Fossil Fuel Free Future

[Mighty AC]

The UK is currently testing wireless charging lanes for electric cars. Basically, electric cars will charge as they drive; how cool is that? We already have emission free, electric vehicles that seat 7 and out accelerate Ferraris, prototype high speed emission free, electric hyperloop pods that rival airplanes for travel time, more than a trillion dollars of new investment in solar power set to come online in the next 2 years, solar and wind prices that now beat coal, passive home designs that maintain our current comfort standards while generating surplus energy, etc., etc., etc. The list of amazing new clean and energy efficient technology is amazing, exciting and hopeful.

Let's use this thread to discuss ways that various factors have already started to replace fossil fuels.

http://news.sky.com/story/1534209/uk-to-test-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars

Edited August 13, 2015 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

The UK is currently testing wireless charging lanes for electric cars. Basically, electric cars will charge as they drive; how cool is that?

Sounds like a worthwhile technology to prototype, however, mass deployment would result in a huge increase in UK electricity consumption which would then lead to massive brown outs given the UK/EU government's obsession with reducing CO2 emissions. Even if they relent on anti-CO2 obsession and start building useful electricity generation again it is unlikely that the cost of dynamic charging could complete gasoline vehicles. I would say the money would be better spent upgrading the distribution networks to handle the extra electrical load needed to replace the energy being delivered by tanker truck today.

Basically, politicians have a choice. They can encourage the development of electrical alternatives to ICE vehicle by allowing the development of low cost sources of electricity. Or they can pursue policies that increase the cost of electricity and perpetuate the dominance of the ICE in transportation. They can't have both.

Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

Hmm, a road with built in wireless charging technology seems like it would be very expensive per unit length compared to normal roads. Given the difficulty Western nations have in raising money for infrastructure projects, it seems difficult to imagine the needed trillions of dollars needed to upgrade a significant portion of existing road networks could be found. It is more likely that private industry will be able to supply the needed infrastructure for growing adoption of electric cars by building ubiquitous networks of charging stations with ever faster charging capabilities.

That said, it would be freaking cool if this worked. Lanes that let you keep driving without ever running out of energy? Heck yeah!

Regardless of whether this particular idea gets adopted or not though, my view is that electric cars becoming the norm and internal combustion engines becoming a rarity is inevitable. The economics and the energy efficiency are completely on the side of electric cars, with the one hitch being battery costs. And that is an issue that will be resolved, sooner or later, without question. All the trends show rapid declines in battery costs per kWh, and I see no reason that these trends will not continue long enough for ~100 kWh batteries to become sufficiently inexpensive as to allow electric cars to be sold for comparable prices to non-electrics.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Bonam

[TimG]

All the trends show rapid declines in battery costs per kWh, and I see no reason that these trends will not continue long enough for ~100 kWh batteries to become sufficiently inexpensive as to allow electric cars to be sold for comparable prices to non-electrics.

Battery cost is not the only metric: mass per kWH and safety also matter a lot. On top of that you have charging time which get worse as the battery increases in size. A 100kWh battery would take 14 hours to charge from 240V/30A outlet which is the max a typical household grid can handle today and that assumes the grid can even supply that much power en mass. If we assume an average household needed charge one 100KWh battery once per week that would at least double the household electricity consumption (using UK averages) and would overload existing networks although there would be some ability to load balance during the night.

Personally, I think the charging time will make electric less desireable as vehicles for a long time to come. Hybrids and and natural gas vehicles will become the preferred choice long before electrics.

Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

People won't need to charge their cars at home when every gas station pump has a 600V 160A (~100 kW) electric connector right beside each gasoline dispenser.

100 kWh was just a round number and probably close to an upper bound on how big batteries would need to get for passenger vehicles. Right now, Teslas have 60-85 kWh batteries. I'm sure many smaller / economy electrics will be able to get by with smaller batteries, probably in the 30-50 kWh range.

As for overall electricity consumption, utilities have historically been very good at providing the amount of power that users have needed, whether that demand was growing rapidly or staying relatively constant. I see it as unlikely that in the face of rising electricity demands for electric car charging, that utilities will suddenly be unable to meet the demand.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Bonam

[TimG]

People won't need to charge their cars at home when every gas station pump has a 600V 160A (~100 kW) electric connector right beside each gasoline dispenser.

Still a 30-60 min charge time compared to a 5min gas fillup. That I why I think regular charging from home outlets is the best way to make electric cars useable. That said, if electrics are cheaper than gas people will put up with the inconvenience but I don't see that happening since governments are hell bent on increasing the price of electricity as much as possible while the cost of oil drops. Increasing the deployment of electric vehicles will only increase this differential because demand for oil goes down while demand for electricity goes up. Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

Not many governments are hell bent on increasing the price of electricity... just Ontario and a few others. As for demand for oil, if demand for electricity surges while the price of oil remains low, you can bet people will build more oil power plants until the supply/demand equilibrium rebalances itself.

I agree that 30-60 min for a full charge is a long time. Home outlets are a solution for people who live in single family homes, but many young urban professionals, the demographic most likely to be the first adopters of electric cars, live in apartments/condos and, even if lucky enough to have access to a reserved parking spot, almost certainly don't have an outlet by it. Single family homes are likely to continue to slowly shrink as a % of households as the trends of urbanization and densification continue worldwide.

Electric cars will be coming into their own at the same time as self-driving cars. And self-driving means you don't actually have to own the car, you just book your trip through an app and the car automatically picks you up and drops you off. That means large companies like Uber will own large fleets of self driving electric cars, and these cars will take breaks throughout the day to recharge as needed.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Bonam

[Freddy]

All in due time. I have a feeling, we'll be using up the rest of our oil supply first. I can see this happening only in a situation of crisis, where oil becomes to rare, or difficult to extract. We will need a alternative one of these days, the day that happens is still unknown. Huge consumer shifts like these don't happen unless something drastic would happen that left us with no other choices.

[Shady]

Does oil become an alternative energy source if non-fossil fuels become the majority?

[On Guard for Thee]

Does oil become an alternative energy source if non-fossil fuels become the majority?

Nope. It perhaps remains as a lubricant. Just don't burn it.

[TimG]

Electric cars will be coming into their own at the same time as self-driving cars. And self-driving means you don't actually have to own the car, you just book your trip through an app and the car automatically picks you up and drops you off. That means large companies like Uber will own large fleets of self driving electric cars, and these cars will take breaks throughout the day to recharge as needed.

I can see this as a significant source of demand I don't see it eliminating the need for a daily commute from the suburbs largely because, even when living in condos, a housing dollar would go further in the suburbs than in the city core. Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG

[segnosaur]

The UK is currently testing wireless charging lanes for electric cars. Basically, electric cars will charge as they drive; how cool is that?

It may be 'cool', but I question its usefulness.

Things like charging lanes may be practical in cities. However, most commuters in those cities are probably close to home (or the office) and so already have access to a place to charge their cars. The problem with electric cars is their ability to drive long distances. Those "charging lanes" would have to be built along miles of highways out in the middle of nowhere to make them useful.

Regardless of whether this particular idea gets adopted or not though, my view is that electric cars becoming the norm and internal combustion engines becoming a rarity is inevitable.

Not necessarily...

In my opinion the best solution to global warming and/or running out of oil are biofuels. There are several projects under way; some use genetically modified organisms to create oil directly, others ferment algae. (Unfortunately there are many that use things like corn, which is a foolish way to go about things. Hopefully that will be stopped.)

The advantages?

- It will be carbon neutral. Yeah, we'll still be 'burning' fuel, but that fuel will have been created by living organisms taking carbon from the atmosphere (rather than long dead organisms locked in oil underground)

- It will allow us to keep our current infrastructure (e.g. gas stations, current vehicle fleets) with all its advantages (fast fill-up times, easy storage of fuel)

- It is a lot more flexible... not only can biofuels power vehicles directly, they can be used to generate electricity, or for industrial processes (e.g. fertilizer production, plastics, etc.)

[Mighty AC]

The problem with electric cars is their ability to drive long distances. Those "charging lanes" would have to be built along miles of highways out in the middle of nowhere to make them useful.

In time I suspect long distance car travel will become rare anyway. I see electric trains or possibly hyperloops coupled with electric car shares and self driving vehicle fleets handling most of our transportation needs. In the near future though, I think we'll just see a proliferation of charging stations and superchargers. Driving 450km and stopping for a 20 min supercharge is reasonable. Tesla is even experimenting with 5 min battery swap options for their vehicles.

If wireless charging technology proves viable, I imagine it will first be deployed in parking lots and parking lanes in cities. However, the cool possibility of range extending, wireless power on the fly is almost Nikola Tesla like in its awesomeness.

In my opinion the best solution to global warming and/or running out of oil are biofuels. There are several projects under way; some use genetically modified organisms to create oil directly, others ferment algae. (Unfortunately there are many that use things like corn, which is a foolish way to go about things. Hopefully that will be stopped.)

Biofuels will have a niche...but IMO they simply don't make sense on a large scale. Why waste valuable land making fuel that is somewhat energy intensive and laborious to create when we have a massive free fusion reactor in the sky? The sun showers us with more free energy than we can use and it will last as longer than life on this planet. The inputs for solar, wind, tidal and even geothermal are free once setup and they can share land with other crops and structures.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

The inputs for solar, wind, tidal and even geothermal are free once setup and they can share land with other crops and structures.

The problem with solar and wind is the reliability and this problem is not going to disappear. This means solar and wind can only practically provide between 10-15% of the grid power on average as long as people expect the power to be there 24x7. Using photosynthesis to store solar power until it is needed is an interesting option but if you sit down and calculate the land/water requirements for any sort of mass production it becomes clear that biofuels are not likely to solve our energy problems even if genetic engineering can boost efficiency.

In the long term, fusion reactors are the most plausible solution for our energy needs. In the short term and medium term fossil fuels will have to do.

Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG

[Big Guy]

Years ago, we retired to a small town in Ontario. Like many in the big city when we found out we could get a fortune for a Toronto home and purchase a home in a small town at a third of that - and invest the diffrerence for retirement.

What rural Ontario really needs is a hybrid or electric car for under $8,000. A glorified golf cart or a two cylinder smart car, road certifiable with a max speed of 50 km/hr. Most families already have a gas guzzler for longer trips and could use something for short trips into and around town - where most of the daily driving takes place.

A "no frills", plain, ordinary, single coloured?, two person quiet vehicle - and cheap!

Use the gas guzzler for trips to the city and the mini (micro) for daily use.

[Mighty AC]

The problem with solar and wind is the reliability and this problem is not going to disappear. This means solar and wind can only practically provide between 10-15% of the grid power on average as long as people expect the power to be there 24x7.

This idea of base load power is a common but outdated myth. Even without the use of mass electric storage renewables can be choreographed to meet demand with current technology. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/08/rmi-blows-lid-baseload-power-myth-video/ In addition, corporations like Walmart, Cargill, etc. have already started to produce their own energy and even store it in utility grade batteries. Companies are simultaneously saving money and helping the electricity supply by using stored energy and AC during peak hours.

[segnosaur]

In time I suspect long distance car travel will become rare anyway. I see electric trains or possibly hyperloops coupled with electric car shares and self driving vehicle fleets handling most of our transportation needs.

You are assuming that people will be wiling to give up their personal vehicles. Personally, I believe that due to our low population density and entrenched car culture, the use of trains/hyperloops as the main means of transportation probably won't become a reality. (At least not soon enough to handle problems of global warming and oil reserve depletion.)

Biofuels will have a niche...but IMO they simply don't make sense on a large scale. Why waste valuable land making fuel that is somewhat energy intensive and laborious to create when we have a massive free fusion reactor in the sky?

Umm... who said we have to "waste valuable land"?

When I suggested biofuels, I specifically mentioned things like genetically modified organisms and oil-from-algae projects, or the use of waste agricultural material.. (NOT growing crops for biofuel.)

If we use an energy-from-algae source we don't have to use valuable land. We can set up a closed system in the middle of the most useless desert. Or use bodies of water that would otherwise have no use. And ultimately we will be getting that energy from the sun as well. And while it might take an extra step to extract the useful hydrocarbons, you end up with a fuel source which can easily be stored and transported, and can be used for industrial uses (something that isn't true for wind/solar).

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/8/765.full

[waldo]

A "no frills", plain, ordinary, single coloured?, two person quiet vehicle - and cheap!

been there, done that!

.

[segnosaur]

Using photosynthesis to store solar power until it is needed is an interesting option but if you sit down and calculate the land/water requirements for any sort of mass production it becomes clear that biofuels are not likely to solve our energy problems even if genetic engineering can boost efficiency.

From: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/414492/a-biofuel-process-to-replace-all-fossil-fuels/

...the new process, because of its high yields, could supply all of the country’s transportation fuel from an area the size of the Texas panhandle.

Admittedly, some of the information is coming from a biotech company. But, it was published in a publication related to MIT (who should know a bit about science.)

In the long term, fusion reactors are the most plausible solution for our energy needs. In the short term and medium term fossil fuels will have to do.

Fusion is a great source... but, its probably a lot longer away than the use of biofuels. Plus, it gives us the same problem we've had before... transportation.

Edited August 13, 2015 by segnosaur

[waldo]

This idea of base load power is a common but outdated myth. Even without the use of mass electric storage renewables can be choreographed to meet demand with current technology. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/08/rmi-blows-lid-baseload-power-myth-video/

that's a common refrain from member TimG... even after repeatedly debunking his ongoing claims by highlighting operational and management processes that help to deal with variability; as examples of previous MLW post exchanges: here and here:

[TimG]

Admittedly, some of the information is coming from a biotech company. But, it was published in a publication related to MIT (who should know a bit about science.)

The devil is in the unmentioned details which, in this case, is water and phosphorus. A lot is required. Another killer is the physical properties of the oil. i.e. gasoline is easy to transport and pump at cool temperatures. Algae based fuels tend to harden: http://www.scidev.net/global/biofuels/news/biofuels-from-algae-plagued-with-problems-says-review-1.html

As with solar and wind, the intrinsic properties of the energy source may make algaes unsuitable for human civilization even if the hypothetical energy math makes them look plausible.

Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

You are assuming that people will be wiling to give up their personal vehicles. Personally, I believe that due to our low population density and entrenched car culture, the use of trains/hyperloops as the main means of transportation probably won't become a reality. (At least not soon enough to handle problems of global warming and oil reserve depletion.)

You are assuming that our next generations will think like Boomers. Car ownership won't disappear, but it will diminish, especially in Urban centers. 80% of Canadians live in urban centers and that number continues to rise. In our cities, car shares and on demand driverless cars will significantly reduce ownership and personal vehicles will become primarily electric.

Umm... who said we have to "waste valuable land"?

When I suggested biofuels, I specifically mentioned things like genetically modified organisms and oil-from-algae projects, or the use of waste agricultural material.. (NOT growing crops for biofuel.)

If we use an energy-from-algae source we don't have to use valuable land. We can set up a closed system in the middle of the most useless desert. Or use bodies of water that would otherwise have no use. And ultimately we will be getting that energy from the sun as well. And while it might take an extra step to extract the useful hydrocarbons, you end up with a fuel source which can easily be stored and transported, and can be used for industrial uses (something that isn't true for wind/solar).

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/8/765.full

We can't produce enough biofuels for mainstream power on farm waste and inarable land alone, hence they would have to invade useful land resources. That's why I expect biofuels to become, at best, useful niche power options. However, the same processes may be more useful in the production of bioplastics and polymers. It just makes sense to extract the bulk of our energy from a free, permanent energy source.

[TimG]

This idea of base load power is a common but outdated myth.

You got to be kidding. That has to be the most ridiculous statement I have heard in a long time. Renewables are a problem because they are not predictable and any grid has to have enough redundancy to provide power when renewables are not available. This means capital investment in dispatchable power sources that have to be constantly cycled to deal with variability. This constant cycling decreases the efficiency of these plants and leads to absurd scenarios like in Germany where natural gas plants are asking for subsidies because they can't sell enough electricity to cover their operating costs due to the large amount of renewables forced onto the grid. This problem that is not going to go away because of statistical analysis of weather patterns.

Grid level storage is not a remotely viable option at this time.

BTW: The video is extremely dishonest with its stats on renewable penetration in selected European countries because these grids are not isolated. i.e. if the wind is blowing too much in Germany it dumps the excess on Poland and the Czech Republic. The proper way to calculate the 10-15% max is based on the complete grid .- not individual countries

Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

Pumped hydro storage can work in many areas. And, if the desire to store energy on a large scale is really there, terrain can be modified to allow for pumped hydro storage even where there are no natural features. Artificial lakes big enough to store enough energy to smooth out production/demand variations for a city could plausibly be built.

[Mighty AC]

You got to be kidding. That has to be the most ridiculous statement I have heard in a long time. Renewables are a problem because they are not predictable and any grid has to have enough redundancy to provide power when renewables are not available.

No kidding. As has already been explained to you the baseload power argument is a myth and coal and nukes will/are being phased out in favour of cheaper, clean renewables.

Why baseload power is doomed

A persistent myth about the challenges of integrating renewable power into the grid is that because solar and wind are intermittent, grid operators need to maintain full generation capacity from "baseload" plants powered by coal and nuclear. Recent real-world data and research shows that not only is this not true, but that baseload capacity is fundamentally incompatible with renewables, and that as renewables provide a greater portion of the grid's power, baseload generation will need to be phased out.

Grid level storage is not a remotely viable option at this time.

No need to wait for grid level storage. Major energy users are already starting to store electricity in batteries and ice for air conditioning to reduce peak demand, save money and simultaneously help flatten out those erratic peaks. Edited August 13, 2015 by Mighty AC