Israel and the alternatives for oil

In the real world

Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Granitehewer » Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:12 pm

http://www.azure.org.il/article.php?id=580
Staring Down the Barrel: Israel's Oil Problem
By Eugene Kandel, Netanel Oded

Why the search for alternatives should be a national priority.



Over the last few months, the financial media in Israel and around the world have devoted numerous column inches and substantial airtime to what has become known as the “Qaddafi effect.” After all, not even those who took no particular interest in the dramatic upheavals in the Arab world could avoid the economic ramifications of the civil war in which Libya has been embroiled since February of this year. Having produced, until recently, about 1.6 million barrels of crude oil every day—approximately 2 percent of global consumption—Libya had been among the leading exporters of this valuable resource. The chaos accompanying the ongoing battle between the eccentric tyrant’s army and the Western-backed rebel forces resulted in an immediate jump in oil prices, which in turn led to a rise in the prices of gasoline.1 Qaddafi himself allegedly ordered the destruction of oil fields and refineries in Libyan territory, with the aim of denying his domestic enemies a potential income avenue and wreaking economic havoc on foreign countries that would dare challenge his reign.2
The “Qaddafi effect” is a perfect example of the use of oil as an instrument of political and financial pressure. An earlier—and far more traumatic—example of this phenomenon was the oil embargo imposed on the U.S. for providing aid to Israel in the Yom Kippur War. As part of the embargo, which lasted from October 1973 through March 1974, Arab members of OPEC refused to sell oil to America and other “Israel-friendly” countries, including Holland, Portugal, South Africa, and Rhodesia. Nor were these sanctions the worst of it: By severely limiting oil production, the Arab countries ensured that oil prices quadrupled in just a few weeks—from $3 to a staggering $12 per barrel. Almost overnight, both the U.S. and Western Europe, long accustomed to importing mass quantities of inexpensive crude oil, faced a new reality for which they were woefully unprepared.
This calculated move on the part of Arab oil exporters had a dramatic impact: The Nixon administration was forced to implement a series of emergency measures designed to minimize American oil consumption, including a decrease in work hours, an extension of daylight savings time, a lowering of speed limits, and a restriction of gas-station activity. On the flipside, to avoid being caught off guard again, the Americans also launched a comprehensive program to promote domestic energy independence. Japan and the Western European countries, for their part, began to hoard oil, while simultaneously adopting a more deferential stance toward the Arab position. The message had been heard loud and clear: Support for Israel is not financially advantageous.
Following the diplomatic efforts of the Americans and their intense pressure on Israel to withdraw its forces from territories conquered in Sinai and the Golan Heights, the oil embargo was lifted after a relatively short period of time. The damage it caused was long-lasting, however. The West faced the worst recession it had known since the 1930s, oil prices remained high for almost a decade, and, worst of all, the Arab members of OPEC realized they had at their fingertips a remarkably effective weapon.3 In time, American president Jimmy Carter would declare that the energy crisis of the seventies was the “moral equivalent of war.”4
Over the years, various developed countries that weathered the onslaught of the Arab embargo have experimented with initiatives to reduce their reliance on oil. Yet there is no getting around the fact that a modern lifestyle is based on the massive consumption of gasoline and diesel. It is also the case that this dependence feeds some of the darkest, most fanatical regimes in the world—which also happen to be the most unfriendly to the Jewish state. And though there are other good reasons to seek out alternatives to the use of oil, its role in empowering those who actively seek to destroy the Jewish state is surely enough to make Israel take an active, if not leading, part in the search.


Why do oil exporters enjoy so much political and economic power? Clearly, the answer lies not in any intrinsic value of the “black gold”; there are, after all, far rarer and more expensive goods to be had. If we wish to understand how this natural resource became a strategic asset, we need to pay attention to a different factor—the centralized structure of the oil market.
The root of the problem is the global distribution of oil—or lack thereof. Unlike resources such as coal and natural gas, which are found in many places throughout the world, oil is concentrated in a few specific areas, primarily the Persian Gulf. Indeed, even though large deposits have, over the past four decades, been discovered in countries such as Canada, Brazil, and Norway—and even though Russia has superseded Saudi Arabia as the largest supplier of crude oil,5 the Muslim and Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa still control over one-third of global production. OPEC, of which these countries are all members (along with Venezuela, Angola, Nigeria, and Ecuador), controls approximately 80 percent of the world’s crude oil reserves and 40 percent of production.6 This astounding concentration of economic power has frequently enabled the organization to act as a cartel, influencing the price of oil by determining the scope of production and level of supply.7
In many ways, then, oil is the Middle East’s lifeline, serving as a primary—if not exclusive—source of income for many countries in the region. It is thanks solely to the immense oil fields of the Persian Gulf, for example, that countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates are able to arm themselves with advanced weapons, recruit stronger allies, and hold sway in the international arena. Oil even grants these monarchies and emirates a measure of internal security: The elites that govern them, who enjoy legendary wealth, provide the broader population with valuable social services and, when necessary, spread around huge sums of money, all in order to ensure their continued reign. Just last February, when Saudi king Abdullah sought to safeguard his regime against the uprisings sweeping the Arab world (including his neighbors, Bahrain and Yemen), he announced that he would be bestowing on his subjects social benefits to the tune of about $36 billion.8
To Saudi Arabia’s and the Gulf Emirates’ credit, it should be noted that, despite their anti-democratic stance, they are generally politically moderate, and strive for economic stability. Indeed, Saudi Arabia has long served as the world’s “oil bank”: Boasting the greatest oil reserves after Venezuela,9 it avoids maximum production; as such, it can increase supply (at a scope of about 3 to 3.5 million barrels a day, according to analysts’ estimates10) if the need arises, whether on account of greater demand or a sudden blow to the production capabilities of smaller exporters. And indeed, the Saudis’ promise to make up for the dearth created by Libya’s civil war alleviated the “Qaddafi effect” and stemmed the panic that threatened to seize the market.11
Iran, the fifth-largest exporter of oil in the world, is a different story entirely. Not at all interested in maintaining the strategic status quo, Iran seeks instead to garner geopolitical strength and overthrow the pro-Western forces in the region. Its oil industry, which yields more than half the country’s income, provides it with the means to attempt to realize these goals. Though international sanctions have inflicted no small amount of damage on the Iranian economy, the constant rise in oil prices has enabled Ahmadinejad’s government to enlarge the country’s budget gradually in recent years.12 A large chunk of this budget goes to funding an ambitious nuclear program, arming Hezbollah in Lebanon, aiding terrorist organizations such as Hamas in Gaza, and reinforcing the Revolutionary Guards and internal security forces, which brutally suppress any attempt to challenge the ayatollahs’ oppressive regime.
Yet the Iranian economy has a conspicuous Achilles’ heel: On account of relatively high production costs—a problem not shared by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates13—Iran is particularly sensitive to fluctuations in oil prices. For now, however, it has no reason for concern: The demand for oil continues to rise, on account of both global population growth (which stands at about 1 percent per year) and the rapidly expanding Asian economies. Supply, however, remains limited, and oil production is becoming only more costly with time. All available land deposits have already been discovered, restricting present searches to the depths of the sea, to regions characterized by extreme climates, or to countries suffering from political instability. In light of these obstacles, it is only logical to assume that oil prices will continue to climb in the future, to the great satisfaction of those who were blessed with an abundance of the resource.14
Significantly, Iran also enjoys geographical proximity to the vast Asian market. Oil is, of course, not a virtual product, whose trade is independent of the location of both seller and buyer. Rather, it must be transported, by land or sea, from the production site to a refinery to the consumer. As transporting expenses are considerable, consumers prefer to purchase it from regular suppliers in their vicinity. The world’s largest consumer, the U.S., imports large amounts of oil from its neighbors Canada and Mexico.15 China, the second-largest importer, relies primarily on Saudi Arabia and Iran.16 Due to the growing demand for oil in the Chinese economy—which, according to predictions, will reach approximately 20 million barrels a day by 2020—and the concomitant paucity of import alternatives to Iran, which offers a relatively easy and quick supply, the two countries have tightened their cooperation in this area.17 Another Asian giant cultivating a growing dependence on Iranian supply is India, which will in all probability become the fourth-largest importer of oil in the world by the year 2025—after the U.S., China, and Japan.18
This state of affairs does not bode well for Israel. China is a central player in the global arena, and a burgeoning India will not lag behind for long. Both countries’ addiction to oil serves the strategic interests of the regime in Tehran, and may hinder the efforts of the West and Israel to contain the Iranian nuclear threat through diplomatic and economic sanctions. To be sure, China and India are not interested in perpetuating this reliance; they would much rather achieve energy independence. At this stage, however, they seem content to secure a steady supply of oil from the Persian Gulf.
But the increase in oil prices is worrisome not only from Israel’s and the West’s perspective; it is a problem with global ramifications. It condemns developed countries to an economic slowdown, and their poorer counterparts to genuine catastrophe. Since oil is used not only as gasoline, but also as an important component of chemical fertilizers, its swelling price both inflates the cost of agricultural crops and increases transportation expenses, thereby causing a sharp rise in food prices. With their ability to feed their populations significantly curtailed, developing economies will become susceptible to popular unrest and outbursts of violence—a sure recipe for political and religious radicalization, with the active backing of those anti-democratic countries that control the oil resources in the first place. It is difficult to predict where such processes, in the Middle East or elsewhere, will lead. What is clear, however, is that it would be unwise to sit idly by without searching for a solution.


The geographical distribution of a natural resource is a fait accompli, one that we have no choice but to accept. Yet the strategic value of oil also results, to a great extent, from the fact that when it comes to its main application—transportation—a successful commercial alternative has yet to be found. Oil serves a variety of purposes: In addition to being a source of fuel, it is also a central element in the industries of petrochemicals (plastic) and agriculture (chemical fertilizers). Nevertheless, what makes the broad global use of oil (consumption currently stands at 84 million barrels a day, as of 200919) so dangerously addictive is the absolute dependence on gasoline and diesel for the propulsion of vehicles. Yet this dependence is not irrevocable. A concentrated effort could bring it to an end.
It is important to remember, in this context, that until thirty years ago, oil was considered a vital natural resource for the production of electricity as well. In the early seventies, one-quarter of global electricity was oil-dependent.20 This dependence continued so long as oil prices were relatively low. The 1973 embargo, which darkened houses and disabled factories, put an end to this fool’s paradise; suppliers and consumers were awakened to a reality of uncertainty. The industrialized world, and foremost the U.S., understood that its reliance on oil was incompatible with its need for a stable energy market.
The immediate reaction of the American regulator and his counterparts in other countries that had fallen victim to the energy crisis was a comprehensive attempt to decrease energy consumption through public awareness campaigns and streamlining efforts. These steps were only partially successful, however, and in any event were intended only as stop-gap measures. At the same time, developed countries began to invest substantial resources in the research and development of alternate means of generating electrical power. Before long, these efforts paid off: From the eighties onward, the Western energy sector managed to decrease its reliance on oil dramatically, thanks to the widespread use of power sources such as nuclear fuel, natural gas, coal, and running water. Though these substitutes are not without their problems—the recent disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan is just one alarming example—no one misses the time when the OPEC companies had their fingers on the power switch.
The situation is very different in the transportation sector, where failure to employ a commercial replacement for gasoline and diesel has resulted in a rigid demand for oil. No matter what the price of oil, consumers are forced to purchase it, or find other means of travel. The sad truth is, without a continuous supply of oil, hundreds of millions of vehicles would come to a halt on the world’s roads. The vast majority of modes of transportation—by land, sea, or air—use refined petroleum products as a central source of energy. Each car that leaves the assembly line compatible with only this type of fuel thus becomes, in effect, a hostage of the oil industry.
Like the energy sector, the field of transportation also threw itself into research and development in the 1970s, actively seeking alternatives to oil. This trend was reversed in the 1980s, however, when the steep decline in oil prices made it a cheap, available resource once again. The short-sightedness of investors and governments, which stopped offering incentives for the identification of viable alternatives, led to a loss of the hitherto accumulated knowledge and skill; many researchers and entrepreneurs abandoned the projects they had undertaken in disappointment and anger. Nevertheless, the progress made in this area was considerable, and leaves some room for hope. A compelling example is afforded by Brazil.
As a developing country with a large population and vast territories, Brazil was an avid consumer of oil prior to 1973. The energy crisis that erupted in the wake of the Yom Kippur War sent shock waves throughout the South American country, which determined to put an end to its addiction to petroleum. Yet in contrast to other countries, which settled for securing the independence of the electricity sector, Brazil chose to minimize its reliance on oil in the transportation sector as well. It turned for a solution to another natural resource, this one found in abundance within its borders: sugar cane. Cane yields ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, a chemical that can function as a fuel for an internal combustion engine (much like gasoline). In 1976, Brazil required fuel producers to blend a certain amount of ethanol (10-25 percent) into regular gasoline, thereby curbing oil consumption in a relatively short period of time.
Thanks to the constant and cheap supply of ethanol from Brazil, in 1979 the Fiat car manufacturer presented a groundbreaking model powered solely by this fuel; other companies were quick to follow suit. Brazil’s gas stations were equipped with two different kinds of pumps, one for gasoline blended with ethanol, and the other for pure ethanol. Consumers could calculate the price difference and take it into account when purchasing a car. Not surprisingly, in the mid-1980s, the majority of vehicles purchased in Brazil were customized for ethanol only. Of course, as with every trend, this one, too, suffered from its ups and downs: Near the end of the decade, problems arose with the supply of Brazilian ethanol, whereas oil prices sharply declined. As a result, gasoline-powered cars gained renewed popularity, while the ethanol-adjusted cars all but vanished from the market. The current changed once more in 2003, when Volkswagen launched a vehicle that could be powered by either gasoline or ethanol. The flex-fuel engine allowed consumers to compare gasoline and ethanol prices not only when purchasing a car, but at each and every fueling. The continued rise of oil prices since has induced more and more Brazilians to buy this type of vehicle, and fuel it, in most cases, with ethanol. As of 2008, the vast majority of new cars bought in Brazil were flex-fuel vehicles, with only heavy diesel trucks still using refined petroleum products.21
Ethanol is only one of a variety of biological fuels that can serve as a replacement for oil. Entrepreneurs and researchers are showing increasing interest in “second-generation” biofuels, which originate in agricultural crops that are not suitable for human consumption. In principle, it is possible to mass-produce such biofuels in areas not used for agriculture, whether on account of the terrain or the climate. At the same time, researchers are hard at work producing biofuels from organic waste, algae, and other raw materials that can be processed without detracting from other needs.22
There are also considerable advantages to synthetic chemical fuels that are not oil derivatives. The price of these fuels, which are based on gas, coal, and other substances, is lower than that of refined petroleum products. Cars powered by the synthetic fuel methanol and by natural gas are already on the roads, even competing in races.23 And of course, natural gas is a considerably more common resource than oil, is more equally distributed globally, and—as we are now discovering—is found in abundance in Israel’s maritime area.24
Important as the search for alternative fuels might be, a radical shift in the car’s propulsion system may render it almost irrelevant. In recent years, the electric car has gone from being a promising idea to a very tangible reality. Neither this vehicle nor the infrastructure that supports it require any oil. Transportation based on electric propulsion is more energy-efficient and, no less significant, does not spew enormous amounts of pollutants into the air. As electricity-producing technologies become more advanced, as well as cheaper and cleaner, this alternative will become increasingly appealing both economically and environmentally.25
Let us be clear: None of the abovementioned solutions are ideal, nor are any of them universally applicable. Brazil, which cultivates large sugar cane plantations, enjoys an abundance of ethanol, but it is doubtful whether widespread use of this biofuel is appropriate for countries with a different climate. Electric cars may flourish in an urban environment thanks to short driving distances and a multitude of charging stations, but it is unlikely that they could be used efficiently in rural areas that lack the necessary infrastructure. Keeping these limitations in mind, it would be more realistic to expect the market to offer a variety of solutions and allow consumers to opt for the alternative that best suits their needs.
But the road to this rather optimistic scenario is long, and not without its pitfalls. The rigid demand for refined petroleum products is not the only problem; the complexity of the transportation market also encumbers its change. All that was needed to change the energy sector radically was a decision on the part of suppliers, who control a variety of sources and facilities, to replace the means of production. In the transportation sector, by contrast, such a step would require a great deal of coordination. Understandably, no one would agree to invest in the industrial production of alternative fuel sources without knowing with a high degree of certainty that consumers would be able to purchase a car suited to that fuel at a competitive price; that gas-station owners would be willing to supply the product; and that it would be possible to transport the fuel from the refinery to the pump.
Clearly, a change of this scope could not take place without comprehensive preparation and close coordination between all active players in the transportation industry: car companies, fuel producers, gas-station operators, and government regulators. Above all, however, the intense investment necessary to make such an ambitious plan work demands patience and long-term vision—hardly characteristics common among the parties involved, particularly those of the private sector. The willingness of this sector to actively seek alternatives to oil is determined, to a great extent, by the state of the market: When oil prices are high, entrepreneurs and businessmen are prone to be more daring, investing resources in research funds and experimental scientific projects. But when the trend is reversed, and the oil market once again seems attractive, the men of means tend to abandon the men of vision.
Unfortunately, such economic and political short-sightedness is delaying a development that could prove extremely beneficial to the lion’s share of humanity. The widespread application of technologies that diminish the need for oil would set a price limit on it, and curb the power and influence of the countries that produce it. A market in which such technologies were put into practice would offer new opportunities to countries not endowed with immense oil fields but otherwise blessed with crops, coal deposits, natural gas, and perhaps the most valuable of resources—a spirit of innovation and human creativity. Finally, ending the oil addictions will serve the global effort to minimize air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Thus do the economic, political, and environmental interests of billions of people converge here perfectly.


It is no secret that the Jewish state is one of the primary casualties of the world’s dependence on oil, which strengthens those countries whose attitude toward Israel ranges from cool hostility to vocal hatred. Israel, then, has a vested interest in doing everything in its power to assist the global search for oil alternatives, and to reduce the world’s reliance on petroleum.
Let us be clear: It is in Israel’s interest to limit the price of oil, not to destroy the industry altogether. The collapse of the Gulf’s main source of income would wreak havoc, and may well serve extremist elements—thereby only aggravating the tension between Israel and its neighbors. However, a stabilization of oil prices at $40 to $50 per barrel—about half of the present price—would cause no serious harm to the relatively moderate countries, like Saudi Arabia, whose petroleum production is quite inexpensive. Iran, on the other hand, would suffer a huge economic blow, which would threaten not only the current regime’s ambitions, but also its very survival.
Such a scenario would undoubtedly benefit others besides Israel. Nevertheless, though many other countries would derive tremendous benefits from the lowering of oil prices, their hands are tied as a result of both internal and external pressures. It is in this regard that Israel enjoys a significant advantage: As opposed to the U.S., China, India, or Britain, it has no powerful and well-connected oil companies that can influence the corridors of power and sway public opinion. On the contrary, the discovery of immense deposits of natural gas off Israel’s coast has only heightened the state’s interest in promoting this alternative to oil. On this subject, a national consensus exists in Israel—to which the political system, the business elite, government officials, and the general public are all party.
Absent an oil lobby, the Israeli authorities can take a resolute and consistent stand, as well as support significant initiatives in the field. Indeed, in January of this year, the government decided to launch an ambitious multi-year program whose goal is to promote “technologies to reduce the global use of oil in transportation.” The program—described, not for nothing, as a “national effort”—includes, among other things, generous funding for scientific research, incentives for investment in local companies developing oil alternatives, a scheme for implementing these alternatives in Israel as a preliminary application site, and cooperation with multinational organizations and countries seeking to reduce oil dependency, such as China and India.26
In many ways, then, Israel, for all its limitations, is the ideal platform for this type of project. The country’s scarcity of agricultural lands and its existing industrial infrastructure do not allow for the mass growth of biofuels or mass production of synthetic fuels; giants such as China, Brazil, or the U.S. are much better prepared to fill this role. Israel’s strength lies instead in its intellectual resources: Israeli academia has trained world-renowned researchers who specialize in the relevant fields, and the Israeli market is teeming with large industrial clusters relying on quality human resources and advanced knowledge. The defense, chemical, bio-agricultural, software, and electronics industries can all take part in the combined and coordinated effort to develop applicable alternatives to oil. Attesting to the local potential is the fact that some sixty Israeli companies, with hundreds of millions of dollars in investments, were working in this field even before the government’s decision to prioritize it.
The benefits Israel stands to gain from the global economy’s liberation from its chronic dependence on oil cannot be overstated. Such a dramatic change not only would create a new geopolitical environment in the Middle East, one that would be—we may hope—more genial for Israel, but would also highlight the Jewish state’s strength as a rich source of creativity and scientific and technological innovation. Is there any greater realization of the Zionist vision?


Eugene Kandel is the head of the National Economic Council in the Prime Minister’s Office and a faculty member in the department of economics and the school of business at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Netanel Oded is an economist with the National Economic Council in the Prime Minister’s Office.
PTLLS (Tees Achieve), DipHE App Bio (Northumbria), BSc Psychology (Teesside), Comparative Planetology (LJMU), High Energy Astrophysics (LJMU), Mobile Robotics/Physics (Swinburne), Genetics (SAC), Quant Meths (SAC)
https://www.facebook.com/PeterBrayshay
User avatar
Granitehewer
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:03 am
Location: Teesside, England

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Tyyr » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:10 pm

There are some alternate technologies out there but the best options require some major infrastructure re-tooling.

First off, most biofuels, plant derived ones, require as much if not more energy input to convert them to fuels than you get out of them. Our corn derived ethanol right now is one of the worst as you'd be more environmentally friendly just burning gas and not making ethanol at all. There are other options but first off the US politicans are so obssessed with the midwest vote they dare not end corn subsidies. Secondly some of the better options out there are technically classified as invasive species and the EPA won't let them be planted. The transformative technology in biofuels will be a commercially viable way to convert the bulk green plant matter into fuel and not just the starch or sugar rich portions. Methanol is a nice idea but something to remember when you start considering using it is that the energy density is lower than gasoline. A gallon of methanol will not take you as far as a gallon of gasoline. Methanol is also mainly produced currently using natural gas meaning its not carbon neutral and the current price of methanol is not indicative of where it would be if a purely biological source is used for it.

Gas powered vehicles, as in some variation of natural gas or hydrogen, are worse in that the energy density of these fuels is abysmal and the only way to carry enough to make it worthwhile is to pressurize the tank tank to 10,000 psi. A ~20 gallon tank pressurized to 10,000 psi represents a tremendous amount of energy. To save weight this tank is often made of something like carbon fiber. And it's put into the back end of a car that when in an accident will turn much of that metallic chassis into deformed, and sharp, bits of metal being thrust around with great force. With a 10,000 psi container sitting right in the middle of it all. Ok, but beyond the safety concern of a full tank of fuel being a small bomb in your trunk where can you get hydrogen or natural gas. Well, first off natural gas should probably be right out. It's still not carbon neutral and if we're going to go to all this trouble why the fuck would we just go to another fossil fuel? So hydrogen right? Well... not really. You see most of the hydrogen in the world today is a byproduct of the oil refining process. It's also not nearly enough to supply a hydrogen fueled economy. So what's your best option for bulk hydrogen? Electrolosis from water, sea water being the better option just in terms of quantity. And this is where the hydrogen economy falls apart. Because you need electricity, lots of it, to electrolyze that much water. Even the best electrolysis methods are only in the neighborhood of 70% efficent. You put in a megawatt of electricty and you get out enough hydrogen to make 700 kilowatts, roughly. We're not done yet. Now that you have that hydrogen you have to move it. Hydrogen is the least dense substance in the universe. Literally. In order to move it in bulk quantities you have to compress it. That eats up even more electricity and you can't burn any of it. When you finally get it to a car You're already taking a huge hit just in parasitic load to make it all work. Now you've got two options. Burn the hydrogen in an internal combustin engine, or use it to power a fuel cell. Buring it is frankly stupid. With hydrogen's low energy density the effecinecy is horrible and your range is crap. You have to utilize an even bigger tank, at higher pressures to make it work. Your second option is a fuel cell which is much improved over just burning it. About twice as efficent actually. In the end though your total system efficency from electrolysis to a fuel cell vehicle is only about 25%, that means your powerplants are producing four times the energy your vehicles need just because of system inefficencies. A system you're going to have to build from scratch by the way as there is no way to produce, transport, and distribute bulk hydrogen currently. You'll need new production facilities, new transport pipelines, have everyone buy new cars and to redo all the filling stations out there. There is a way to hit 85% efficency though and with the current infrastructure only having to replace the cars.

That's by cutting out the middle man. Instead of wasting all that time and energy converting sea water into hydrogen just put the electricity straight into the damn cars. "Oh but batteries, and ohh but range, ohhh but charge times!" Look, you're not getting out of this with a direct gasoline car replacement. You're not. There's a reason we've used gasoline for more than a century. It's a great fuel, energy dense, easy to transport, easy to use. All your other options are giving away something in some area. Accept it and move on. That said, you don't have to give up a lot with modern EV's. Range? Well how far do you drive your personal vehicle on a given day? For most people it's under 50 miles. Modern EV's have ranges in the 200 mile range or more. In other words most people could drive one all week on a single charge. If you charge them up each night you're pretty much covered even for longer trips or odd days. Performance? Largely indistinguishable from conventional cars aside from being very quiet. So what's the big issue, electricity. Well there's good news and meh news. Meh news, charge times. With no changes to your house, just a wall mounted charger or worse just plugging into a 110v wall socket you can charge all night and only get enough juice for ~50 miles or so of travel. Depending on battery composition and charging technology you can charge faster but that's more capital to sink into your vehicle. Now, if battery powered cars go from curiosities to a standard there are many other charging options out there. For instance employers could include charging stations as a benefit. That's eight hours of charging right there and then another 12 or more at home at night. An EV charging station is little more than a pole with an electrical socket on it. Inductance charging removes the need to even plug the car in though you do introduce some inefficencies into the system. To cut the discussion short, electricity is easy to move around and the current grid supports it. Though more towards charging at night. How "green" are electric vehicles? Well that depends on how green your power supplier is. Ideally you'd pair up EV's to nuclear power plants for maximum "green"-ness. Cost? Well they're not cheap but when you consider that you don't have to build an entirely new infrastructure to support them it's not as hard to swallow. Also battery packs aren't cheap but when you consider driving distance on them and how cheap their fuel is the total cost of battery pack replacement is on par or a bit cheaper than current US gas prices.

So, the TL;DR version is this, we don't need to transformative technologies. We've already got the solution. It's just a matter of moving forward with it. You want to tell OPEC to go fuck themselves? Go electric.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Tsukiyumi » Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:32 pm

Or, just use water.

I'm curious to see where this ends up. Probably in the warehouse from Raiders of the Lost Ark.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 21694
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Tyyr » Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:40 pm

Yeah... that's sort of falling under the hydrogen issue. Namely it's just more efficent to put the electricity right into a car rather than going through this process.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Graham Kennedy » Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:14 pm

I don't think we're really going to do anything big until we have to. As the article itself points out, there's a reason we use oil - it's just a fantastic choice for a fuel. Whilst it's still there, there's really no impetus to go around building a whole hydrogen fuel infrastructure, or even to perform the modifications required to support electric cars. There are political advantages to cutting our oil use, but the fact is that the world has been able to ensure the supplies flow out of there for decade after decade, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

Naturally we'll need all this in place when the oil starts running out - a point which people have been saying is has been 30-40 years in the future for at least the last 40 years. But when oil runs low and the price skyrockets, that will be exactly the kind of impetus we need to get everyone to pony up for hydrogen or electric or whatever. I really don't see any major changes happening until then.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8213
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Tyyr » Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:22 pm

That's the problem, by the time things get bad it's already too late. Hydrogen, pointless as it is, requires an entirely new infrastructure to be built that would take decades to fully implement. Electric cars are easier as off-hours charging can support a very large number of electric vehicles but to really do it properly you need something besides coal or natural gas plants making the electricty. Again, that takes time to build and put in service.

The smart thing to do would be to begin moving on it now but then again as a group humans don't tend to do the smart thing, ie. politics.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Graham Kennedy » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:45 pm

We're at the stage now where companies are playing around with the alternatives, feeling out which one will be the most viable. When new technology rolls out there are often the ones that never quite made it - the Betamax that fell where the VHS succeeded. Nobody wants to spend a hundred billion building infrastructure for electric cars, only to then find out it's money wasted because the answer turns out to be hydrogen.

I suspect when oil starts to run dry the answer will become clear and you'll see investment on a massive scale and infrastructure springing up like you wouldn't believe. These companies are very rich after all, and the situation then will be one in which we have the solution and whoever spends the most and builds the fastest will have a chance to reap the greatest rewards. That's a way stronger motivation than "you should do this, because thirty years from now there's gonna be a problem and this might possibly be the solution..."
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8213
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Vic » Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:52 am

I've always had a problem with the whole "no infrastructure" argument. It's a good thing that the original oil companies didn't fall down and whine that they "don't have the infrastructure". They acquired the money and went out and built the needed infrastructure, instead of playing "oh me helpless" game.

I fully agree that electric is the way to go, until there is a whole new paradigm for energy storage we can only make incremental increases in efficiency though. Until that point we are going to take a hit, short of nuclear energy. Until the world gets over it's knee jerk reaction to anything with the words "nuclear" or "atomic" in it we are just going to accept that hit.
God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.
.................................................Billy Currington
Vic
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:20 am
Location: Tucson Az

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby IanKennedy » Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:07 pm

Tyyr wrote:That's the problem, by the time things get bad it's already too late. Hydrogen, pointless as it is, requires an entirely new infrastructure to be built that would take decades to fully implement. Electric cars are easier as off-hours charging can support a very large number of electric vehicles but to really do it properly you need something besides coal or natural gas plants making the electricty. Again, that takes time to build and put in service.

The smart thing to do would be to begin moving on it now but then again as a group humans don't tend to do the smart thing, ie. politics.

The massive problem with electric cars is the range. The go a certain distance an then stop. Once stopped they then refuse go any further for a very long time. It kinda like going back to the days of horses, if you want to continue your journey you have to change horse, or let the horse rest. At least with hydrogen you can simply fill up again and on you go. I can't see the infrastructure being a massive issue either. There are plenty of "gas" stations (we call them petrol stations here) that could easily be adapted to to support hydrogen as well as petrol. I've seen the working car and filling process demonstrated and it's not really any different from petrol.
email, ergo spam
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:26 pm

Yeah, I think it's not so much the range as such as it is the recharge time. Electric car proponents like to point out that few journeys are more than 30 miles or so, so a car with a 50-100 mile range isn't that bad. But when I run out of diesel I can pull over and refuel within the space of a couple of minutes, whereas for an electric car I have to pull over and leave it on charge for most of a day. Even if they can increase the energy capacity of the current batteries, it won't help that much unless they can reduce the recharge time by tenfold or so.

I've wondered before if they couldn't have a standardised battery, and have a rack of them sitting on charge at each garage. You pull in and yank your battery out, stick it in the charging rack, then pull a charged one and stick it in your car. In theory it could work, so long as the garage has enough batteries in the stockpile. But then the batteries would have to be small and light enough to be lifted and carried, which at present they aren't.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8213
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Captain Seafort » Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:42 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:I've wondered before if they couldn't have a standardised battery, and have a rack of them sitting on charge at each garage. You pull in and yank your battery out, stick it in the charging rack, then pull a charged one and stick it in your car. In theory it could work, so long as the garage has enough batteries in the stockpile. But then the batteries would have to be small and light enough to be lifted and carried, which at present they aren't.


They'd also have to make the replacement process close enough to idiot-proof that the average individual could a) perform the task and b) do so without risking killing or injuring themselves or someone else. Filling a car with liquid isn't exactly rocket science, and you still get plenty of people filling a diesel with petrol or vice-versa.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14998
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Tsukiyumi » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:29 pm

Tesla motors has recently at least partially solved the charging time issue.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 21694
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby IanKennedy » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:53 pm

Tsukiyumi wrote:Tesla motors has recently at least partially solved the charging time issue.

That's a bit light on details. It takes an hour to charge enough for 150 miles. That would still be an issue for a trip that I used to do a lot. Oxford to Liverpool was 200 miles each way. I would get there in 2 to 4 hours, depending upon traffic. Having to stop for a hole hour in the middle is nasty. You've also got to wonder how may cars could be charged at one time. The M6 on a bank holiday weekend would have 10,000 cars on it. I can't see it being practical to keep every one queueing up for an hour. It was bad enough when it was 1 minute. Solar power in California may be practical but I can't see it working in the UK.
email, ergo spam
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Mikey » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:21 am

Tsukiyumi wrote:Tesla motors has recently at least partially solved the charging time issue.


Tesla? Sure... that's like saying that the Aston-Martin DB9 has solved the acceleration issue for the typical American coupe buyer. A Tesla Motors car doesn't come with an auto loan, it comes with a mortgage.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33132
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Israel and the alternatives for oil

Postby Tsukiyumi » Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:25 pm

If you own a Tesla car, the charge is free, but for any other EV, there's a fee. You could still use these stations with a Chevy Volt, say.

Ian - It said half an hour for a 150 mile charge, but it is still a bit of a wait. It's substantially better than previous charge times, though.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 21694
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!

Next

Return to Politics and Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests