How to run cars without oil

[mooncliff]

Electric cars just came out. It takes time to work out the bugs. The batteries get better every year. Why don't we complain that cars were impractical and dangerous... in 1915?

A lot of the criticisms of electric cars assume there will be cheap oil. Of course, if there is cheap oil, gasoline is the way to go. But what if there isn't cheap oil? Suddenly, things that look too expensive and too much trouble seem downright common sense if oil is $200 a barrel. And I think we are staring at $200 a barrel very soon, and for a very long time, at least a decade... at best.

In order to do a thing, one must first imagine it.
You start out in situations in which it works, and then you work on extending the capabilities so that it works in more and more situations.
Every time I look at my postage stamp size iPod for $50 dollars and think about the WalkMan I bought in 1981 for $900 in adjusted for inflation dollars, it is just unbelievable. But unbelievable or not, it exists.




Video has subtitles in 20 languages here and text explanation.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sh...tric_cars.html

[c1ue]

Re: How to run cars without oil

Better batteries won't ever fix the long recharge time problem.

Rapid shift to electric cars means destabilization of the existing power grid.

And while battery capabilities are improving, they are improving quite slowly. There is no equivalent of Moore's law for batteries.

As it is, the energy stored in a modern battery is sufficient to start a fire if discharged very quickly; increasing density will simply mean explosions rather than fires.

And batteries all share the same fundamental problems with hot or significantly cold weather.

The reality is a CNG or Coal to Liquid solution is far more practical for transport than electric.

[gnk]

Re: How to run cars without oil

We can look at energy replacement options, and we can wonder at technological progress such as the walkman to ipod.

But the real issue is this:

Mankind found an effectively free and abundant energy source which it exploited the past 150 years. As it exploited this resource, lifespans increased, the world population increased many-fold, consumption increased, and the world's human system - civilization, increased in complexity.

If the goal is to maintain the status quo at best, or at most, to continue the global economy and monetary system we have today (which is really an exponential growth model), we need a cheap, if not free, abundant energy supply to replace oil. In other words, not just any energy replacement will do, it needs to be an essentially free one.

Yes, we can replace oil. But I fear that we can't maintain the old growth paradigm. And there are some real life consequences to that.

In my opinion, we need to separate three things in order to properly analyze our dilemma: 1) technology, which is a human idea, is one thing 2) The difference between seed energy, and the energy we use directly - for example, electricity is a secondary energy source - it relies on coal, or hydro, etc... Tar sands too is a secondary source, it relies on large amounts of natural gas to heat the sands, and 3) available resources we have available such as metals, rare earths, etc...

We can have brilliant ideas, but if we don't have access to cheap rare earths, or essentially free energy, those ideas are not going to be turned into gadgets for mass consumption.

[RebbePete]

Re: How to run cars without oil

He labors under a major misconception - unlike oil, the battery isn't a source of energy, it's a storage mechanism for energy. That energy needs to be generated from some primary source, probably hydrocarbons or nuclear. Itr works on the small scale (where the power grid can supply all the energy they need), but once you scale it up, that electric power generation has to come online from somewhere.

OK, let's do some quick "back of the napkin" calculations. I found that a small car uses about 300 W/mile. Let's say the average is 48 miles/day, or an average of 2 miles every hour. That works out to be 200 Wh per vehicle required. Now, there are about 250 million vehicles in the US. Let's assume 100 million are electric and driven regularly, so we need a generating capacity of 200 * 100,000,000 Watt hours. That's 20,000,000,000 Watt hours (if I didn't slip a zero), or 20 billion Watt hours. That's considerable.

Not gonna happen easily from solar or wind.

[mooncliff]

Re: How to run cars without oil

If it is 300 watts per mile (not kilowatts), 48 miles would be 14.4 kilowatts per day. That is 1/4th the daily output from my dad's modest photovoltaic system.
Of course it is not as good as gasoline. But what are you going to do if gasoline is $10 a gallon? Ministers in the UK are saying a price spike there could be as bad as $26 dollars a gallon in the absolute worst case.

[RebbePete]

Re: How to run cars without oil

Yup - you're right, stupid mistake. I fixed it.

BTW, I have solar on my house rated for 7 kW peak, and it does put out about 45 kW per day in the summer peak, but there are a lot of cloudy days so that 14.4 kW per day is the best I can do.

After doing the calculations the right way, however, I am coming around to thinking that the battery exchange approach might even be reasonable. 20 megaWatts is about the output of one nuclear power generator. Can it really be that low to power all the cars in the USA?

[c1ue]

Re: How to run cars without oil

OK, let's do some quick "back of the napkin" calculations. I found that a small car uses about 300 W/mile. Let's say the average is 48 miles/day, or an average of 2 miles every hour. That works out to be 200 Wh per vehicle required. Now, there are about 250 million vehicles in the US. Let's assume 100 million are electric and driven regularly, so we need a generating capacity of 200 * 100,000,000 Watt hours. That's 20,000,000,000 Watt hours (if I didn't slip a zero), or 20 billion Watt hours. That's considerable.

If it is 300 watts per mile (not kilowatts), 48 miles would be 14.4 kilowatts per day. That is 1/4th the daily output from my dad's modest photovoltaic system.

You're also making the mistake of watts vs. Kwh

The Nissan Leaf has a 24 KwH capacity battery, and Consumer Reports showed an average performance of 65 miles, with one report of 19 miles vs. 36 miles range according to the car.

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/27...recharging-sp/

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-nissan-leaf/1

24/65 = 0.37 Kwh/mile
American drive 15000 miles/year on average, more importantly the US drives roughly 1.6 trillion miles per year for passenger cars, plus another 1.1 trillion miles for 'other 2 axle, 4 wheel cars (i.e. SUVs/light trucks):

http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...ble_01_32.html

2.7 trillion miles x 0.37 Kwh/mile = 1 trillion Kwh = 1000 terawatt-hours.

Throw in conversion losses from generation to grid, grid to house, house to car, car to road, and we're looking at well over 1500 terawatt-hours = 170 1-Gigawatt nuclear power plants running 24/365

This 1.5 trillion Kwh - assuming a perfectly even distribution - means an extra 170 Gigawatt-hours running through the US grid 24/365

To put this in perspective, in 2009 the entire US - commercial, residential,whatever - used a total of 3.7 trillion Kwh.

To increase electricity production and transmission in the US by over 40%, this is quite a bit deal.

[Starving Steve]

Re: How to run cars without oil

For the record, and you may check my source in the Wikipedia,
Qinshan, China on the east coast of China has in one facility that is generating as of Oct 25, 2010, as follows:

operating reactors at Qinshan: (1 @ 288 MW) + ( 3 @ 610 MW) + ( 2 @ 650 MW),

under construction at Qinshan: 1 @ 610 MW,

planned at Qinshan: 4 @ 750 MW.

This is how you solve an energy shortage, and this is just at Qinshan, China. ONE SITE!
And please remember, these reactors run 24 hours per day and 7 days per week.

Shall we look at how China solved its energy shortage with hydro-electric power at Three Forks Gorge Dam?

Yes to British Columbia: I took my medication this morning!

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: How to run cars without oil

Yup. When one compares the amounts of energy delivered in the US by chemical energy (petroleum fuels and natural gas) and by electrical energy, it is clear that chemical fuels do the heavy lifting in our economy. The electrical grid supplies small amounts of convenience energy.
My favorite example is fueling your car at the local gas station. A gallon of gasoline contains about 114,000 BTU and the pump delivers fuel at perhaps 7 gal/min.

114,000 BTU/gal x 7 gal/min = 798,000 BTU/min

798,000 BTU / min / (60 sec/min) = 13,300 BTU /sec

13,300 BTU/sec x 1,055 joule/BTU = 14,031,500 joules /sec = 14,031,500 watts

Pumping gasoline into your car delivers energy at the rate of 14 million watts.
That's enough electrical power to run over 1,000 homes, coming through a single gasoline pump nozzle in your hand at the local Shell station.

[lektrode]

Re: How to run cars without oil

You're also making the mistake of watts vs. Kwh

The Nissan Leaf has a 24 KwH capacity battery, and Consumer Reports showed an average performance of 65 miles, with one report of 19 miles vs. 36 miles range according to the car.

24/65 = 0.37 Kwh/mile

while eye dont doubt this Mr c1ue and see it confirmed in last months issue of
HomePower mag in an article by brad berman, with help from Rand corp researchers
see: http://www.plugincars.com/doublechec...rs-104202.html for more

it seems just such a low number - wonder what SPEED they use to come up with this kwh/mi? have a hard time believing that its highway cruising speeds (55-75mph) or even in stop/go city driving - altho elec motors are _very_ efficient in slow-start-up-to-10mph, so perhaps this is type of ops they get .37kwh/mi ?

This 1.5 trillion Kwh - assuming a perfectly even distribution - means an extra 170 Gigawatt-hours running through the US grid 24/365

To put this in perspective, in 2009 the entire US - commercial, residential,whatever - used a total of 3.7 trillion Kwh.

To increase electricity production and transmission in the US by over 40%, this is quite a bit deal.

dont see how this can be done without lotsa nukes - even if we covered the entire continent with PV and windmills and square miles of battery banks?

[flintlock]

Re: How to run cars without oil

GNK gets it. The unlimited exponential growth model is the problem. We have to get our head around that first or the rest won't matter. Electric cars may help, but they won't allow us to go on with business as usual. The world is in need of some serious macro planning.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: How to run cars without oil

GNK gets it. The unlimited exponential growth model is the problem. We have to get our head around that first or the rest won't matter. Electric cars may help, but they won't allow us to go on with business as usual. The world is in need of some serious macro planning.

Yup. We need new plans that don't depend fundamentally upon high growth of every kind -more people in the tax base; more land added to the city; more customers buying the product; more fresh water into the desert....

My city tells us , with a straight face, that our development plans only work with the constant annexation of additional land that may never stop.

[Starving Steve]

Re: How to run cars without oil

I could not agree more with you that birth rates and fertility rates have to be reduced substantially. But on the other hand, the best ways that I know to reduce such rates are: public education, family planning, empowerment of people, and a rise in the standard of living of the people.

The best way that I know to raise the standard of living of people is to raise their consumption of energy. The best way to raise the consumption of energy is to lower the cost of energy. The best way to lower the cost of energy is atomic power and hydro-electric power, and natural gas. The best way to develop these power sources is to do it. DO IT.... like five minute approvals...... DONE!

If China could do it, why can't the rest of the world do it?

This is not supply-side economics or conservative economics or Marxist economics, free-market economics, or whatever. This is doing what has to be done, and doing it..... This is how Stalin and Roosevelt, Churchill, and DeGualle won World War II. They defined the crisis at hand, and they demanded the solution desired ( unconditional surrender ) regardless of what it cost, and they settled for nothing less than that solution. And that was it...... DONE! A time-table was drawn-up, and the goals were met, period.

[Ghent12]

Re: How to run cars without oil

I could not agree more with you that birth rates and fertility rates have to be reduced substantially. But on the other hand, the best ways that I know to reduce such rates are: public education, family planning, empowerment of people, and a rise in the standard of living of the people.

The best way that I know to raise the standard of living of people is to raise their consumption of energy. The best way to raise the consumption of energy is to lower the cost of energy. The best way to lower the cost of energy is atomic power and hydro-electric power, and natural gas. The best way to develop these power sources is to do it. DO IT.... like five minute approvals...... DONE!

If China could do it, why can't the rest of the world do it?

A Malthusian doom has eluded us for three centuries and it seems to forever be a problem to come, but never a problem that has arrived. The same could be said for AGW disaster. What people need to wrap their heads around is that the human "overpopulation" has extraordinary benefits as well as drawbacks. The pace of technological innovation, for instance, is only as high as it is because there are so many human minds to work out the problems of the world.


What we need is high energy density, and this will never occur through wind and solar. It is by definition a futile exercise--attempting to harvest the scraps of Nature's leftover energy. Millions of years of evolution makes that possible; meanwhile us dumb apes can drill or mine for magic until it becomes prohibitive to do so. The only possible multi-century solution is nuclear and/or fusion if that ever is made to work (my eyes are on ITER). In the interim, hydrocarbons are the only transition available.

Wind and solar have one advantage, and that is portability. Solar is great for spacecraft and far out-of-the-way activities, for instance. I am so ashamed for buying into the speaker's message until I saw the wind turbines and heard his "save the world" bulldren.

[c1ue]

Re: How to run cars without oil

while eye dont doubt this Mr c1ue and see it confirmed in last months issue of
HomePower mag in an article by brad berman, with help from Rand corp researchers
see: http://www.plugincars.com/doublechec...rs-104202.html for more

Actually the article is still misleading. The electricity being generated by hydroelectric dams in California is already being used. Any new sources won't be even close to as clean - so it is incorrect to assume that a switchover to electric plugin cars for transport will have anywhere near the same CO2 profile as is presently consumed in California homes.

The additional electricity - unless it is generated via nuclear - will almost certainly be much dirtier.

it seems just such a low number - wonder what SPEED they use to come up with this kwh/mi? have a hard time believing that its highway cruising speeds (55-75mph) or even in stop/go city driving - altho elec motors are _very_ efficient in slow-start-up-to-10mph, so perhaps this is type of ops they get .37kwh/mi ?

Actually if you had an electric motor rated to drive a car to 55 mph or 75 mph, it would be relatively close. The Tesla roadster is a pretty good example - there is falloff but it isn't any greater than you'd see for a gasoline vehicle; the issue is wind resistance at higher speeds.

The problem is most electric motors for electric cars that are merely $30K or $40K as opposed to the Tesla Roadster's $109K+ is that they are not nearly as overengineered/overpowered as comparable gasoline powered cars.

Or put another way: compare a Tesla Roadster with a comparable $109K gasoline powered car, or even a 'Fast and Furious' ginned up street racer - the comparisons became far less impressive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_acceleration

Roadster - bottom of the list.

It is because the electric cars must balance electricity consumption vs. battery weight and range. Too much engine and you just wind up with ridiculously short range.

Gasoline cars, in comparison, have very little issues with energy availability.

operating reactors at Qinshan: (1 @ 288 MW) + ( 3 @ 610 MW) + ( 2 @ 650 MW),

under construction at Qinshan: 1 @ 610 MW,

planned at Qinshan: 4 @ 750 MW.

All that totals up to about 7 Gigawatts. We'd need 163 more in order to switch to all electric consumer transport in the US.