Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

    Opec faces a mortal threat from electric cars

    The oil cartel is living in a time-warp, seemingly unaware that global energy politics have changed forever




    A charger stands on display next to a Toyota hydrogen-powered vehicle in Tokyo Photo: Bloomberg









    By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

    6:03PM GMT 23 Dec 2015
    Follow
    1631 Comments


    OPEC remains defiant. Global reliance on oil and gas will continue unchanged for another quarter century. Fossil fuels will make up 78pc of the world’s energy in 2040, barely less than today.


    There will be no meaningful advances in technology. Rivals will sputter and mostly waste money. The old energy order is preserved in aspic.


    Emissions of CO2 will carry on rising as if nothing significant had been agreed in a solemn and binding accord by 190 countries at the Paris climate summit.


    OPEC’s World Oil Outlook released today is a remarkable document, the apologia of a pre-modern vested interest that refuses to see the writing on the wall.


    The underlying message is that the COP21 deal is of no relevance to the oil industry. Pledges by world leaders to drastically alter the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions before 2040 - let alone to reach total "decarbonisation" by 2070 - are simply ignored.


    Global demand for crude oil will rise by 18m barrels a day (b/d) to 110m by 2040. The cartel has shaved its long-term forecast slightly by 1m b/d, but this is in part due to weaker economic growth.

    One is tempted to compare this myopia to the reflexive certainties of the 16th Century papacy, even as Erasmus published in Praise of Folly, and Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church.

    The 407-page report swats aside electric vehicles with impatience. The fleet of cars in the world will rise from 1bn to 2.1bn over the next 25 years – topping 400m in China – and 94pc will still run on petrol and diesel.


    “Without a technology breakthrough, battery electric vehicles are not expected to gain significant market share in the foreseeable future,” it said. Electric cars cost too much. Their range is too short. The batteries are defective in hot or cold conditions.

    OPEC says battery costs may fall by 30-50pc over the next quarter century but doubts that this will be enough to make much difference, due to "consumer resistance".

    This is a brave call given that Apple and Google have thrown their vast resources into the race for plug-in vehicles, and Tesla's Model 3s will be on the market by 2017 for around $35,000.
    Ford has just announced that it will invest $4.5bn in electric and hybrid cars, with 13 models for sale by 2020. Volkswagen is to unveil its "completely new concept car" next month, promising a new era of "affordable long-distance electromobility."

    The OPEC report is equally dismissive of Toyota's decision to bet its future on hydrogen fuel cars, starting with the Mirai as a loss-leader. One should have thought that a decision by the world's biggest car company to end all production of petrol and diesel cars by 2050 might be a wake-up call.

    Goldman Sachs expects 'grid-connected vehicles' to capture 22pc of the global market within a decade, with sales of 25m a year, and by then - it says - the auto giants will think twice before investing any more money in the internal combustion engine. Once critical mass is reached, it is not hard to imagine a wholesale shift to electrification in the 2030s.

    Goldman is betting that battery costs will fall by 60pc over the next five years, driven by economies of scale as much as by technology.

    The driving range will increase by 70pc.

    This is another world from OPEC's forecast. Even this may well be overtaken soon by further leaps in science. A team of Cambridge chemists says it has cracked the technology of a lithium-air battery with 90pc efficiency, able to power a car from London to Edinburgh on a single charge. It promises to cut costs by four-fifths, and could be on the road within a decade.
    There is now a global race to win the battery prize.

    The US Department of Energy is funding a project by the universities of Michigan, Stanford, and Chicago, in concert with the Argonne and Lawrence Berkeley national laboratories. The Japan Science and Technology Agency has its own project in Osaka. South Korea and China are mobilising their research centres.

    A regulatory squeeze is quickly changing the rules of global energy.The Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics counts 800 policies and laws aimed at curbing emissions worldwide.
    An electric car is charged in Oslo, Norway Photo: Alamy
    Goldman Sachs says the model to watch is Norway, where electric vehicles already command 16.3pc of the market. The switch has been driven by tax exemptions, priority use of traffic lanes, and a forest of charging stations.

    California is following suit. It has a mandatory 22pc target for 'grid-connected' vehicles within ten years. New cars in China will have to meet emission standards of 5 litres per 100km by 2020, even stricter than in Europe.

    Beijing's pilot scheme to promote electric cars has fallen short - chiefly because there are not yet enough charging sites - but this will change soon with drastic rationing of permits for petrol cars. If you want a car as the authorities grapple with 'airpocalypse', it may have to be electric.

    China's Geely Automobile aims to generate 90pc of its sales from electric vehicles by 2020. Bill Russo from Gao Feng Advisory in Shanghai says China is about to "leapfrog" the rest of the world and become the epicentre of the electrification drive.

    OPEC does not deny that the Paris accords change the energy landscape, but they view this as a problem strictly for the coal industry. There will be a partial switch from coal to gas, with a little nuclear thrown in, along with a risible contribution from wind and solar.

    Their own charts seems to show that coal, gas, and oil will together emit a further 1,200 gigatonnes of carbon by 2040. This would blow through the maximum carbon budget deemed allowable by scientists if we are to stop temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100 - let alone to achieve the 1.5 degree 'ambition' agreed by world leaders in Paris.

    Saudi Arabia's belief that it can carry on with business as usual into the mid 21st Century is what informs the current OPEC strategy of flooding the crude market to eliminate rivals.
    The report admits that this is proving to be a costly undertaking. Tight oil and shale in North America has not buckled - as presumed in last year's forecast - and OPEC now expects it to keep rising slightly in 2016 to 4.5m b/d, and again to 4.7m in 2017.

    In the meantime, OPEC revenues have crashed from $1.2 trillion in 2012 to nearer $400bn at today's Brent price of $36.75, with fiscal and regime pain to match.

    This policy has eroded global spare capacity to a wafer-thin 1.5m b/d, leaving the world vulnerable to a future shock. It implies a far more volatile market in which prices gyrate wildly, eroding confidence in oil as a reliable source of energy.

    The more that this Saudi policy succeeds, the quicker the world will adopt policies to break reliance on its only product. As internal critics in Riyadh keep grumbling, the strategy is suicide.

    Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are lucky. They have been warned in advance that OPEC faces slow-run off. The cartel has 25 years to prepare for a new order that will require far less oil.

    If they have any planning sense, they will manage the market to ensure crude prices of $70 to $80. They will eke out their revenues long enough to control spending and train their people for a post-petrol economy, rather than clinging to 20th Century illusions.
    Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister, warned in an interview with the Telegraph fifteen years ago that this moment of reckoning was coming and he specifically cited fuel-cell technologies.

    "Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones."
    They did not listen to him then, and they are not listening now.

  • #2
    Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

    Ok............Lets pick our way though this sh1t pile of lies, mis-information & proper-gander.

    Tessa is a loss making company, without MEGA goverment subs & still doesn't make sense. The MSM have given them God like status, little is said about how piss poor the build Q is with them.

    VW/Mec/ford etc are company that MAKE profits!
    They also know the electric car are bulsh1t & only pay them lip service while getting on with the real bussiness or making more efficent Gas/Diesel engines.

    "They" sussed this and were PISSED!
    Thus we had "Dieselgate" with VW...........in effect a warning from "They" to get serious about Eletric cars or else!

    I think this boils down to the fact that the Petro-$ is about to die & like F*ck are Ango-saxon "They" going to give real money/wealth (Gold) away to "the other team".

    Sadly for "They" what they want & what can be delivered are two very differant things. For all the high minded talk of new Batt-designs the simple fact is Gas/petrol was picked to power cars for a reson......it was the quickest, easy way to transfar engery.

    Mike

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

      Thanks Mike for posting. I have come to think much alike these days.
      Price of li ion batteries is coming down fast (recently viewed a video: 14% per anum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBkND76J91k).
      Electric engines are much better than petrol or diesel.
      A common EV can achieve 100 km/hr. in 3 seconds.
      No maintainance (oil, filters changes, etc.).
      No noise. No vibration.
      Far higher efficiency (85% or so against 30% or so)
      Range is still short but 320 km. electrics could come at affordable prices in 3 or 4 years (same source).
      Hybrid (plug ins) with 100 km. electric range are the future, I think, before fully electric take command.
      And it is (for me) the only logical explanation for SA-Gulf states oil policy.
      They know for sure that most of oil is gonna stay underground so the try to kick the can down the road a bit by lowing down prices as much as the can and sell the most of a product with a very small market in 20 years.
      Why, if not, try to gain market share with a not renewable commodity which shall be consumed almost completely in less than 100 hundred years and whose price will become almost infinite by then? Because that's the conventional PO theory as well as it's sibling PCO theory foundation.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

        There are challenges with EV as I have never meet a machine that doesn't break or need repair. It is only after owning for a long time that you become aware of the challenges.
        1. electric motors generated massive torque and most ev use a single speed tranny = broken parts/high wear and tear.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

          +1, electric engines are not and shall not be eternal. And of course the rest of the e. car shall not be eternal as well. I expect, anyway electric engines shall last longer than ICE s. They are simpler, less moving parts.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

            Originally posted by Southernguy View Post
            Thanks Mike for posting. I have come to think much alike these days.
            Price of li ion batteries is coming down fast (recently viewed a video: 14% per anum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBkND76J91k).
            Electric engines are much better than petrol or diesel.
            A common EV can achieve 100 km/hr. in 3 seconds.
            No maintainance (oil, filters changes, etc.).
            No noise. No vibration.
            Far higher efficiency (85% or so against 30% or so)
            Range is still short but 320 km. electrics could come at affordable prices in 3 or 4 years (same source).
            Hybrid (plug ins) with 100 km. electric range are the future, I think, before fully electric take command.
            And it is (for me) the only logical explanation for SA-Gulf states oil policy.
            They know for sure that most of oil is gonna stay underground so the try to kick the can down the road a bit by lowing down prices as much as the can and sell the most of a product with a very small market in 20 years.
            Why, if not, try to gain market share with a not renewable commodity which shall be consumed almost completely in less than 100 hundred years and whose price will become almost infinite by then? Because that's the conventional PO theory as well as it's sibling PCO theory foundation.
            Journalists and others can rationalize the latest oil price decline any way they want. Commodities go up and commodities go down. Oil has been a deep cyclical commodity for more than 100 years. The complicated explanations being presented as to the "cause" of this latest oil price decline are amusing but not particularly enlightening.

            Saudi Arabia's behaviour during this oil commodity decline is perfectly logical and rational - they are one of the lowest cost producers so they can continue to supply all the way down to preserve market share as others have to exit. This is typical commodity price and production behaviour and is repeated by producers throughout the commodity complex- just have a look at the lowest cost iron ore producers today (just one example) and you will see exactly the same pattern; they are increasing production into a falling price environment. Commodity chemical producers such as Dow, Dupont, BASF and others do exactly the same thing.

            Saudi Arabia did exactly the same thing in 1986, maximizing their low cost production to preserve market share. And back then there was no talk of Li-ion batteries, electric cars, carbon taxes, global warming, the end of oil, etc. Those that think replacing private automobiles with electric means the end of our need for oil should have a look at all the other things we depend on from oil. It'll surprise, and maybe even shock you, at how much substitution has to occur across the global economy to get off our petroleum habit. We will still be using lots of it in 20 years, and as long as the Saudi reservoirs remain one of the low cost and reliable sources (politics will determine the latter) it will remain an important source of supply.



            BHP Billiton iron ore output surges to record high on back of Pilbara mine


            Last edited by GRG55; December 25, 2015, 12:54 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

              Originally posted by Mega View Post
              Goldman Sachs expects 'grid-connected vehicles' to capture 22pc of the global market within a decade, with sales of 25m a year, and by then - it says - the auto giants will think twice before investing any more money in the internal combustion engine. Once critical mass is reached, it is not hard to imagine a wholesale shift to electrification in the 2030s.

              Goldman is betting that battery costs will fall by 60pc over the next five years, driven by economies of scale as much as by technology.

              California is following suit. It has a mandatory 22pc target for 'grid-connected' vehicles within ten years.

              "Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones."
              They did not listen to him then, and they are not listening now.
              Um...rubbish. It may be that California with it's robust clean air model and tax incentives will have close to a combination of 20% electric and 'clean tail pipe' type vehicles but world wide? I don't think so. If it's 5% that will be a 5X increase over the next 10 years. I'm not sure what metric this analyst is using but I know of no one that thinks batteries will cost 60% less in 2025. Even Musk only claims 30% cost reductions for the Gigafactory.

              As for OPEC, my read on them is that they realize they should control as much of the market as possible for as long as possible. Seems like a good strategy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

                I have little time for E-cars, they don't impress me..........the only Eletric transport that has is some kid riding around on a Hoverboard. Frankly shocked & delighted that his Mum/Dad were willing to buy him one. The Daliy Mail has been running a "Hoverboard hate" campain..............buying one for your child would be akin to buying a pet Corba or a Tatical Nuke!

                Sure, there will be some "Excable losses", but would you rather the Dume-F*ck in question makes out of childhood to end up working in the Fed?

                Mike

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

                  Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                  Journalists and others can rationalize the latest oil price decline any way they want. Commodities go up and commodities go down. Oil has been a deep cyclical commodity for more than 100 years. The complicated explanations being presented as to the "cause" of this latest oil price decline are amusing but not particularly enlightening.

                  Saudi Arabia's behaviour during this oil commodity decline is perfectly logical and rational - they are one of the lowest cost producers so they can continue to supply all the way down to preserve market share as others have to exit. This is typical commodity price and production behaviour and is repeated by producers throughout the commodity complex- just have a look at the lowest cost iron ore producers today (just one example) and you will see exactly the same pattern; they are increasing production into a falling price environment. Commodity chemical producers such as Dow, Dupont, BASF and others do exactly the same thing.

                  Saudi Arabia did exactly the same thing in 1986, maximizing their low cost production to preserve market share. And back then there was no talk of Li-ion batteries, electric cars, carbon taxes, global warming, the end of oil, etc. Those that think replacing private automobiles with electric means the end of our need for oil should have a look at all the other things we depend on from oil. It'll surprise, and maybe even shock you, at how much substitution has to occur across the global economy to get off our petroleum habit. We will still be using lots of it in 20 years, and as long as the Saudi reservoirs remain one of the low cost and reliable sources (politics will determine the latter) it will remain an important source of supply.



                  BHP Billiton iron ore output surges to record high on back of Pilbara mine


                  Think of this as directly analogous to what Saudi Arabia is doing in the oil space

                  And note the comment about China's utterly ridiculous share of global steel making capacity. If China stops building empty cities is the rest of the world really going to willingly absorb all that unneeded steel output.


                  The giants of the iron-ore industry have claimed their biggest victim yet: Anglo American Plc.

                  The 99-year-old mining company, reeling from a $5.6 billion loss last year, is pulling out of iron ore and Chief Executive Officer Mark Cutifani described a bleak outlook for the material. The exit marks the result of a strategy, employed by the world’s largest producers, of continuing to expand output in the face of plunging prices. BHP Billiton Ltd. has described the tactic as ‘‘squeezing the lemon.”

                  “We’ve watched competitors in iron ore flood the market,” Cutifani, who’s been at the helm of Anglo for three years, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Tuesday. “It will be tough on the supply side for some time.”...

                  ...Anglo is giving up on iron ore, the main ingredient used to make steel, with prices down more than 70 percent in five years. In the late 2000s, it followed an industry-wide expansion into iron ore to capture China’s booming appetite for steel and piled on debt to pay for it...

                  ...The lowest-cost producers in the world -- BHP Billiton Ltd. and Rio Tinto Group -- have been able to withstand the price slump and are returning multi-billion dollar profits even at current prices. Rio Chief Executive Officer Sam Walsh said last year that it would be abnormal for his company to consider withholding supply even as rivals were “hanging on by their fingernails.”...

                  ...For iron ore, the glut could get even bigger. As much as 266 million tons in new production will be added over the next three years before supply is curbed from 2019, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. China’s steel mills, which account for half of global supply, last year posted their first annual decline in output since at least 1991...
                  Last edited by GRG55; February 21, 2016, 09:36 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

                    Electric motors longevity depends on quality.

                    I have a car that I have using for 10 years and log 220,000 miles. Engine repairs - a few minor gaskets and oil changes. The biggest repairs have been suspension and steering + pollution control devices needed to be replaced.

                    I have an electric blower for the heating unit (simple electric motor) and it needs to be replaced every 24-36 months.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

                      Originally posted by BK View Post
                      Electric motors longevity depends on quality.

                      I have a car that I have using for 10 years and log 220,000 miles. Engine repairs - a few minor gaskets and oil changes. The biggest repairs have been suspension and steering + pollution control devices needed to be replaced.

                      I have an electric blower for the heating unit (simple electric motor) and it needs to be replaced every 24-36 months.
                      Electric motors are extraordinarily reliable.
                      Industries worldwide always chooses large electric motors over an internal combustion engine if it is possible.
                      You will only find large pumps and blowers driven by internal combustion engines in the most remote locations like offshore platforms, jungle installations, or arctic facilities.

                      Many of the little tiny electric motors like the one you describe in your car heating system are purchased at rock bottom prices and they do fail often.
                      It's always possible to cut the price in half and buy junk, especially in low cost consumer goods.

                      But motors at 50 hp, 100 hp, 500 hp, 1,000 hp are essentially zero maintenance and last a lifetime or two or three.
                      Electric cars will drive people crazy with unreliable batteries and failed power electronics, but the motors should last forever.
                      Elon Musk, innovator that he is, seems to have found a way to botch up the drive motors in Tesla cars, but that should not be considered typical.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

                        Read up on Elon Musk motor supplier.... small supplier and I'd bet they are cutting corners. www.wmkelleher.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: "They" want Electric cars .....NOW!

                          Originally posted by BK View Post
                          Read up on Elon Musk motor supplier.... small supplier and I'd bet they are cutting corners. www.wmkelleher.com
                          Are the Fukuta electric motors manufactured in Taiwan or China? In general, goods manufactured in Taiwan are of decent quality and, to the best of my knowledge, always have been. Even when Taiwan was still a developing country, the goods produced there were never of the often dreadful quality of goods made in China.

                          That said, my opinion is that products made in Taiwan, for whatever reason, have not reached the heights of products made in the top-quality goods producers: the U.S. (when we actually try), Germany, Japan, etc.

                          My point being, I'm not sure that the electric motor being manufactured by Fukuta is the root cause of the reliability issues Tesla is experiencing. Is it possible that the form factor is the issue? That is, could any other manufacturer create an electric motor of the same size and be substantially more reliable without being astronomically expensive?
                          Last edited by Milton Kuo; February 22, 2016, 11:28 AM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X