Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tesla, Inc.' started by vfx, Nov 14, 2011.
Big Oil might know better than anyone else that we need an alternative for the future...
Point in case...
Green Car Congress: Shell exec says biofuels are the most important alternative to fossil hydrocarbons in mobility for the next 20 years
(RED = Renewable Energy Directive)
Is that a fuel filler cap on the T Rex back?
you need 2/3 of all U.S. arable land covered with miscanthus grass or another cellulose crop and a very efficient process to turn it into alcohol to replace HALF of all passenger car miles driven in the US. What to do with trucks/road freight? Ships? Diesel trains? Pax+cargo planes? Air Force? Army? Navy?
To saturate the U.S. energy demand for transportation & defense you need something in the order of magnitude like the whole current arable land of the planet.
Problem is, there are some people left outside US that want to drive, fly, and have cargo shipped to them. Plus some 7bn people who want to eat corn, wheat, and meat - can't feed them from Exxon/Shell shares.
Big Oil must step back from the business model of selling chemical energy. And it will be crushing.
Or as Martin showed back in the day:
Not sure why this calculations are limited to 50%? Because even the proponents don't expect 100%?
BTW, Shell even sees "a place" for electricity:
So I think the significant point is that this is apparently the official position of Shell, a company who should know, that oil should be reduced by (probably at least) 30% around 2030, and that they even ask for government support for this transition (however of course in favor of their own proposed solution).
Shell is probably right. Even if 100% of all new cars sold from 2012 onward were EVs, there is a large stock of ICE cars that will continue to need fuel for another decade. And, of course, EVs won't even represent 10% of new cars sold from 2012-2015, so the ICE inventory is replenishing.
No single technology is going to solve all the planet's sustainability issues; it's really a question of emphasis and urgency. There's clearly a role for biofuels, primarily as a transitional measure. The challenge is making them without driving food prices up and leading to increased nutritional deprivation. Algae cultured in non-arable regions? Something else? I hope there are great minds working on this.
Yep, asking for 30% to be replaced with something else, in 18 years, is a lot.
Within the possibilities of EVs, I think it is very important to demonstrate, in practice, more or less three things:
- that long range EVs are capable of replacing most or all ICEs (even though not all EVs have to be long range).
- that battery prices are falling, becoming visible in EV prices for a specific range.
- that automakers are able to make profits selling EVs.
Together, these will convince the mainstream that EVs are able to provide a viable future, which will allow the whole society to work on, and support, the progress of EV technology, manufacturing and the growth of the market. With that, progress can be fast, yet still 30% in 18 years is a large number and may ask for adding temporary substitutes even if their time will be limited.
Muppets against big oil:
Brings to mind It's a Wondeful Life and
Now THAT is a load of irrational paranoia!
As was said before even if EVs are a large portion of new cars sold over the next 10 years there still will be a huge installed base of ICE cars.
However the average existing cars today are well under 25mpg. When gas gets expensive enough people will have to reduce their driving or just completely walk away from the old cars. At $10 per gallon, an old car that gets <= 25mpg may have zero value and just go to the scrapyard.
I want to emphasize Rich's post and take it a bit further.
With oil prices rising sharply, not only cars with bad mpg will go to the scrap yard. A LOT of people will no longer be able to pay for their commute, even in a 40mpg car.
It is called energy poverty.
The model of large suburbs, commuting downtown, ferrying kids around, shopping at the mall will come to a screeching halt. Governments will direct gas supply to armed forces, ambulance cars, fire fighters, and other emergency services (which will be quite busy because of climate change).
New ways of mobility will emerge, e.g. car sharing (though some will cry "communism!"), or mass transportation. Our current city layout will be revamped.
The time window is closing deadly fast and Tesla will just barely make it to bring Model S to market, let alone Blue Star.
In some ways, we're already seeing a few private companies make that move. Private bus lines to pick up / drop off employees, car share programs, parking being charged for where scarce, getting paid to commute by human power, and more.
Right now it's just a progressive move by some forward thinking companies, but I can see where it could become a necessity for larger employers to do in order to keep the best employees.
What really ticks me off is that the poor will take the brunt of the US failing for 40+ years to have a rational energy policy or sane local development planning. Not subsidizing oil would have left huge amounts of funds for doing something useful with public transit, instead of the junk we have now.
Sounds like some apocalyptic movie set in 2050 and beyond... I can't see the landscape changing that drastically in 5 years.
Where does 2050 come from? Who said 5 years?
Just extrapolate the gas price based on the data of the last 20 years.
The trend predicts the US is looking at sustained $10 per gallon gas in about 2024. $20 per gallon gas in 2032. $30 per gallon gas in 2037.
Long before we get to $30 gas ICE cars will be dead. I don't know when it will happen, but with the trajectory we are on now $30 gas could happen in just 26 years.
I'm simply going on the post I quoted. I stated it sounds like something out of an apocalyptic scenario.., you know, then the moves say this is 50 years or so in the future. I said 5 years because I took the post as saying we'd be at that point by the time blue star came about, if not model s.
You can't see what's in front of your nose?
The 2008 mortgage crisis was exacerbated by near $150/b oil prices. Many owners of new homes suddenly ran out of money, paying off their mortgage and fueling their commuter car. Others resent from buying new homes far away from the city center because they figured prohibitively high commuting cost from the start. The result was an increase of price drop for the new homes - they became unsellable among all the others that had to send in the keys.
And here is another picture of a drastically changed landscape in Joplin:
Heh -- Joplin's problem was a tornado, not rising gasoline prices.
That said, there has been a steady reversal of the "urban flight" trend. Home prices in central Boston have held their own or been going up; prices in places with long commutes into the city are weakening. What's causing the "return to the core?" Greater cultural opportunities, improved public safety, and shorter-and-cheaper commutes.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm just ignorant of the overall picture, but to me it sounds like you're molding the facts to fit your theory. What does the tornado in Joplin have to do with the price of gas? Pretty sure the mortgage crisis had more to do with greedy banks and irresponsible borrowing than people not paying their mortgage to fuel their cars.