Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Pstarr's analysis stops a little short. First minor quibble is that the average over the road truck has five axles not six. The six axle ones are fuel tankers and haulers of other heavy material , from milk to cement and are often registered or permitted up to 100,000 lbs, gross weight.
But let's look at P's figures as far as they go without inspecting or testing his efficiency figure as they are at least plausible.
So P is going to replace 115 gallons of diesel per day with a battery containing 1800 KWHs of electricity? Lets say we can buy the diesel for $2.50 a gallon. That's $287.50 a day which is not cheap if it is coming out of your own pocket. But what does it cost to charge the battery pack. No figures given on the efficiency of charging units but we can presume it is not 100% and it certainly is not free if bought in that large a chunk. So let's guesstimate that commercial electricity through a high speed overnight charger costs a net of $0.20/KWH after efficiency losses are factored in.
1800 X 0.20= $360.00 per day.
Maybe when diesel gets to $10.00 a gallon companies will buy fleets of electric heavy trucks but not now.

@Rockman
This will expand on my previous note relative to EROEI. If we are looking at the thermodynamic benefits of oil, then we really need to look at the total picture, from reservoir to turning wheel and through the economy. The ETP model attempts to do that.

One of the sub-metrics is the EROEI at the well-head. It is possible for the well-head EROEI to go up, while the total thermodynamic benefits are going down. Let me give you an example (while admitting that I am certainly not a petroleum or refinery professional.)

The first exhibit is from a post at Alice Friedemann’s site:
http://energyskeptic.com/2016/difficult-oil/

The basic notion here is that as the product presented at the refinery diverges from what we have classically considered as ‘oil’, then things get more difficult and the solution generally involves additional processing steps which require both money and energy.

The second exhibit is here:
http://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/excl ... l-refining

See figure 1. As a rule, the Vacuum Gas Oil (VGO) declines as we move from the light-tight oils on the left to the heavier oils on the right. (Click to enlarge). It’s my understanding that the VGO is cracked to produce both gasoline and diesel.

In short, it seems that the light-tight oils tend to produce more naphtha and less diesel, kerosene, and gasoline. Since naphtha is not a transportation fuel, it sells for considerably less. So processing the light-tight oil is more expensive and give a less energy dense output at increased cost and reduced revenue. If my understanding here is correct, then it corroborates Mr. Hill’s charts which show declining yields in the refineries as the percentage light-tight oil increases.

So while wellhead EROEIs might conceivably be going up as fewer of the less productive wells are drilled, the total thermodynamic benefits afforded by the products presented at the refinery could still be going down. Whether light tight oil is worth producing at all would depend on a study of the total thermodynamic benefits from reservoir through processing through use in an internal combustion engine and then through the economy. I have never seen such a study restricted to light-tight oil. (And Eagle Ford is not like Permian which is not like Russian or Argentinian). However, it seems unlikely that light-tight oil is as profitable (both economically and from a thermodynamic standpoint) as traditional crude oil.

Again, I’m not an expert….Don Stewart

ralfy wrote:the EVs will have to be marketed to a world where most infrastructure is lacking and ave. daily income is less than $10 a day.

It's not necessary for a mass-produced item to trickle-down to the world's poorest to still be mainstream and transformative.

Basic infrastructure is lacking worldwide. In order to make electric trucks available, the global economy has to industrialize readily. That will require at least one more earth.

ralfy wrote:Basic infrastructure is lacking worldwide. In order to make electric trucks available, the global economy has to industrialize readily. That will require at least one more earth.

Well we don't have any more earths so that option is out. But what says we need to "industrialize readily"? More likely because it is the only realistic option we will modernize with difficulty and innovation.

vtsnowedin wrote:So P is going to replace 115 gallons of diesel per day with a battery containing 1800 KWHs of electricity? Lets say we can buy the diesel for $2.50 a gallon. That's $287.50 a day which is not cheap if it is coming out of your own pocket. But what does it cost to charge the battery pack. No figures given on the efficiency of charging units but we can presume it is not 100% and it certainly is not free if bought in that large a chunk. So let's guesstimate that commercial electricity through a high speed overnight charger costs a net of $0.20/KWH after efficiency losses are factored in.
1800 X 0.20= $360.00 per day.
Maybe when diesel gets to $10.00 a gallon companies will buy fleets of electric heavy trucks but not now.

I'm not saying BEV long haul trucks are practical right now, but those electricity costs look too high. US Commercial electricity rates are half that. Industrial and transportation electricity rates are even lower. Lower fuel costs is one of the main benefits of electricity vs diesel(Although whether or not they can offset higher capital costs is another question.)

Here's a business case for BEVs vs diesel trucks that had a similar conclusion. Although this study is for short delivery and not long haul, the area I am interested in here is the fuel cost analysis:

Table 6-7: E-Truck fuel cost
Diesel Fuel Cost: $0.37 / mi
Electric Fuel Cost: $0.14 / mi
...
These results clearly show that a high utilization of the E-Truck is needed in order to make a compelling business case. By “high” utilization we mean a daily mileage greater than 50 miles. At these high daily utilization rates, a sufficient amount of diesel fuel is displaced by cheaper electricity to make the investment into higher upfront costs E-Trucks worthwhile. However, at lower daily utilization rates (lower than 50 miles), fuel and maintenance savings will not pay for the higher incremental cost that E-Trucks typically show.

BATTERY ELECTRIC PARCEL DELIVERY TRUCK TESTING AND DEMONSTRATION

Another analysis of diesel vs electricity fuel costs. This time with port equipment(cranes and so forth):

Grid-powered gantry cranes are estimated to reduce annual energy costs by approximately 60 percent when compared to diesel-fueled gantry cranes.

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: MOBILE CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT

kublikhan wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:So P is going to replace 115 gallons of diesel per day with a battery containing 1800 KWHs of electricity? Lets say we can buy the diesel for $2.50 a gallon. That's $287.50 a day which is not cheap if it is coming out of your own pocket. But what does it cost to charge the battery pack. No figures given on the efficiency of charging units but we can presume it is not 100% and it certainly is not free if bought in that large a chunk. So let's guesstimate that commercial electricity through a high speed overnight charger costs a net of $0.20/KWH after efficiency losses are factored in.
1800 X 0.20= $360.00 per day.
Maybe when diesel gets to $10.00 a gallon companies will buy fleets of electric heavy trucks but not now.

I'm not saying BEV long haul trucks are practical right now, but those electricity costs look too high. US Commercial electricity rates are half that. Industrial and transportation electricity rates are even lower. Lower fuel costs is one of the main benefits of electricity vs diesel(Although whether or not they can offset higher capital costs is another question.)

Here's a business case for BEVs vs diesel trucks that had a similar conclusion. Although this study is for short delivery and not long haul, the area I am interested in here is the fuel cost analysis:

Table 6-7: E-Truck fuel cost
Diesel Fuel Cost: $0.37 / mi
Electric Fuel Cost: $0.14 / mi
...
These results clearly show that a high utilization of the E-Truck is needed in order to make a compelling business case. By “high” utilization we mean a daily mileage greater than 50 miles. At these high daily utilization rates, a sufficient amount of diesel fuel is displaced by cheaper electricity to make the investment into higher upfront costs E-Trucks worthwhile. However, at lower daily utilization rates (lower than 50 miles), fuel and maintenance savings will not pay for the higher incremental cost that E-Trucks typically show.

BATTERY ELECTRIC PARCEL DELIVERY TRUCK TESTING AND DEMONSTRATION

Another analysis of diesel vs electricity fuel costs. This time with port equipment(cranes and so forth):

Grid-powered gantry cranes are estimated to reduce annual energy costs by approximately 60 percent when compared to diesel-fueled gantry cranes.

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: MOBILE CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT

Points taken but that gantry crane didn't have it's electricity run through a charger, battery, and inverter with losses at each step. I thought I was being generous thinking that those losses would be balanced by cheaper bulk commercial rates and used 0.20/KWH which is a penny less then what I pay for rural residential.
At any rate Tesla needs to start out with something rather small like a UPS or FedX van and work up from there. Those used in inner cities might get quite a boost from subsidies to cut pollution in traffic jams. Something that spends a lot of it's time in stop and go traffic and seldom hits the open highway is where to make their mark and prove out the battery tech.
It would not surprise me to see battery storage per unit weight double in a few years as well as improvements in total life cycles and age.

Imagine the day they change the HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes into EVO Electric vehicle only lanes?

vt - They already do...at least in CA:

https://www.google.com/search?sclient=t ... 3rxB1-54W0

ROCKMAN wrote:vt - They already do...at least in CA:

https://www.google.com/search?sclient=t ... 3rxB1-54W0

Not a surprise.

vtsnowedin wrote:Imagine the day they change the HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes into EVO Electric vehicle only lanes?

The sooner the better. We need to get those polluting ICE powered obsolete monstrosities off the road, at the very least near major metropolitan areas.

ralfy wrote:Basic infrastructure is lacking worldwide. In order to make electric trucks available, the global economy has to industrialize readily. That will require at least one more earth.

I think the know-nothing, know-it-alls who constantly post here are totally clueless about even the basic things, like the power of the exponential function, let alone thermodynamics.

For instance, to keep the economy stable requires roughly 3% growth per annum, otherwise it crashes. But at that rate in about 24 years this would require us to nearly double the energy & resources that we currently use, destroy about as much again of the natural world in the process, whilst adding almost double the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than we do presently - just to stay square.

To say this is in anyway sustainable is beyond deluded, and puts into sharp relief the stupidity & emptiness of their claims.

Precisely, Peripato, the arguments of the naysayers and optimists seem at best vacuous. For they focus on the present without seeing the underlying trends. It is like seeing a person and noticing they seem healthy without gathering data about their in depth medical history and lifestyle patterns

vtsnowedin wrote: Well we don't have any more earths so that option is out. But what says we need to "industrialize readily"? More likely because it is the only realistic option we will modernize with difficulty and innovation.

What says that is free market capitalism. This was explained thoroughly in the capitalism thread and elsewhere.

And the innovation needed will require at least one more earth.

Part of Trump's new budget is selling half of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He will be leaving us with much less than we need to get through any hard times, and the world will gladly buy it. In my humble opinion...

Revi - Just a bit of clarity as I just posted elsewhere: President Trump might like to see SPR oil sold. But other then during an emergency (and even the the LAW requires it be eventually replaced) the POTUS has no authority, even by presidential order, to liquidate even 1 bbl of the SPR. Only Congress can pass a law to change the rules. The original SPR law was written very specifically to prevent such manipulation by the POTUS.

ralfy wrote:Basic infrastructure is lacking worldwide.

Well then, "worldwide" folks can chose to fix their stuff...or not.

ralfy wrote: In order to make electric trucks available, the global economy has to industrialize readily. That will require at least one more earth.

Sounds like something so silly it must have come from your LATOC knowledge. And the same thing was said about electric cars....and no one can find the one more earth that put the keys to an EV in the wife's hands.

Revi wrote:Part of Trump's new budget is selling half of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He will be leaving us with much less than we need to get through any hard times, and the world will gladly buy it. In my humble opinion...

Well...the world would buy it if they could find any place to put it, in the state of current glut and oversupply.

Here's another counterpoint to the theme that the ENTIRE petroleum industry is on the verge of going down the toilet. It follows the point made many times: perhaps the largest petroleum wealth transfer in history is underway. And with it SOME companies are acquiring assets cheaper then they've been able to for at least a decade. Assets that could be worth much more in the future. This story deals with a similar dynamic involving the infrastructure. From:

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... pire_Build

Billionaire Ratcliffe Hunts Oil to Repeat Chemicals Empire Build

"Billionaire Jim Ratcliffe is seeking to replicate in oil what he did two decades ago to make Ineos AG into one of the world’s five biggest chemicals producers. The deal to buy assets from Dong Energy A/S for more than $1 billion follows the purchase of a pipeline system from BP Plc that carries crude used to price more than half the world’s oil. The closely held company plans more acquisitions, primarily in the North Sea, Tom Crotty, a director at Ineos, said in an interview on Wednesday."

And how did he make $BILLIONS before?

"The thing that makes us confident is experience, which is very similar to what we had in petrochemicals,” Crotty said. “Twenty years ago people would’ve asked why we are buying these unloved, unwanted chemical assets that aren’t making much money for the likes of BP. The answer was we think we can make them profitable, and we have.”

But maybe he's just another fool that made $BILLIONS by nothing but luck. LOL.

'acquisitions, primarily in the North Sea'

I wonder if that intention has anything to do with the Tories just released platform...Don Stewart

Other industries, like the oil and gas sector, are transforming. The North Sea has provided more than £300 billion in tax revenue to the UK economy and supports thousands of highly-skilled jobs across Britain. We will ensure that the sector continues to play a critical role in our economy and domestic energy supply, supporting further investment in the UK’s natural resources. We will continue to support the industry and build on the unprecedented support already provided to the oil and gas sector. While there are very significant reserves still in the North Sea, it is expected to be the first major oil and gas basin in the world to decommission fully, and we will take advantage of that to support the development of a world-leading decommissioning industry. We will work with the industry to create a multi-use yard and the UK’s first ultra-deep water port to support this industry.