Fossil Fuel Free Future

[ironstone]

Currently,what electric car on the market today has a range comparable to the average fossil fuel car and can also be recharged in the same time it takes to fill up a normal car?I know electric cars do have a future,but there are some giant obstacles in the way.Range,charging infrastructure,skyrocketing electricity prices etc.

[ironstone]

http://guideauto.com/dr-david-suzuki-buys-first-toyota-prius-in-canada/actualite

"Toyota Canada announced today that the first Toyota Prius sold in Canada has been purchased by noted scientist and environmentalist Dr. David Suzuki. "

He may have actually gone full electric by now.

When David Suzuki stops using planes to fly all over Canada and the world in order to sustain his extravagant lifestyle,please let me know ok.Unless I missed something,commercial planes still rely on fossil fuels to fly.

[TimG]

notwithstanding your penchant for purposely framing and strawmaning change/diversification as "now/immediate", when the overall shift time frame is multi-decadal, feel free to enrich your knowledge with the following links.

Your first link makes the argument which is basically "if we stop using so much electricity we don't need base load to supply that electricity". The argument that coal and nuclear plants can be replaced by solar hot water heaters is laughable once you do the math and figure out what the footprint of such a massive solar installation would be: http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_109.shtml

They also make vague claims to 'geographical distribution' without think of the cost and footprint of the massive transmissions lines that would be required. For example, to supply the entire east coast with power from the mid-west because the east coast experiences a massive winter storm killed local solar and wind production would require interlinks several orders of magnitudes larger than what currently exists. To make matters worse this massive infrastructure that would be under utilized most of the time which means there is no economic justification for building it.

Bio-fuels are also a scam. Producing power from waste sounds good until your power needs exceed what can be produced from the available waste. Then you are reduced to clearing cutting forests to supply the power to keep these 'biofuel' generators running. Natural gas is a smarter choice.

Bottom line computer simulations where assumptions are tweaked and adjusted until they produce the outcome desired by their makers are not facts. They don't even deserve to be called hypotheses.

Edited January 16, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

More bad news for all of you who stubbornly cling to the myth that electricity base load has to be generated by fossil fuels, hydroelectricity or nuclear power. A new liquid metal battery promises cheap, long-lasting, scalable grid scale electrical storage.

Ambri has now designed and built a manufacturing plant for the liquid metal battery in Marlborough, Massachusetts. As expected, manufacturing is straightforward: Just add the electrode metals plus the electrolyte salt to a steel container and heat the can to the specified operating temperature. The materials melt into neat liquid layers to form the electrodes and electrolyte. The cell manufacturing process has been developed and implemented and will undergo continuous improvement.

[TimG]

More bad news for all of you who stubbornly cling to the myth that electricity base load has to be generated by fossil fuels, hydroelectricity or nuclear power.

You need to stop jumping every press release and assuming it means a breakthrough is just around the corner.

In this case:

But there was a problem. To keep the components melted, the battery had to operate at 700 degrees Celsius (1,292 degrees Farenheit). Running that hot consumed some of the electrical output of the battery and increased the rate at which secondary components, such as the cell wall, would corrode and degrade. So Sadoway, Bradwell, and their colleagues at MIT continued the search for active materials.

IOW, they still have serious technical hurdles to overcome and there is no guarantee that they will ever find a practical solution.

Now I do hope that someone, somewhere comes up with a solution to the storage problem but until someone does we have to plan assuming that such a breakthrough will not occur.

Edited January 18, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

You need to stop jumping every press release and assuming it means a breakthrough is just around the corner.

In this case:IOW, they still have serious technical hurdles to overcome and there is no guarantee that they will ever find a practical solution.

Now I do hope that someone, somewhere comes up with a solution to the storage problem but until someone does we have to plan assuming that such a breakthrough will not occur.

ROFL. You're hilarious - you read the bit that tells you what you want and ignore the rest. You're DESPERATE for us to be hooked on the same fossil fuel/centralized grid model forever. Otherwise, how could you possibly fail to see this?

That unexpected finding reminded them how little was known in this new field of research—and also suggested new cell chemistries to explore. For example, they recently assembled a proof-of-concept cell using a positive electrode of a lead-bismuth alloy, a negative electrode of sodium metal, and a novel electrolyte of a mixed hydroxide-halide. The cell operated at just 270 C—more than 400 C lower than the initial magnesium-antimony battery while maintaining the same novel cell design of three naturally separating liquid layers.

They're taking this to market, pal. I don't know what makes you so afraid of progress but best hider under your bed!

[TimG]

They're taking this to market, pal. I don't know what makes you so afraid of progress but best hider under your bed!

Nope. They are developing manufacturing facilities that will allow them to test larger scale prototypes. They have a long way to go before they prove that it will end up being a low cost battery.

From the article (under the "Bringing it to Market" heading)

Ambri researchers are now tackling one final engineering challenge: developing a low-cost, practical seal that will stop air from leaking into each individual cell, thus enabling years of high-temperature operation. Once the needed seals are developed and tested, battery production will begin.

IOW - they have no idea how they will solve the temperature problem. They hope they will be able to and they are certainly telling their backers they think they can do it but until they can solve it they have nothing. Edited January 18, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

IOW - they have no idea how they will solve the temperature problem. They hope they will be able to and they are certainly telling their backers they think they can do it but until they can solve it they have nothing.

Oh, jeez. You really have trouble with reading comprehension. Go back and read the section you quoted. Then keep on reading it until you understand it.

They've solved the temperature issue by changing metals and switching to alloys. Now they need to engineer an air seal and then (and I quote)

production will begin

[TimG]

Oh, jeez. You really have trouble with reading comprehension.

I can read fine. Apparently you can't. The paragraph in question is:

Ambri researchers are now tackling one final engineering challenge: developing a low-cost, practical seal that will stop air from leaking into each individual cell, thus enabling years of high-temperature operation. Once the needed seals are developed and tested, battery production will begin.

The phrase "engineering challenge" tells a careful reader that the issue in question is a problem that needs solving and the solving is not straight forward. If they had solved or knew how to solve it they would not have called it an "engineering challenge" to tackle. The phrase "Once the needed seals are developed and tested" refers back to the "engineering challenge" in the previous sentence. So production will only start once they have come up with a solution to the problem that currently makes the technology unviable.

Now I can understand why the phrasing would confuse you because it is intended to confuse because no one promoting a project wants to tell people the have major problems to overcome. So they use words like "engineering challenge" instead of "intractable problem" even though the words are often synonyms when used in promotional material for a project.

Edited January 18, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

The phrase "engineering challenge" tells a careful reader that the issue in question is a problem that needs solving and the solving is not straight forward. If they had solved or knew how to solve it they would not have called it an "engineering challenge" to tackle. The phrase "Once the needed seals are developed and tested" refers back to the "engineering challenge" in the previous sentence. So production will only start once they have come up with a solution to the problem that currently makes the technology unviable.

Not sure why I waste my time explaining things to you but....

Framing it as an engineering challenge implies that they believe it can be addressed by adapting existing technology. They're one step away from production. Hide under your bed if you're afraid of new technology.

[TimG]

Framing it as an engineering challenge implies that they believe it can be addressed by adapting existing technology.

Scientists sometimes dismiss engineering as grunt work but often their ideas are useless unless the "engineering challenges" can be overcome. Most of the wonderful inventions that get 15 minutes of fame in a press release never see the light of day because of insurmountable "engineering challenges".

In this case they appear to need a low cost but 100% airtight seal that operates at high temperatures for years/decades without replacement which sounds non-trivial to me. If something is not already available off the shelf then they may never find a solution because I find it hard to believe that this problem has not been encountered before in fields like engine design.

I am sorry but there is nothing in that article you linked that suggests that these batteries will be changing the world any time soon. Obviously, they may have more information than what was reported in that article so we have to wait and see but I won't hold my breath. I have lost count of articles describing new battery designs over the years. Some of the panned out - most quietly disappeared.

Edited January 18, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Fossil fuel devotees will be crushed to hear that bids for PV electricity in India are consistently coming in cheaper than coal.

Fortum’s offer was also no outlier. The bid was nearly matched by Rising Sun Energy (which bid 4.35 rupees for two blocks), France’s Solairedirect (also two blocks for 4.35 rupees a unit) and Yarrow Infrastructure ( a 70MW plant for 4.36 rupees).

Anyone relying on current fossil fuel prices to last should look at the history of the volatility of the price of oil.

[TimG]

Fossil fuel devotees will be crushed to hear that bids for PV electricity in India.

More link dumps from someone who does not understand the big picture:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-21/the-grim-promise-of-india-s-coal-powered-future

Despite aggressive investments in solar-powered electricity almost everywhere, erasing energy poverty also means more coal for developing countries, and India is the developing world's most ardent defender of its use.

India thinks of coal right primarily as a poverty-fighting tool. It's the most vocal and influential champion of the fuel these days

Intermittent renewable are supplements to reliable baseload. In the real world people will pay more for reliable power.

Anyone relying on current fossil fuel prices to last should look at the history of the volatility of the price of oil.

This talking point is bizarre. It use to be "peak oil" was the mantra of enviros but now that argument has been destroyed it is replaced with "volatility"? WTF does that mean? No consumer really cares that oil prices changes also long as oil delivers the type of energy the consumer needs at a price the consumer is willing to pay. Edited January 21, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Intermittent renewable are supplements to reliable baseload. In the real world people will pay more for reliable power.

Well, I guess there are three possibilities:

1. The Indians don't need baseload

2. The Indians aren't smart like you and understand baseload

3. You're WRONG and the scientists who actually understand these things and have shown how renewables can supply reliable electricity are right.

I know which one I pick. :D

This talking point is bizarre. It use to be "peak oil" was the mantra of enviros but now that argument has been destroyed it is replaced with "volatility"? WTF does that mean?

It means that anyone with half a brain can turn on the radio and hear economists say that the low cost of oil is contributing to sinking markets and economic volatility and come to a few conclusions:

1. The volatile price of oil is bad for anyone with a retirement fund (and that means everyone when you include the CPP)

2. It turns out that it's bad for everyone when tens of billions in investment are sunk into producing a commodity that can't be sold

3. Markets are great at "correcting" but suck at predicting (who knew??). Which makes idiots of those who worship at the altar of free market capitalism.

And the peak oil calculations were formulated in the era before tar sands, fracking or deep sea drilling. All of these things have altered the parameters but the basic science was (and is) still sound. Unless you believe that oil is abiotic and the earth naturally replenishes oil reservoirs naturally.

No consumer really cares that oil prices changes also long as oil delivers the type of energy the consumer needs at a price the consumer is willing to pay.

Not all consumers are blithering idiots (maybe it's just the ones you know). It isn't hard to figure out that there is a limit to how long oil will be produced at less than the cost of production. Those American rigs that have produced all that fracked production are being idled. Fracked wells peak and go into steep decline much more quickly than conventional wells.

And once the Saudis have the market where they want it, you might see OPEC discipline restored.

Price stability might not be important for all consumers. Just the smart ones.

[TimG]

he scientists who actually understand these things and have shown how renewables can supply reliable electricity are right.

Scientists are ivory tower academics who know nothing about keeping the grid running. If you want an answer to that question to need to ask some power system engineers. This probably explains why you are so clueless on these issues.

In any case, I know that India is building plenty of coal plants and nothing in your linked article suggests that will change. More importantly, there is *nothing* in your linked article that says that these plants will provide power at night. That can be done for solar plants in desert locations but you can't assume that this is the case in this based on one official gleefully declaring that solar is cheaper based one auction in a state where there is a lot of cheap land. I tried to find more information about what was included in those bids but no luck and I am certainly not going to assume that the bid includes nighttime generation unless I see it explicitly stated. You are certainly jumping to conclusions based on no data.

I did find this:

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/08/sunedison-confident-returns-indias-cheapest-ever-solar-power-project/

SunEdison successfully bid for the entire 500 MW solar power tender issued by NTPC Limited. The company will set up the project in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, and the power generated from the project will be acquired by NTPC Limited, which it will pool with power generated from its own thermal power plants to effectively reduce the overall cost of power for end users.

You better read that carefully. It appears these plants are only intended to *supplement* coal power because they can't replace it.

1. The volatile price of oil

Dropping oil prices are good for the economy in the long run. The stock market is tanking because people are worried about the bubble in China deflating and that bubble can be blamed on the brain dead central planning policies of the Communist government that overbuild capacity to meet arbitrary "growth targets". It certainly can't be blamed on free market.

A more ration reflection on the market issues: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/15-trillion-lost-from-stocks-but-take-a-deep-breath-the-end-is-not-nigh/article28304794/

Students of oil and economics will realize that crude prices are a reliable predictor of economic trends, but only in the contrary sense. Historically, rising oil prices have anticipated recessions, as they did before the 2008 Great Recession, when oil reached $147 a barrel. At the same time, falling oil prices have anticipated rising economic growth. When oil prices fell sharply between 1992 and 1993 and between 2001 and 2002, for instance, global growth took off.

And the peak oil calculations were formulated in the era before tar sands, fracking or deep sea drilling. All of these things have altered the parameters but the basic science was (and is) still sound.

The Malthusian narrative has been proved wrong again and again as people and technology constantly find ways to adapt. We can't predict how the future will evolve but we can be sure that as long as there is world peace there will be no 'peak oil' crisis in the future. Demand will find a way to balance supply.

BTW: I fairly certain that 10 years ago you would have been arguing that peak oil was just around the corner while I would have argued that new supplies will come online. I would have been right just like I am right about the problems with renewables and the need for baseload.

Price stability might not be important for all consumers. Just the smart ones.

The opposite is true. Price stability means no competition and artificially high prices. Consumers who understand how the free market works like volatile prices. Edited January 21, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Scientists are ivory tower academics who know nothing about keeping the grid running. If you want an answer to that question to need to ask some power system engineers. This probably explains why you are so clueless on these issues.

Those hypocrites in the Conservative Party are anti-science too but at least you admit it. Good for you.

In any case, I know that India is building plenty of coal plants and nothing in your linked article suggests that will change. More importantly, there is *nothing* in your linked article that says that these plants will provide power at night. That can be done for solar plants in desert locations but you can't assume that this is the case in this based on one official gleefully declaring that solar is cheaper based one auction in a state where there is a lot of cheap land. I tried to find more information about what was included in those bids but no luck and I am certainly not going to assume that the bid includes nighttime generation unless I see it explicitly stated. You are certainly jumping to conclusions based on no data.

You've continually claimed that renewables are more expensive - I guess this is your way of admitting you (and your team of precious power engineers) are wrong?

You better read that carefully. It appears these plants are only intended to *supplement* coal power because they can't replace it.

I know, I know. It's only Uruguay that can run almost entirely on renewable electricity. Whatever they're doing won't work anywhere else in the universe. I'm sure your engineers can explain why that is.

Dropping oil prices are good for the economy in the long run. The stock market is tanking because people are worried about the bubble in China deflating and that bubble can be blamed on the brain dead central planning policies of the Communist government that overbuild capacity to meet arbitrary "growth targets". It certainly can't be blamed on free market.

A situation like we have now where producers are selling for less than the cost of production isn't good for anyone. It isn't good for producers who will go bankrupt or their workers who will be unemployed. It isn't even good for consumers who will start using oil wastefully, causing increased demand even as production collapses. And yes, the free market is precisely what is to blame. I know your religion doesn't allow for that but it is true.

The Malthusian narrative has been proved wrong again and again as people and technology constantly find ways to adapt. We can't predict how the future will evolve but we can be sure that as long as there is world peace there will be no 'peak oil' crisis in the future. Demand will find a way to balance supply.

If you think peak oil has anything to do with the Malthusian narrative, you need to go away and educate yourself... as per usual.

BTW: I fairly certain that 10 years ago you would have been arguing that peak oil was just around the corner while I would have argued that new supplies will come online. I would have been right just like I am right about the problems with renewables and the need for baseload.

You've already said you don't believe in science and you don't appear to have the willingness or capability to understand so you carry on with whatever beliefs you have.

[TimG]

You've continually claimed that renewables are more expensive - I guess this is your way of admitting you (and your team of precious power engineers) are wrong?

No, I am not wrong. The problem is the cost of "renewable" does not come from cost of installing them. It comes from the cost of building backups that must supply power when the renewables are not available. IOW, solar panels could be free but they still would be more expensive than the alternatives because they don't provide power when people need it.

I know, I know. It's only Uruguay that can run almost entirely on renewable electricity. Whatever they're doing won't work anywhere else in the universe. I'm sure your engineers can explain why that is.

Yep. Uruguay has a small population and a large hydro resource that meets most of their demand. If their population grew they would not be able to get away with renewables because their needs would exceed the finite capacity of their hydro resource. Iceland is in the same position with geo-thermal power. Having the right geography for renewables is like having oil deposits. Some places are lucky. Most aren't.

A situation like we have now where producers are selling for less than the cost of production isn't good for anyone. It isn't good for producers who will go bankrupt or their workers who will be unemployed.

Why are these people any more of a concern than workers losing their jobs because of artificially high energy energy costs in places like Ontario where idiot politicians mess up the power system for no good reason?

If you think peak oil has anything to do with the Malthusian narrative, you need to go away and educate yourself... as per usual.

Malthus was not limited to food supplies. It covers all finite resources including oil. The Malthusians were wrong in the 70s when they said we would run out resources and food. They were wrong about running out of oil.

You've already said you don't believe in science

Now this is a new level of dishonesty for you. I trust science. I don't trust humans who grab "scientific sound bites" that they don't understand in order to advance their personal political agendas and then try to tell people who actually do understand the science that they are not allowed to disagree with their dogmatic interpretations of the "science". Edited January 22, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

No, I am not wrong. The problem is the cost of "renewable" does not come from cost of installing them. It comes from the cost of building backups that must supply power when the renewables are not available. IOW, solar panels could be free but they still would be more expensive than the alternatives because they don't provide power when people need it.

Except you can make renewables reliable by combining different types of renewable energy and tying grids together. I know that because scientists have studied the matter. Oh, wait you don't trust science because you said

Scientists are ivory tower academics who know nothing

And now you say

I trust science.

OK.......

Yep. Uruguay has a small population and a large hydro resource that meets most of their demand.

Uruguay's hydro resource is proportionally about the same size as Canada's (~60% of total generation)

Malthus was not limited to food supplies. It covers all finite resources including oil. The Malthusians were wrong in the 70s when they said we would run out resources and food. They were wrong about running out of oil.

Sigh.....

Clearly you understand nothing of the science behind peak oil. The name peak oil is based on Hubbert's peak, Hubbert was an oil geologist who back in the 1950's noticed a phenomenon about how oil is found and depleted in an area. The biggest, easiest to find oil is found first (and within a given pool, the biggest parts are found first). Oil production in a given area grows as more wells are drilled until about half the oil has been produced. After that it peaks and never recovers. Everyone laughed at Hubbert in 1956 when he predicted US oil production would peak around 1970. But he was right to within a year.

Since then, people have taken Hubbert's work and attempted to apply it worldwide but it was mostly guesswork as a result of politics. OPEC countries are famous for fudging their reserves and holding back production to artificially inflate prices. Similarly, good information is hard to find in Russia and other places.

Also, Hubbert's work wouldn't have included deep sea oil, shale oil or tar sludge. It really doesn't matter though. They alter the picture (and have their own peaks) but they don't in any way invalidate the science.

[TimG]

Except you can make renewables reliable by combining different types of renewable energy and tying grids together. I know that because scientists have studied the matter.

Sorry, the "studies" you reference are hypothetical based on a huge number of assumptions that would invalidate their claims if any turn out to be wrong. The world does not run on hypothetical solutions. It needs real solutions that are robust and resistant to failure even when real world turns out to be different than expected. Grids powered with large, low cost base load have been proven to work under these conditions. That is the difference between a scientists and engineers. A scientists looks only for what is possible. An engineer looks for solutions that actually work. We need the latter - not the former.

Uruguay's hydro resource is proportionally about the same size as Canada's (~60% of total generation)

And in provinces where the hydro resources exist electrical power is almost entirely renewable (>90% Quebec, >80% BC, >90%MB). That does not help places that don't have the hydro resources. In fact, ON more or less proves my point because it has more installed hydro than MB but it only meets 25% of ON's need. They need nuclear, coal and gas for the rest.

Clearly you understand nothing of the science behind peak oil. The name peak oil is based on Hubbert's peak....

So? You think I don't know that? The point I am making is the peak oil argument is the same argument used to claim that food production or other resources are finite. The predicted dooms day has never appeared because humans are very good at adapting. We will never run out of oil. What we will run out is oil that is cheaper than the alternatives which would trigger a drop in demand. But we are decades from that point. Edited January 22, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Sorry, the "studies" you reference are hypothetical based on a huge number of assumptions that would invalidate their claims if any turn out to be wrong. The world does not run on hypothetical solutions. It needs real solutions that are robust and resistant to failure even when real world turns out to be different than expected. Grids powered with large, low cost base load have been proven to work under these conditions. That is the difference between a scientists and engineers. A scientists looks only for what is possible. An engineer looks for solutions that actually work. We need the latter - not the former.

Here we go again. You "trust science" but not with anything real.

And in provinces where the hydro resources exist electrical power is almost entirely renewable (>90% Quebec, >80% BC, >90%MB). That does not help places that don't have the hydro resources. In fact, ON more or less proves my point because it has more installed hydro than MB but it only meets 25% of ON's need. They need nuclear, coal and gas for the rest.

Wow. If only we were like.... all one country or something - maybe we could hook the grids together and compensate for each other.

So? You think I don't know that? The point I am making is the peak oil argument is the same argument used to claim that food production or other resources are finite. The predicted dooms day has never appeared because humans are very good at adapting. We will never run out of oil. What we will run out is oil that is cheaper than the alternatives which would trigger a drop in demand. But we are decades from that point.

It isn't even close to the same argument it's two completely different things - but I'm done explaining it to you.

[Bonam]

The fact that at some point we'll produce less oil than presently, meaning that somewhere in between there must have been a peak, is self-evident and obvious. That is because regardless of where we look for oil, the total amount that exists on Earth is finite, and therefore its use can't grow forever. What is less clear is whether "peak oil" would be economically relevant at all. Consider, for example, our use of wood for heating houses. Clearly, we reached "peak wood" at some point, but not because we ran out of trees, but because we found other (much more effective) ways of heating houses. This is what will happen with oil and what I think TimG is arguing... at some point, some/most of our uses of oil will be replaced with other processes. Oil demand and production will decline, but plenty of oil will likely still be left in the ground. And all of this will happen as a result of technological progress and market forces, and will be influenced only slightly by environmental policies which can only tilt the table a little bit in favor of non-fossil fuels but can't alter economic and technological reality.

[TimG]

Here we go again. You "trust science" but not with anything real.

Hypothetical calculations based on dubious assumptions are not real. The science behind the base load driven grids we have today that ensure we have whatever power we need 24x7 is real. I suggest you learn the difference.

Wow. If only we were like.... all one country or something - maybe we could hook the grids together and compensate for each other.

Not that simple for a large country like Canada. Electricity is hard to transport over long distances especially if you want the hydro to 'adapt' to renewable production. It would be an expensive waste of time since we already have links that allow us to sell excess hydro to the US. Edited January 22, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

GM is planning for not only a fossil free future, but also one in which people no longer buy cars. GM has been dabbling in electrics, automated driverless vehicles and now a car share program called Maven. Users will unlock cars with their phones and Apple CarPlay or Android Auto will instantly personalize vehicle settings. Drivers will then pay $6 per hour to use the car.

Share services and eventually completely automated, on demand, electric vehicles make sense to me. I'm just surprised that the General gets it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/01/21/gm_s_maven_car_sharing_service_is_part_of_its_plan_for_the_future_of_cars.html

Edited January 22, 2016 by Guest

[TimG]

GM is planning for not only a fossil free future, but also one in which people no longer buy cars.

And the Chevy Volt certainly illustrates how good GM is at predicting future demand... Edited January 22, 2016 by TimG