Went to the LA Auto Show on Saturday.

Was disappointed by the shortage of electric vehicles on display, although a lot of lip service was being paid, to hybrids.

And most everything outside of the SmartCar and Ferrari exhibits, sucked little rocks. I mean, fucking yuck.

The Motorcycle Show in Long Beach next weekend will be better.

Motorcycle shows always are.