Fossil fuel vehicles gone in 8 years

[Guest]

Just now, jacee said:

Define the parameters of your wager.

Your OP.

No more petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will be sold anywhere in the world within eight years.

If we are both on here in eight years, the winner names a charity and trusts the loser to donate the $50.

[jacee]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Your OP.

No more petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will be sold anywhere in the world within eight years.

If we are both on here in eight years, the winner names a charity and trusts the loser to donate the $50.

That's too imprecise, imo.

I think the truth is that 'No more petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will be manufactured anywhere in the world within eight years.'

I believe there still will be a market for used gas/diesel vehicles after that.

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, jacee said:

That's too imprecise, imo.

I think the truth is that 'No more petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will be manufactured anywhere in the world within eight years.'

I believe there still will be a market for used gas/diesel vehicles after that.

 

I was thinking that too.  The Salvation Army.

[jacee]

27 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I was thinking that too.  The Salvation Army.

Well, if we agree then there's nothing to bet on! Lol

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, jacee said:

Well, if we agree then there's nothing to bet on! Lol

No, I was thinking about not including second hand vehicles.  The bet can be about freshly manufactured ones.

The Sally Ann looks forward to hearing from you...

Edited August 5, 2017 by bcsapper

[OftenWrong]

If there's only 8 years to go, might as well get the most out of my cars, barbeque, furnace and gasoline yard tools.

[jacee]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year

Could be faster if we stopped subsidizing fossil fuels globally!

[jacee]

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, I was thinking about not including second hand vehicles.  The bet can be about freshly manufactured ones.

The Sally Ann looks forward to hearing from you...

You can send your $50 to your local food bank.

[Guest]

Just now, jacee said:

You can send your $50 to your local food bank.

August 07, 2025 then.  I'll remind you a week before...

[jacee]

29 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

August 07, 2025 then.  I'll remind you a week before...

You're on.

End of production of fossil fuel vehicles ... in North America?

I suggest we'll have difficulty knowing about the whole world.

Edited August 7, 2017 by jacee

[Guest]

1 minute ago, jacee said:

End of production of fossil fuel vehicles ... in North America?

I suggest we'll have difficulty knowing about the whole world.

I will allow you that concession. Unless the importation of vehicles from Japan, Germany and (by then) China show that it was just because they were no good at it and no-one was buying them anymore.

[jacee]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I will allow you that concession. Unless the importation of vehicles from Japan, Germany and (by then) China show that it was just because they were no good at it and no-one was buying them anymore.

Hmmm ... Then perhaps we should define it as sales of new vehicles?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

Hmmm ... Then perhaps we should define it as sales of new vehicles?

Agreed

[jacee]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/07/autos/gm-china-electric-car/index.html?sr=twCNN080717gm-china-electric-car0146PMStory

Wow!  EV for $5300 !

That'll boost sales. 

[cannuck]

On 8/7/2017 at 5:53 AM, jacee said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year

Could be faster if we stopped subsidizing fossil fuels globally!

from your link:

A key motivation for the paper was to increase awareness among policy makers and the public of the large subsidies that arise from pricing fossil fuels below their true social costs—this broader definition of subsidies accounts for the many negative side effects associated with the consumption of these fuels. By estimating these costs on a global scale, we hope to stimulate an informed policy debate and provide renewed impetus for policy reforms to reap the large potential benefits from more efficient pricing of fossil fuels in terms of improved public finances, improved population health and lower carbon emissions.  

Yes, in Russia or China, you COULD make these claims, but to say the US is at the lead on "subsidizing" energy by controlling prices is absolute total bullshyte.  You can expect that everything else the authors wrote is similarly biased BS.   

BUT: it is dimwits in the media that propogate this kind of BS who influence dimwits in governments that in turn put pressure on industry to do really, really stupid things.   Eight years from now, big oil will still be producing big amounts of oil, and big auto will be installing big guzzling internal combustion engines in a significant portion of their production.

EVs make sense for commuters in cities, I will grant that.   Being IN the energy business, though, I can tell you there is no where near the infrastructure to support significant numbers of EVs.   In an intelligent society (that we sadly have never seen) one would realize that the real problems are more related to population than anything else.  Further, cities for the most part produce very little of any importance, and why would you have all of these people driving petro OR electro vehicles to do essentially nothing but waste resources trying to bilk the rest of the world out of their wealth and well-being>>????

[ZenOps]

How much do excess carbons actually improve human life?  The London killer fog of 1952 might give a peek as to the future.

Unabated carbons have benefits as cheap energy, but its not all roses.  It wasn't all that long ago that cars were spewing lead into the atmosphere.  It may be why the lifespan on your average American is a solid couple years shorter than other developed nations on the planet.  Mind you, that could also be because of the above ground nuclear tests too.

 

[jacee]

On 22/08/2017 at 10:45 PM, cannuck said:

Yes, in Russia or China, you COULD make these claims, but to say the US is at the lead on "subsidizing" energy by controlling prices is absolute total bullshyte.  You can expect that everything else the authors wrote is similarly biased BS.   

BUT: it is dimwits in the media that propogate this kind of BS who influence dimwits in governments that in turn put pressure on industry to do really, really stupid things.  

If you don't trust the media report, check the source article: 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867

It's just a summary, but clarifies that the study uses:

... a broad notion of subsidies arising when consumer prices are below supply costs plus environmental costs and general consumption taxes.

That is, environmental damage from the fossil fuel industries is considered a 'public subsidy', a cost to the public.

The US .... is not the lead subsidizer, as you claim in error, but second highest after China:

China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). 

These are gross amounts, not adjusted for population. Order of population sizes is: China, India, EU, US, Russia.

Add:

https://www.thestar.com/amp/business/2015/11/11/canadian-fossil-fuel-industry-gets-274b-handout-report.html

Annual U.S. subsidies amounted to $20.5 billion, which  on a per capita basis is 20 per cent lower than Canadian levels.

The report considers a subsidy any dollar value associated with direct spending or lost tax revenue in a government budget.

(IE, does not include environmental costs.)

On 22/08/2017 at 10:45 PM, cannuck said:

Eight years from now, big oil will still be producing big amounts of oil, and big auto will be installing big guzzling internal combustion engines in a significant portion of their production.

EVs make sense for commuters in cities, I will grant that.   Being IN the energy business, though, I can tell you there is no where near the infrastructure to support significant numbers of EVs

True that ALL of the infrastructure for EV's isn't there yet. But the longer range EV battery technology now exists, and the electricity infrastructure exists. Adding sufficient charger stations for long trips & larger commercial vehicles is minor infrastructure. Most personal and some commercial users will just charge overnight at home/business for their daily local travel needs.

I think you're overly pessimistic, but I understand that the fast-coming changes will be very difficult for some in the fossil-fuel energy sector.

Edited August 28, 2017 by jacee

[dre]

I think the writing is on the wall... I think even fossil fuel companies know that.

These companies are investing heavily in renewable energy. Chevron is one of the worlds leading producers of geothermal power. Exxon was one of the pioneers of lithium-ion batteries. Enbridge (Known for pipelines) operates dozens of wind farms across Canada, and is the second largest producer of wind power in the country. TransCanada (also known for pipelines) invests heavily in solar, wind, and nuclear energy. They jointly own the Bruce Nuclear station, and just spent half a billion dollars purchasing solar plants.

I do think 8 years is overly optimistic though. I think it would be reasonable however to expect that we will move off gas and oil as our primary means of powering transportation over the next 15 - 20 years, and that they will be a tiny bit player within 50.

Infrastructure is a "thing" but certainly not a showstopper. The first smart phone came out about 10 years ago, and already most of the planet has been outfitted with wires and towers.

The additional demand for electricity is also a "thing" but again not a showstopper. The demand placed on energy systems by electric vehicles would be elastic. Perfect for leveraging off-peak generation, and intermittent generation from renewable energy sources. Not to mention, mining, refinement, and other parts of the fossil fuel supply chain are huge users of electricity, as is.

The EV technology thats available today is already superior to ICE in so many ways that it really is just a matter of time. Its probably a matter of more time than 8 years though.

[dre]

As far as the arguments about subsidies go, and which industries get which subsidies, and which subsidies are direct, or the result of the public footing the bill for various externalities.... I would just let insurance adjusters figure that out, for everyone to insure against them.

For example... How much would gasoline cost if these companies had to buy insurance against ALL of their externalities. Polution, climate change, diplomacy and war to secure supply, the enrichment of despotic regimes like the Saudis, or Iraq, and the cost of dealing with them later on. We are paying way more for gasoline than what you see on those little spinning numbers on the side of the pump. Energy providers need a more comprehensive approach to risk management, and all costs associated with their activities need to be internalized.

[cannuck]

Having spent a considerable portion of my life in the transportation business, and with much of that overlapping energy businesses, I have to say that the end of internal combustion engines is a long way off.  What navel gazers who believe we can wave a magic wand and just have plugin EVs getting a bunch of power pulled out of some unicorn's ass have no concept of the scale of infrastructure required to transmit and distribute power to charge all of those vehicles.  Then, there is the further need for generating capacity.  There is simply not that kind of flexibility and capacity available in North America, far, far less in Europe and don't even get me started on developing nations.

Sadly, we have shifted our entire culture in the developed world to something far left of reason, and legislators, regulators and financial people (who actually run business now instead of the business people that SHOULD be doing so) have got on board this very, very leaky ship.

Somewhere earlier in this thread, there was mention of how electric vehicles could have million mile lifespan.  I actually HAVE some million + mile vehicles, and several with more than half that.  ALL are diesels.   Two things usually stop one of them:  rusted out bodywork and failure of electrical and electronic components (which every EV also will require).  

We will see large fleets of EV cars and trucks the day we can see a fleet of plug-in Boeing jets doing international travel.  Until then, the world will waste a staggering amount of time and money diddling around with really stupid concepts and ideologies.  

I will add:  I believe there IS a place for plugin EVs in urban environments.   That is not for any good reason, quite the opposite.  We are spending all of this time and money to find alternative ways to do more of what is getting us into hot water, instead of taking a serious look at how we live and build cities to STOP doing the stupid things we do that piss away resources for no good reason at all.

Edited September 6, 2017 by cannuck

[dre]

8 hours ago, cannuck said:

Having spent a considerable portion of my life in the transportation business, and with much of that overlapping energy businesses, I have to say that the end of internal combustion engines is a long way off.  What navel gazers who believe we can wave a magic wand and just have plugin EVs getting a bunch of power pulled out of some unicorn's ass have no concept of the scale of infrastructure required to transmit and distribute power to charge all of those vehicles.  Then, there is the further need for generating capacity.  There is simply not that kind of flexibility and capacity available in North America, far, far less in Europe and don't even get me started on developing nations.

The infrastructure is already there. The Grid can deliver 200 amps to each residence with a car. Additional generating capacity WILL be required, but we already have excess power during off peak hours, which is when cars should be charging. Also even if we built dirty coal plants to get that additional capacity it would still be cleaner than what we do now.

This will happen sooner or later simply because electric cars are technologically superior. They are cheaper to run, and produce a much more usable torque curve. There are only two parts to the engine... a rotor and a stater. With maintenance you could put millions of miles on a well designed electric motor.

I really notice this difference with my tools. I have electric tools that have run non-stop for 20 years. Go buy a chainsaw or lawn mower and see how long it runs for before needing a "tuneup". Gasoline engines are basically disposable. I recently put a 10HP 3 phase motor onto my bandsaw mill (It replaced a 17HP Kholer). Maintenance now is almost zero, and its way cheaper to run and way more hassle free. It works better as well because of all the low end torque electric motors have. You have to wind a gas motor up to a few thousand RPM for it to be of much use.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, dre said:

The infrastructure is already there. The Grid can deliver 200 amps to each residence with a car. Additional generating capacity WILL be required, but we already have excess power during off peak hours, which is when cars should be charging. Also even if we built dirty coal plants to get that additional capacity it would still be cleaner than what we do now.

This will happen sooner or later simply because electric cars are technologically superior. They are cheaper to run, and produce a much more usable torque curve. There are only two parts to the engine... a rotor and a stater. With maintenance you could put millions of miles on a well designed electric motor.

I really notice this difference with my tools. I have electric tools that have run non-stop for 20 years. Go buy a chainsaw or lawn mower and see how long it runs for before needing a "tuneup". Gasoline engines are basically disposable. I recently put a 10HP 3 phase motor onto my bandsaw mill (It replaced a 17HP Kholer). Maintenance now is almost zero, and its way cheaper to run and way more hassle free. It works better as well because of all the low end torque electric motors have. You have to wind a gas motor up to a few thousand RPM for it to be of much use.

You ASSUME that because homes have 200A service, the local utility is capable of providing everyone connected with their rated panel capacity.   It is not, not even close.  BUT it should be able to handle one car at 240V, x 40A (7.7 kW) for a 8-10 hour overnight charge.  There are about 2 cars per household in North America, but I doubt very much you could pull 80A out of each one (but you would also not be charging every car fully every day).  If you did, in the USA that would require 2,000 GW of power JUST for charging the cars - in a country that is pretty much maxed out with its 1,000 GW capacity - much of which is dedicated to 24 hr. base loads of big industrial users.  Not sure of Canada's numbers, but they will be comparable.

Don't know where you live, but if doing off-peak charging in Toronto 'burbs to do your several full charge commute with a plugin (only excuse for an EV IMHO) that is costing you about $0.80 an hour for power, or maybe $6.00 for a daily commute energy cost (double that in daytime).  Not bad at all. That compares favourably with a VW 3 litre Lupo for energy costs - which is about as good as it gets.

Dirty coal plants are NOT cleaner than new cars, but a nice clean nuke sure as hell is.   Just try building one these days.

I would seriously argue that electric cars in ANY way are "superior technologically", but if you were actually anywhere near the electrical business, you would realize that the batteries have relatively short lives, cost a fortune to make, have an environmental cost that is staggering in manufacture, and have to be replaced several times over the assumed million mile life of the vehicle.  The chargers, inverters, VFDs, circuit protection devices, etc. all have finite lives and very high cost bother to manufacture an to repair, and the whole load of shyte weighs a lot more than an internal combustion engine, driveline and fuel system - compromising vehicle safety (and let's not even go there when it comes to batteries in collisions).

I happen to also have an 18HP Kohler on a compressor.  Has been doing its job since 1975 and is a very crude bit of kit.  I would need 3 phase power to get enough electric motor to match the old lump (10 HP electric MIGHT do what it does) and a half mile extension cord.  I also have a 5 horse compressor in my shop at home that is now on its 3rd electric motor over the last 40 years.  3:1 in favour of the Kohler in the real world.  SHOULDN'T be that way, but that is how it has worked out for me.

Just a little point of technical note: you assume that just because electric motors have the theoretical capacity for very high torque near zero RPM, the POWER produced is a function torque x RPM for ANY rotating shaft, doesn't matter what rotates it.  You will notice that a 1200 RPM (6 pole) 5 HP motor is HUGE compared with an 1800 (4 pole) RPM one, and most little compressors use a tiny 5HP motor that must turn 3600 RPM (2 pole) to make that power.  Further, NO electric motor of normal design is able to delivery that very high low RPM torque for more than an extremely short time without frying itself due to cooling issues (EXTREMELY high amperage under those conditions).

Edited September 7, 2017 by cannuck