Outcast_Searcher wrote:IF we do have a new "oil shock" (which is entirely possible, IMO), that implies substantially higher oil prices. Instead of "crashing the economy" as the fast crash doomers claim. This will make the incentive to frack oil GLOBALLY much much stronger.
In other words, drill baby drill 2.0? Back in 2008 there were no viable alternatives. That was back when the Tesla Roadster was the only thing out there. I think the impulse to cling to oil as our one and only way to get around will buckle and break if we have sustained oil prices. This is in addition to the continued wearing down of people's AGW denial as the climate continues to spiral out of control.
That's not to say we won't be able to drill baby drill. And it will happen during the transition regardless. But I think that will be the straw that breaks the camel's backs of the buying public. They're stupid but they're not THAT stupid.
Daniel Doom wrote: And we just don't have enough cobalt and nickel for EV's to ramp up dramatically. If there are new cobalt and nickel resources out there, it will take many years to find and develop them--"if."
We're using nickel and cobalt in batteries because they offer the highest energy density but they aren't the only chemistry that's viable. The cobalt also has the unavoidable downside of thermal runaway problems (witness the various car fires Plant was highlighting a while back). As cost per kwh goes down you can get away with using lower energy densities and bigger packs, like
Lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese (used in the Volt). Same deal with rare earths. Permanent magnet motors are being used because they offer some advantages over AC induction and automakers are trying to squeeze out maximum performance/efficiency, but they aren't a necessity. Tesla used AC induction exclusively until recently.
A little quick googling shows that the industry is already looking to minimize and phase out the use of cobalt in particular:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/co ... nic-tesla/So really the only element worthy of fretting over is lithium, and there's more than enough of that out there, plus there are recycling programs now for spent battery packs.
THEN you have to factor in a future where individual ownership declines in favor of carsharing (aka transport-as-a-service: a key component of Tony Seba's presentation). You don't have to replace every car 1:1. You just have to make sure everyone continues to be able to get from point A to B, which seems likely. And even if ALL THAT fails, why are people commuting so much in the first place when they just proceed to sit at a computer and bang away at a keyboard all day? Telecommuting alone could make oil prices crash if it were instituted for all jobs that could be done remotely. Only a change to corporate culture is required. Maybe tourism would suffer but most people don't need to go that far just to run their daily errands. Oh, concerned about trucks considering how much retail is ceding to ecommerce? Well, that's why the Tesla Semi is a thing, or
Amazon with their huge Rivian deal. Are there still many applications that aren't amenable to electrification? Yes, but they just burn all the oil saved by electrifying elsewhere and BAU just keeps rolling along.
This is why I said he was engaging in boilerplate FUD.
Now are you going to continue to dig in your heels or moderate your doomerism?