Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on September 5, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Oil fading as an energy source because of electric vehicles

Consumption

The global demand for oil will peak within the next five years, driven largely by the increased market presence of electric vehicles, a top energy consultancy said.

DNV GL, a Norwegian company providing risk management advice, said in an energy transition outlook that global demand for energy in general will level off by 2030 and then move lower as efficiency improves. For oil, demand peaks in 2022 because of the rise in the use of electric vehicles, though energy trends might not be enough to stave off the impacts of climate change.

“Until 2050, the electricity share of energy demand will grow from 18 percent to 40 percent yet this transformation is not happening fast enough,” Ditlev Engel, the CEO at DNV GL, said in a statement. “Speeding up the acceleration of electrifying sectors like heat and transport will be one vital measure to put the brakes on global warming.”

Swedish automaker Volvo said this year it was marking an end to a vehicle line powered solely by the internal combustion engine. Tesla said in its second quarter release that orders for two of its electric vehicle lines were up 15 percent in July when compared with the quarterly average.

Two million electric vehicles were on the road globally last year, with most of those in the U.S., European and Chinese markets.

Using the pace of transition from horse-drawn carriages to fuel-powered vehicles in the 20th century as a benchmark to measure growth, the International Monetary Fund said motor vehicles could vanish from markets in advanced economies within the next 20 years. For the shift in vehicles themselves, the IMF said dramatic retooling may be necessary for the industry.

Economists at the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries revised their forecast for global oil demand for 2018 higher by 1.28 million barrels per day to 97.7 million barrels per day. Total oil demand for 2017 is expected to be 96.49 million bpd and most of the demand growth next year comes from developing countries.

DNV GL said it’s gas, however, that’s on pace to become the largest single source of energy.

“Major oil companies intend to increase the share of gas in their reserves, and DNV GL expect an accelerated shift by 2022 as they decarbonize business portfolios,” the consultant group’s report read.

UPI



66 Comments on "Oil fading as an energy source because of electric vehicles"

  1. Go Speed Racer on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 7:52 pm 

    When it gets to 50 comments,
    all the previous comments disappear.

    Could we somehow make an energy
    source out of that?

  2. charmcitysking on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 11:06 am 

    They don’t disappear – a tab pops up which allows you to go back to the previous 50

  3. Cloggie on Fri, 8th Sep 2017 4:22 am 

    BMW going full blast electric. 12 new models, all 100% electric by 2025.

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/bmw-plans-to-offer-12-full-electric-cars-by-2025/

  4. Davy on Fri, 8th Sep 2017 7:22 am 

    “BMW going full blast electric. 12 new models, all 100% electric by 2025.”
    Electric vehicles are still fossil fuels driven until the grid is 100% renewable and that is yet to be proven possible. I think this brings up a good point about the future and the reason wisdom is so important. If Europe is completely dedicated to a 100% renewable world but that is not possible what kind of malinvestment will occur? Antius has spoken so eloquently and I support his message that 100% renewable is not possible unsupported by fossil fuels. The “real EROI” needed to run modern life cannot be done with renewables except with fossil fuel support and a dramatically adapted future of downsized behaviors and lifestyles. We just can’t take the status quo 100% renewable. If we try we are putting the horse before the cart. We risk making investments that will actually lower adaptability.

    Properly invested capital, labor, and resources in a world focused on downsizing with dignity in a world of decline and decay would not go “full blast” into an electric future. I am all for what Europe is doing in regards to a significant integrations of renewables into the grid. We need massive conservation efforts. Europe is by far the most advanced with conservation. Where Europe is not the most advanced and really no developed countries are is the continued pursuit of affluence. It should be readily apparent it is affluence that makes any green effort fake green. It is only by downsizing civilization that a real “green” people can be realized.

    Unfortunately people don’t think this way. It is the reason Europeans are “full blast” into an affluent renewable future. It is obvious renewables are nothing more than “extenders” of affluence. They could be “enhancers” of downsizing. It is still possible Europeans policy makers will come to their senses and make proper use of all the renewable technology they are employing. There is surely a proper mix of fossil fuels and renewables along with conservation and changed lifestyles that can help us navigate the storm of decline ahead. There is no way to electrify planetary decline and over population. These existential predicaments must be dealt with through attitudes and behaviors. Increasing affluence is not a solution. Increased resilience and sustainability combined with adhering to planetary limits is the solution. The wisdom of doing “less” is a solution. The wisdom of being able to say “no” to more techno solutions is a solution. The wisdom of saying no to unrestrained efficiency is a solution. As you can see “full blast” is not a solution.

  5. Cloggie on Fri, 8th Sep 2017 8:42 am 

    Antius has spoken so eloquently and I support his message that 100% renewable is not possible unsupported by fossil fuels. The “real EROI”

    All wonderful that eloquence, when it comes to EROI I prefer dry scientific facts:

    http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/pages/publication11768_en.pdf

    Go to page 14 to verify:

    Integrated Steelworks: 19.8
    Electric Arc Furnace (EAF): 2.5

    In other words, it takes 8 times the amount of energy to create a wind tower from iron ore compared to creating a new wind tower from and old one.

    If you take that into account, the entire pictures changes considerably, but nobody does that. Designers simply write off a wind tower after 25-30 years. But that is unnecessary.

    I know that Antius will bring up constant overhead like maintenance and installation, but my gut feeling tells me that the embodied energy of a tower + nacelle is the bulk of the entire energy calculation. I’m open to be taught otherwise, based on a study or back of an envelope calculation. But first see, then believe.

    It is obvious renewables are nothing more than “extenders” of affluence.

    True, but we have this affluence. I know that you are betting on collapse, but until that moment arrives we are affluent and will continue our renewable ways.

    It is only by downsizing civilization that a real “green” people can be realized.

    Perhaps, but that is not an argument to halt the transition now. The motto should be: we will see how far we will get and that we need to be content with what we will be able to achieve. I am not too pessimistic about the ultimate energy level we will be able to achieve, although I have to admit that pessimism is not a defining trait of my character (this is going to be used against me.lol).

  6. makati1 on Fri, 8th Sep 2017 9:12 am 

    Cloggie, does that “fact” include the energy to take down the old tower, haul it maybe hundreds of miles on roads and bridges built and maintained with FF, on tractors/cranes/trucks also made and maintained with FF? Then cut up, extra materials added as required, molds made, grinding, polishing, (more FF made tools and machines and maintenance) and then hauling it all back hundreds of miles and reinstalling it (tractors/trucks/cranes)?

    When the FF stops, the only wind towers will be the ones that last the longest. No replacements. Ever. Ditto solar panels and their controls. Alternatives are ALL FF dependent, except plants and muscle power. The original ‘alternates’. lol

  7. Cloggie on Fri, 8th Sep 2017 10:05 am 

    Cloggie, does that “fact” include the energy to take down the old tower, haul it maybe hundreds of miles on roads and bridges built and maintained with FF, on tractors/cranes/trucks also made and maintained with FF?

    Not it doesn’t, not taking down and taking apart.

    Btw nobody, other than perhaps Charly Hall, includes road construction in the EROI calculation. The energy necessary for road construction is acquired from the energy production of your energy source.

    I have here an old study from 2008, that does the calculation of a smaller turbine:

    https://www.duurzaamgebouwd.nl/onderzoek/20081208-artikel-energiebalans-van-een-windmolen

    Embodied energy
    Onshore windmolen: 0,6MW, hoogte = 50 m, rotordiameter = 40 m
    Productie 1900 GJ
    Installatie 495 GJ
    Onderhoud (20 jaar) 774 GJ
    Totaal 3169 GJ Opgewekte energie
    Onshore windmolen: 0,6MW, hoogte = 50 m, rotordiameter = 40 m
    Energielevering per jaar 5015 GJ
    Terugverdientijd 7-8 maanden

    As I expected, the embodied energy of the tower and nacelle (1900) are the largest part of the entire energy calculation, but maintenance (774 over 20 years) and installation (495) energy costs are higher than I thought. But this is about a smaller onshore turbine of 600 kW. One would expect that a monopile produced in the Rotterdam harbor and directly loaded on a seajack vessel 4-6 at a time, the installation coast per installed MW would be lower than in 2008 for an onshore machine.

    But it is true that if you recycle an existing tower, your 1900 embodied energy goes down to 240, but you need a deinstallation + installation cycle of perhaps 2 * 495 = 990. With maintenance remaining the same 774, the total energy picture would be 240 + 990 + 774 = 2004 instead of 3169.

    The author arrives at a energy payback time of 7-8 months on a life expectancy of 20 years, or an EROI of 32. 20 years is pessimistic. So far I am aware of the decommissioning of 2 offshore wind parks in Denmark and Holland, both 24 years of operation and there was absolutely no technical reason why they were taking down, but purely economic. Basically they were tired of maintaining a “T-Ford” windturbine.

    But just like you can perfectly drive a T-Ford after 100 years, provided proper maintenance is applied…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLMS_QtKamg

    …these windturbine life cycle of 20-30 years are highly arbitrary. It could very well be that these structures could survive much longer than the projected 20-30 years. And offshore you can take higher risk than onshore: if an offshore tower falls over, well too bad.

    Back to my calculation: a 2nd generation wind tower would have an EROI of 32 * (3169/2004) = 51. For this very conservative life time of 20 years. If they would survive 40 years, EROI would increase to 102 (minus maintenance). In Holland we have windmills of more than 580 years old that still function:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuT5vNljXVk

    But I would be interested to see the numbers for modern 5-8 MW offshore turbines.

  8. Cloggie on Fri, 8th Sep 2017 10:41 am 

    “German Onshore Wind Power Costs Plummet in Second Auction”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-15/german-onshore-wind-power-costs-plummet-in-second-auction

    Subsidy comes down to 4.3 eurocent/kWh. If you scroll down to the graph, you see that these 4.3 cents compensate the price difference of onshore wind and fossil generated electricity.

    It must be said that fossil externalized cost (using the atmosphere as a CO2 sewer for starters) is not included in the fossil fuel price, although it should.

  9. Antius on Fri, 8th Sep 2017 11:05 am 

    Cloggie,

    The ‘price paid’ has plummeted, not the ‘cost’. Two very different things. Aside from the cost of steel, which has gone down along with all commodities over the past few years, there has been no dramatic decline in production cost of wind turbines in the past ten years. The auctioning system is squeezing the life out of the industry.
    https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL8N1L70YO

  10. Cloggie on Fri, 8th Sep 2017 11:41 am 

    The ‘price paid’ has plummeted, not the ‘cost’. Two very different things.

    I know, the title is from Bloomberg, not me.

    Despite the “squeezing”, Dutch economic affairs minister Henk Kamp and one of the great pushers for wind energy in Holland (as you can imagine I am a big fan of him and he is a rightwing-liberal, not a greenie) is aiming at a subsidy-free offshore wind tender, later this year, for the 1.4GW offshore project “Hollandse Kust Zuid”:

    http://offshorewind.rvo.nl/generalzh

    http://www.wattisduurzaam.nl/12731/featured/ez-vereffent-pad-subsidievrij-windpark-hollandse-kust/

  11. Cloggie on Fri, 8th Sep 2017 11:47 am 

    Date of the Dutch offshore tenders until 2019 (blue). The yellow areas are scheduled for the early twenties:

    https://blix-bv.com/files/reference_images/referentie-rvo-uitrolschema.png

    Goal: 4.5 GW offshore before 2023.

    We would be (offshore) 3rd in Europe, after Britain and Germany.

    Longer terms plans: 17 GW

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/contracts-signed-for-752-mw-offshore-wind-of-dutch-coast/#jp-carousel-62872

  12. Cloggie on Sun, 10th Sep 2017 3:46 pm 

    Food for thought for “e-vehicle deniers”:

    Tesla is worth more than Ford and GM, despite having just 1 percent of their sales

    https://www.recode.net/2017/8/2/16085822/tesla-ford-gm-worth-car-manufacturer-elon-musk-earnings

    This means that the market is “betting” that the future belongs to e-vehicles.

  13. Davy on Sun, 10th Sep 2017 5:01 pm 

    “Kyle Bass: “China’s Credit System Is Reaching A Boiling Point”
    http://tinyurl.com/ybgpvhqh

    “I’ve dedicated the last three years of my life to understanding China’s credit system. I would say we understand it as well as anyone in the world does. And it’s the biggest bubble we have ever seen in the history of financial markets. $40 trillion of assets in a system with $2 trillion in equity.”

  14. Boat on Sun, 10th Sep 2017 5:39 pm 

    clog,

    Musk doesn’t seem to have any problem raising money for any of his projects. Musk is now selling his batteries to vesta.

  15. Apneaman on Sun, 10th Sep 2017 5:59 pm 

    clog, aren’t like half of the e-vehicle batteries comprised of cobalt?

    Cobalt Scarcity Risks Hurting Electric Auto Makers

    http://www.investopedia.com/news/cobalt-scarcity-risks-hurting-electric-auto-makers-tsla-jci/

    Cobalt Demand Projected to Increase Due to Growing Demand for Rechargeable Batteries

    “…the growth of the global cobalt market can be attributed to the rising demand for lightweight electric cars, which are becoming more popular and reliable.”

    http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Cobalt-Demand-Projected-to-Increase-Due-to-Growing-Demand-for-Rechargeable-Batteries-1002308815

    As anyone can see it’s just another part of the Cancer

    Extraction of metals for electric cars causes a lot of pollution

    http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/2107635/extraction-metals-electric-cars-causes-lot-pollution

    clog, you have spent your working career in offices. I have spent mine on the tools and have worked on many huge Cancer projects and have been on extensive coal mine tours because my uncle ran the show at one.

    Whether it coal or cobalt it is all extracted with heavy diesel powered machines. The entire operations are powered by fossil fuels from digging it up, transporting it, manufacturing. They even haul the finished product/e-car on a big diesel powered tractor trailer [car carriers] to get it to the dealer.

    Then white bread snowflake drops by to pick up his ‘eco friendly’ e-car. Now he is green & guilt free.

    Unless ‘they’ come up with a super battery that stores orders of magnitude more energy than the current ones, they will never get farther than e passenger cars and a few short haul delivery trucks. You’re the one who claims to have taken physics courses, so you should be well aware of the scaling issues.

    Most of the motoring infrastructure is getting wiped out anyway and governments can barely keep up with the maintenance, so there won’t be as much of a demand for any cars. The humans driving them will be gone too.

  16. Apneaman on Sun, 10th Sep 2017 6:01 pm 

    https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/

    #105: Anticipating the next crash
    Posted on September 10, 2017

    THIS TIME IT COULD BE MONEY – NOT BANKS

    “Because the global financial crisis (GFC) was caused by a collapse of trust in banks, it can be all too easy to assume that the next crash, if there is one, must take the same form.

    In fact, it’s more likely to be different. Whilst the idiocy-of choice before 2008 had been irresponsible lending, by far the most dangerous recklessness today is monetary adventurism.

    So it’s faith in money, rather than in banks, that could trigger the next crisis.”

    https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/105-anticipating-the-next-crash/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *