Oil prices will never return to $100 a barrel

[audreyh1]

Well, there is this old inventor named Goodenough who may have the answer: A high energy density, noncombustible, fast charging battery made from common material. And he invented the lithium battery, so has some credibility. Good enough Mr. Goodenough.

Hacker News

Yeah - 94 years old and he's still going. He is the original inventor of the lithium-ion battery too!

 

[NW-Bound]

The current lithium battery is plenty good already. The price is also reasonable. We need it to last longer. Or if the lifetime is the same, if it can be made a lot cheaper that would also help.

 

[ERD50]

.... Once battery tech and means to make electricity catch up with the electric motors, then the true revolution will happen. ....

Well, there is this old inventor named Goodenough who may have the answer: A high energy density, noncombustible, fast charging battery made from common material. And he invented the lithium battery, so has some credibility. Good enough Mr. Goodenough.

Hacker News

Interesting, and while better batteries will help improve the cost/size/weight/life for an EV, it can't do much to change those energy efficiency numbers.

As mentioned, motors and batteries are already in the 90% plus area for efficiency, so there really just isn't much room for improvement there. Smaller, lighter batteries will help an EV get a few more miles on a charge, but this is all minor and incremental.

Also, as I've mentioned before in other threads, adding EV charging to the grid means we need to generate additional electricity to charge those EVs. Any grids with renewable energy available uses it first, as there is no additional fuel cost for that power (wind, solar, etc). And some US grids have goals of getting to 50% renewable in the next 15 years or so. But even at 50%, that's it, there is no extra to charge a fleet of EVs, they will be using all that 50% (some minor exceptions I'll detail in a moment). So even at 50% renewable grid, a fleet of EVs will require added power, and the renewable is used - so we are looking to fire up Nat Gas turbines, or maybe keep a coal plant running a little higher level through the night. So those EVs are running mostly on fossil fuel, even on a very clean grid.

The exception - if we have a lot of wind power, and since wind is on average stronger at night, and demand is down, there could be excesses from time to time, and this could cleanly recharge EVs. However, if you look at the numbers, it seems unlikely that that amount of excess would be there on a regular basis, so you still need those fossil plants available for the low and moderate wind nights. It becomes self limiting - if you have so much wind power to have regular excesses to match EV demand on moderate/low wind nights, then you will have a lot of excess on those above average (but still common) wind nights. That is energy they can't sell, raising the effective cost of all that wind power.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

... if you look at the numbers, it seems unlikely that that amount of excess would be there on a regular basis...

That is always true, unless we have nearly infinite storage.

Look at water for example. California is hit with a deluge of rain, and I just read that it now has an impressive snowpack. And all this comes after a few years of drought. There's no room left to build reservoir to store all that water.

Mother Nature can be very mean. "Green" stuff is not that easy to make use of, contrary to what appears on the surface.

 

[Tetto]

Interesting, and while better batteries will help improve the cost/size/weight/life for an EV, it can't do much to change those energy efficiency numbers.

As mentioned, motors and batteries are already in the 90% plus area for efficiency, so there really just isn't much room for improvement there. Smaller, lighter batteries will help an EV get a few more miles on a charge, but this is all minor and incremental.

Also, as I've mentioned before in other threads, adding EV charging to the grid means we need to generate additional electricity to charge those EVs. Any grids with renewable energy available uses it first, as there is no additional fuel cost for that power (wind, solar, etc). And some US grids have goals of getting to 50% renewable in the next 15 years or so. But even at 50%, that's it, there is no extra to charge a fleet of EVs, they will be using all that 50% (some minor exceptions I'll detail in a moment). So even at 50% renewable grid, a fleet of EVs will require added power, and the renewable is used - so we are looking to fire up Nat Gas turbines, or maybe keep a coal plant running a little higher level through the night. So those EVs are running mostly on fossil fuel, even on a very clean grid.

The exception - if we have a lot of wind power, and since wind is on average stronger at night, and demand is down, there could be excesses from time to time, and this could cleanly recharge EVs. However, if you look at the numbers, it seems unlikely that that amount of excess would be there on a regular basis, so you still need those fossil plants available for the low and moderate wind nights. It becomes self limiting - if you have so much wind power to have regular excesses to match EV demand on moderate/low wind nights, then you will have a lot of excess on those above average (but still common) wind nights. That is energy they can't sell, raising the effective cost of all that wind power.

-ERD50

The only true "clean' source is to go totally nuclear to provide unlimited, cheap electricity. That would be a game changer. But try to build a new nuclear power plant...go ahead and try it! It would take 20 years to get through the permitting process. Perhaps solar, wind, water/wave powered electrolysis to crack the H2 out of water, then burn the H2 in IC engines. Water vapor and heat are the by products of hydrogen combustion. Its not an easy problem to solve.

 

[ERD50]

More 'fun' with numbers - I got curious about comparing an ~ 90% electrical power to motion of an EV motor to an ICE. How efficient is an ICE on average in a car running at highway speeds?

This is rough, and I'm looking for ratios mostly, so just ballpark numbers:

A Nissan Leaf has 24 kWh batter and gets ~ 75 miles on charge. If we assume it could travel that far cruising at 55 mph, that comes to 0.320 kwh /mile (this is just battery draw, no other losses factored in).

An ICE getting 30 mpg at 55 mph would use 1/20th gallon per mile, and a gallon of gas contains 33.41 kWh of energy, so 1.114 kWh per mile.

That's a 3.480 ratio ICE energy consumption to/ EV energy consumption (from battery). If we assume the EV is getting 90% conversion efficiency, that computes to around 25.9% efficiency for the ICE.

I think that is a reasonable, back of the envelope view that matches with the kind of numbers I've heard thrown around?

Now this is where I think serial hybrid vehicles will surpass pure EVs. With a true serial hybrid, an engine just runs full power on, charging the batteries until full, then shutting down until the battery is getting low. The car only needs a small set of batteries, range isn't an issue, you just need enough to get the acceleration you want.

This means the engine can be optimized to run at one speed and one load. And here's a technology that approaches diesel engine efficiencies (which can be > 50% in practice), with emissions in line, or lower than current gas engines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneous_charge_compression_ignition

HCCI engines are fuel-lean, they can operate at diesel-like compression ratios (>15), thus achieving 30% higher efficiencies than conventional SI gasoline engines.

One of the problems is getting it to run reliably at different speeds and loads, but that's not an issue with a series hybrid. And with a small battery pack, you aren't losing all the battery charge/discharge cycle - some of the power will go straight to the motor, especially at constant highway speeds.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

I remember reading about the concept of the serial hybrid engine configuration during the energy crisis of the late 70s. That's 40 years ago. It was probably kicked around long before that. There has to be some reasons it did not catch on.

 

[ERD50]

I remember reading about the concept of the serial hybrid engine configuration during the energy crisis of the late 70s. That's 40 years ago. It was probably kicked around long before that. There has to be some reasons it did not catch on.

There are many serial hybrids around now (Chevy Volt being one, all the plug-in hybrids) - they just aren't 'pure' serial hybrids, as they use the engine somewhat in parallel with the motors. That's done, because direct drive avoids the charge/discharge losses.

But I think some of these potential designs that are optimized to run at a set speed/power can overcome that. Those technologies were not available 40 years ago, but might be possible with modern techniques.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

What I meant was the true serial hybrid with a constant-speed generator design to maximize the efficiency of the combustion engine.

 

[ERD50]

What I meant was the true serial hybrid with a constant-speed generator design to maximize the efficiency of the combustion engine.

There actually were some in the early 1900's. I've talked about this one before (WrightSpeed - from a co-founder of Tesla), they seem to be getting more pilot runs out there:

Turbine-Electric Hybrid Trash Truck Deployed - Top News - Green Fleet - Top News - Government Fleet

Electric Is The Future For Semis, Garbage Trucks And Buses - Newsy Story

Mack Trucks go electric with the help of Tesla co-founder - eeDesignIt.com

Here, the turbine engine provides the generator, it has much lower emissions than the diesel equivalent, and lower maintenance. But even he says that the lower efficiency means it doesn't make sense now for long haul trucking.

Trains don't seem to worry about the losses - diesel-electric drive has been standard for decades. But they have other requirements, they would need a crazy transmission to go from start-up to run speed, and it's easier to get power to all those wheels with wires and motors than drive shafts.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

Thanks. I was not aware of these. Looks like they are all larger vehicles in order to justify the higher cost.

 

[ERD50]

Right, and it's the right thing to do. You get a lot more payback from a truck that runs 8-12 hours a day, instead of a private vehicle maybe running maybe 1 hour a day.

Plus, that big truck gets something like 3 mpg, it uses a lot of fuel, so any improvement saves a lot of fuel. Improving the mpg of a car that already gets 20-30 mpg doesn't save many gallons per year.

Here's a good interview with Ian Wright:

-ERD50

 

[haha]

About the original assertion that oil prices will never again reach $100, although this may be true, IMO it would be a very risky bet. Things have a way of refusing to stay within the bounds of an individual's current imagining.

Ha

 

[Nemo2]

About the original assertion that oil prices will never again reach $100, although this may be true, IMO it would be a very risky bet. Things have a way of refusing to stay within the bounds of an individual's current imagining.

Ha

+1

 

[NW-Bound]

"Oil prices will never again reach $100".

Never is a long time. On the other hand, I do not know when it will pick up again. Hence, I do not bet either way. Speaking of investments, right now I have only a bit of the more benign energy stocks, so that I will not forget about this sector. It may be dead money for a while.

 

[VFK57]

About the original assertion that oil prices will never again reach $100, although this may be true, IMO it would be a very risky bet. Things have a way of refusing to stay within the bounds of an individual's current imagining.

Ha

Here is a warning it worth to take a look at
IEA warns of potential shortage of global oil supplies in 3 years - MarketWatch

 

[Totoro]

That number of 75 mpg applies to a diesel version of the Peugeot 308. I have never driven a diesel car, but that seems awfully good too.

You should count on 45 to 35 mpg.