A blog dedicated to ranting and raving in a barely coherent manner

A blog dedicated to ranting and raving in a barely coherent manner



Thursday, 5 May 2011

The next 20 years and your SUV Part II

Did you get the impression from my last post that I've got a bee in my bonnet about cars and oil and carbon dioxide and trains and planes etc etc etc.  You'd be right, it does worry me.  Global warming is nasty, but to be honest it's just a distraction from the real issue which is the reality that we're going to need to radically alter almost every aspect of the way we live to survive the end of cheap oil, but I'll get to that.

In my last post I gave the hydrogen economy a going over.  Hydrogen doesn't work because the overall system doesn't work.  In order to run cars on hydrogen we need to expend huge amounts of energy on producing and storing the hydrogen, when we could just use that energy more directly.  This, along with various technical inconveniences, causes me to seriously doubt the feasibility of the whole concept.

Hang on a second, you might be thinking, oil isn't going to run out anytime soon, is it?  Well, you'd be right.  There is plenty of oil out there but there is a problem with it.  The oil reserves which are easy to get at are rapidly depleting meaning the oil companies are having to scratch around looking for more oil in the most inconvenient of places.  The classic example is the oil sands in Canada where relatively crappy oil is mixed in with huge amounts of... well... sand.  Sure, they can get the oil out of the sand, but it only becomes economic to do so when the price at the pump is really high.  You'll have noticed a particular Brazilian oil company is scouting around in NZ waters for oil.  There is probably some there but I bet it ain't cheap to get it.

The other problem is that soaring demand (especially in Asia and the middle-East) is pushing prices up.  Economists will try and reassure you that increasing demand will result in increased supply which will stabilise prices, but this theory assumes resources are unlimited which for oil is simply not the case (in my opinion, economists have a lot to answer for, but I'll attack them more rigorously at a later date).  Increased demand and the inability to pump oil out of the ground at an increasing rate (something called 'peak oil' which you may have heard of), along with the rapid depletion of readily accessible oil reserves means one thing: continuously rising prices.  And the consequence are beyond just the cost of filling up your gas tank because the world economy, and the paradigm of economic growth, relies entirely on cheap oil as I'll get around to explaining one of these days.

Let's take another example of propulsion touted to replace the oil-sucking internal combustion engine: the electric car.  The biggest problem is exactly the same as for the hydrogen car: you've still go to get the energy to charge your battery from somewhere and, like it or not, most of the world's electricity is generated from burning hydrocarbons so you're unlikely to reduce carbon emissions.  Even if we do find another source to charge up our batteries, we've still got to have batteries in the first place.  Batteries are made from materials which themselves are limited in supply and the chances of replacing the world's car fleet with electric versions are very small indeed.

Biofuels are something I know less about, but to my knowledge they need to be heavily subsidised to make them even remotely economic.  Growing feedstock for biofuel also displaces food crops and I, for one, will be none too happy if I have to go hungry so some tool can rumble around in his SUV (I use the masculine advisedly - only a male can feel insecure enough to drive one).  Biofuels also have lower energy densities than conventional fuels, so that 5% ethanol/petrol mix is probably leaving you every so slightly short changed.

So, assuming there is no viable replacement for fossil fuels (and I happen to think that assumption is pretty good) then what will happen in the future to transportation?  Being pessimistic, I used to think the Mad Max option would be the one humanity would "choose" but I've started to feel slightly more optimistic. I think a gradual reversion to the NZ lifestyle in the 1950s might be on the cards.  People aren't going to give up their cars in a hurry, but gradually people will adjust their lifestyles to use them less*.  Cars will also begin to look different.  They'll get smaller and lighter for a start since most of the fuel we burn is spent carrying the car around, rather than its contents.  It's possible that some of these will be electric or run on biofuels, but I'm picking this will be limited, and I don't give hydrogen much hope at all.  You'll also fly a lot less (which is concerning for those of us in the aviation industry who think too much about these things, but just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean you can't accept it which a lot of people seem to have a problem with).  Trains, buses and other forms of terrestrial public transport will become more widely used, which is why it would be sensible to start investing in public transport infrastructure now rather than chucking more money at roading (as an aside, and I like asides, why is it that people find it acceptable to chuck millions of dollars at roading which generates no direct revenue, yet it would be unacceptable for a state-owned rail company to run at a loss?).  The lifestyle changes you'll have to make don't end at transport, but I'll talk about those another time.

I think I've rambled for too long and been less coherent than normal, so I'll leave it there, but I welcome your comments and abuse.


*With fuel at $2.20 per litre I've already started to do this.  I probably use about 50 litres of fuel per month, at least in my car.  This doesn't count the multitudinous litres I no doubt consume indirectly to support my hedonistic and opulent western lifestyle (incidentally the very lifestyle being coveted by the entire world population, give or take the membership of the Taliban and even they're keen on the Toyota Hilux apparently).  It also doesn't count many hundreds of litres I'll burn on my way to Asia and back later this year.  Let's say fuel hits $10 per litre ("Absurd" I hear you scoff?  Well, in my late teens petrol was something like 70c per litre, so I wouldn't call an increase of  five times over the next 10 years crazy): I'd be spending something like $6000 per year and most people would be spending a hell of a lot more.  You'd think twice about driving too far.

4 comments:

  1. Oh so pessimistic!
    I'm not so sure I agree with some of the things you claim in the post, starting at electric
    cars. If you are worried about just getting energy, then solar, wind and nuclear can each
    provide more than enough of our energy needs pretty much for ever. Solar can power the
    world about 5,000 times over, has been dropping in price and been doubling in installed
    capacity about every 2-3 years for quite a while now. There is far more eneryg in the sun
    than in all the worlds reserves of fossil fuels.

    Wind has been doubling in China every YEAR lately, and worldwide every 2-3 years also.
    Now that floating wind turbines have been shown to work, it is also up to the task.
    What do you mean by batteries in short supply? There is enough lithium in the sea to make
    1 trillion car batteries, to say nothing of the zinc air battery and other chemistries
    that use common materials. Lithium is very cheap and noone has even made an effort to
    find it. There are many reserves that are not counted because they are not "economic"
    However the cost of lithium could go up 10* and not make batteries significantly more
    expensive. Raw material cost is a tiny part of the total battery cost.

    There is a bio gas company in chch that has a system that would supply all of NZ's
    current transport needs with gas, with about 12% of the coutries farmland. This would last
    forever and the system even gives back nitrogen fertiliser. As the system improves
    efficiency and people drive hybrids etc it would take even less land. I don't know about
    other countries, but we can afford this land, any green stuff can be used so it doesn't
    need the best land.

    I think plug in hybrids will become popular quite quickly, and given in NZ they will be
    running of renewable energy and be cheaper to travel per k than the bus, I don't see
    public transport ever taking off in a big way, there is no need unless the population really gets much bigger.

    Thor

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello there, Anonymous Thor.

    Pessimistic? I'm not sure if I'm being pessimistic per se, I just don't think that everyone having their own personal transportation is likely or desirable. It also appears to me that you’re easily seduced by technology, without looking at whether the entire system required by that technology is feasible, which was really the point I was making in my first post on this subject.

    Let’s look at the points you’ve made regarding electric vehicles. The first is regarding the use of solar, wind and nuclear electrical generation sources which you propose will be used to supply the energy for your theoretical fleet of millions (billions?!) of electric car. You’re quite right about solar radiation, enormous quantities of it fall on the surface of the earth but unfortunately (no, wait, I mean fortunately!) the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth surface averages about 340 W/m^2. We’re talking about a LOT of solar panels to run an electric car, even if solar panels are developed with 100% efficiency (this won’t happen, currently 18% is considered at the extreme top end of efficiency). So is solar realistic?

    Next is wind. As you point out, the capacity of wind generation is increasing rapidly currently at about 2.5% of world generation. There is potential here, clearly. However, there is a limit into how much of a country’s generation capacity can be via wind because wind is peskily intermittent (I think about 20% of capacity is the figure) and to cover electricity production for electric vehicles as well as conventional use would require an enormous increase in capacity.

    Nuclear: well, nuclear has the same problem as oil – reserves are limited. This fact surprises a lot of people, but world reserves are projected to last something between 15-80 years at current rates of consumption. Besides, nuclear has other inconvenient issues such as storage of the waste material etc.

    In summary: the problem with powering an electric vehicle fleet is very real indeed.

    You seem a lot more confident about lithium reserves than most analysts. It seems more probable that the demand-supply curve would look somewhat worse that the oil one. I suggest you take a read of http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Problem_2.pdf for some background. The fact there is doubt should be a concern. Let’s not forget that even though a mineral might be abundant, it may require huge amounts of effort (and energy) to extract especially if it occurs in low concentrations (you quote seawater as a possible source – at 0.1-0.2 grams of lithium per litre?!! You’re joking…)

    As for biofuels, I have a friend who is a researcher in this field and he is enormously sceptical about the claim we can supply ALL of our transport energy needs with 12% of NZ’s land area. I’m trying to encourage him to add the depth of his knowledge to this debate, but I will say that he scoffed at the idea. I will let him do the talking, but as I understand it the analysis suggests that if we use ALL of NZ’s arable land for biofuel production, we will produce about 8% of our current consumption. If you were a start-up biofuel company and wanted funding, which picture would you paint?

    The big problem is that continuing to subscribe to what essentially amount to myths about future replacements for oil are resulting in a lack of progress towards the more sustainable future we need.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Part 3 of 3.
    Nuclear:

    WHA http://www.withouthotair.com
    doesn’t agree with you on uranium, please look the section on nuclear. Page 161 and Page 179.
    This section claims thousands of years, up to millions if both breeder reactors and seawater extraction work.
    "Japanese researchers have found a technique for extracting uranium
    from seawater at a cost of $100–300 per kilogram of uranium". This is compared to $20 per kg at present, but is still affordable.

    Bio fuels:
    Approximate NZ usage of fuels, page 5 is about 300 PJ or 3e17 J per year.
    http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/67154/Liquid_fuel_use_in_New_Zealand.pdf

    This is 8.3e10 KWh per year, or (8.3e10/365/24) 9.5e9 W continuously.
    NZ has land area of 268,021 Km^2, assuming half is farmland, this is 1.3e11 m^2
    12% of this is 1.6e10 m^2. To get 9.5e9 W from 1.6e10 m^2 means 0.59 W/m^2 is required.

    According to Page 284 WHA
    "Cellulosic ethanol – the wonderful “next generation” biofuel? Schmer et al.
    (2008) found that the net energy yield of switch grass grown over five years
    on marginal cropland on 10 farms in the mid-continent US was 60GJ
    per hectare per year, which is 0.2W/m2"

    So maybe that claim of 12% is optimistic, or the process is better than switch grass. If it was the same, about 36% would be needed. Anyway with electrification we could of course use far less liquid fuels.

    What is so great about public transport?
    WHA page 128 shows an electric car with two people uses less energy than a bus. Also consider the following in the not so distant future:
    You order a self driving car to your door at 8:30 am, (Google has already done the self driving part) you get in, it picks up 3 other people on the way to the office, (they get their digital ID scanned when they enter, making it a very bad place to commit a crime) it drops you all off outside your office, so you don't need to walk or park it, then it drives off and gets plugged in. Likewise when you go home. Now is this public or private transport? The distinction becomes unhelpful. A system like this would make an incredible difference to traffic in Chch. There would be 4* less cars on the road in rush hour, and they could drive within 10cm of each other rather than 2 sec apart because of computer technology.

    Finally what is the more sustainable future you are talking about? I feel that I have put forward the basics of a plan that adds up, is sustainable and robust, giving us the ability to not only adapt but perhaps reverse the damage we have done. If you don't expand renewable energy how are you going to feed 9 billion people (still 8 even with a worldwide 1 child policy) You still need to make things like fertiliser as the world food supply depends on it. What is your plan to not only feed 9 billion people, but do so in a way that doesn’t leave us very vulnerable to climate change and other unexpected things?

    I think I will start my own blog ...

    ReplyDelete
  4. The previous correspondent and I have agreed to review this debate in ten years and see who "wins" :o)

    ReplyDelete