There aren’t enough batteries to electrify all cars — focus on trucks and buses instead

Garbage trucks, buses and the van that delivers your Amazon purchases are all prime candidates for electrification. (Shutterstock)

Cameron Roberts, Carleton University

We need to change our transportation system, and we need to do it quickly.

Road transportation is a major consumer of fossil fuels, contributing 16 per cent of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, which warm up the Earth’s atmosphere and cause changes to the climate. It also pollutes the air, threatening health and costing taxpayers billions of dollars annually.

At the same time, electric vehicles are getting cheaper, and vehicle range and the availability of charging stations are improving. This is exciting for many because it seems to suggest an easy and convenient answer to the problem of transportation emissions: if everyone swapped their fossil-fuelled vehicle for an electric equivalent, we could all keep driving, safe in the knowledge that we are no longer killing the planet by doing so — and all while enjoying a new car that is quiet, cheap to power and fun to drive.

Everybody wins, right? Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to be that simple.

The battery supply crunch

Electric vehicles still produce air pollution and greenhouse gases from their brakes, tires, the electricity that powers them and the factories that build them. Even if we can address (or ignore) these problems, there is a much larger stumbling block facing personal electric vehicles as a solution for climate change.

In 2019, the world produced about 160 gigawatt hours (GWh) of lithium-ion batteries. That’s enough for a little more than three million standard-range Tesla Model 3s — and only if we use those batteries for cars, and don’t build any smart-phones, laptops or grid storage facilities.

The battery production capacity currently under construction will allow the production of the equivalent of 40 million electric vehicles annually by 2028, according to one estimate.

An electric car being charged in a parking lot.
Battery production could increase to cover 40 million electric vehicles annually by 2028, but there are over one billion vehicles on roads today. (Shutterstock)

That sounds like a lot until you see that the world produced nearly 100 million cars, vans, buses and trucks in 2019 alone. There are around 1.4 billion motor vehicles in the world today — a number that will almost certainly continue to increase if we don’t take major steps to shift transportation onto other modes.

Even at the projected 2028 level of battery production capacity, it would take us 35 years to replace this global vehicle fleet with electric models. That’s not nearly fast enough to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Maximizing climate impact

The unavoidable conclusion is that we will not be able to electrify all of our transportation in the timeframe necessary to deal with climate change. Some journeys will have to be decarbonized through other means, such as cycling, walking, public transit or telecommuting.

A bike and three electric scooters on the street
Electric scooters could help cities move towards zero-carbon mobility. (Shutterstock)

Lithium-ion batteries should therefore go primarily to vehicles intended for long distances or large cargo loads. Garbage trucks, buses, pickup trucks used by skilled tradespeople to get to job sites and the van that delivers your Amazon purchases are all prime candidates for electrification.

That Nissan Leaf you’ve been eyeing, unfortunately is not. You can probably travel on a bicycle or a city bus much more easily than a truckload of power tools, parcels or municipal waste can.

A win-win scenario

There are a lot of side benefits to focusing on commercial vehicles for electrification. Currently, these vehicles often burn diesel, which produces 100 times more particulate pollution than gasoline vehicles.

Diesel vehicles were responsible for approximately 83 per cent of all deaths due to air pollution from road vehicles in 2015, according to the World Health Organization. Diesel freight vehicles also tend to be noisy — a problem that is almost entirely eliminated by going electric.

A futuristic electric truck on a highway near a city
Replacing diesel-powered transport trucks with electric ones could cut noise, air pollution and carbon emissions. (Shutterstock)

For us in Canada, perhaps the greatest benefit to a focus on electrifying the commercial vehicle fleet is that several companies here are already emerging as leaders in developing and building them. Lion Electric, in Saint-Jérôme, Que., makes electric buses, trucks and school buses. New Flyer, based in Winnipeg, has already sold electric transit buses to several major American cities.

And Green Jobs Oshawa has already developed a plan to convert the Oshawa General Motors facility to the produce electric vehicles for the Canadian public sector. Our car sector is struggling, but a focus on building commercial electric vehicles could bring jobs back to this area in a big way.

There’s no way around it: We need fewer cars

As for the rest of us, the solution to zero-carbon mobility looks much more like a bike, a bus seat, a home office, a mobility scooter or a well-worn pair of shoes than a shiny new Tesla.

Some of these solutions can still take advantage of electric mobility without straining the global battery budget. With just over five per cent of 2019’s lithium-ion battery production, for example, there would be enough batteries to provide an Urban Machina electric scooter to every Canadian.

There is already talk of a federal government bail-out of the Canadian car industry, with stakeholders suggesting that this could be an opportunity to encourage the development of electric vehicle production in Canada.

If the government wants to do this in a way that has the greatest impact on the climate, it should look beyond supporting fancy personal vehicles, and turn its attention instead to the unglamorous workhorses that make our society function.

Cameron Roberts, Researcher in Sustainable Transportation, Carleton University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

1 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

206 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chaamjamal
August 9, 2020 5:36 am

Indian Yogi shares his inner wisdom on climate action. He says it boils down to this:

We have to cut back on population growth.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/08/09/yogic-mysticism-climate-change/

MarkW
Reply to  Chaamjamal
August 9, 2020 8:58 am

“We have to cut back on population growth.”

We are, and have been for the last 100 years or so.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
August 13, 2020 6:57 am

True, if by “we” you mean the wealthy (mostly “western”) nations that got wealthy via the use of cheap fossil-fuel derived energy. Not so much for the poorer areas of the world that don’t have much available cheap energy.

What we have to do is not “cut back on population growth” but raise up the poorer areas of the world with abundant cheap energy (IE fossil fuels). “Reducing population growth” will then take care of itself. And plants the world over will be a lot healthier for it.

Russell
August 9, 2020 5:46 am

The phase “… safe in the knowledge …” is a dead giveaway in this clueless propaganda.
So patronising of a University collective to suggest folks are, somehow, “safe” with their biased knowledge.
It’s really asymmetrical power and completely unsafe. And the banks were reamed over this recently.
Here is a classic example of bullying their researchers with an unchallengable narrative.
The energy requirements for heavy transport (and aircraft) are way out of any modern battery capability.
And, I venture, will continue to be for the next 50 years. But I won’t be around to gloat.
Fossil fuels can release massive amount of energy from a very compact volume compared to batteries.
Light transport can only just cope without having “charge anxiety” – imagine a truckie or pilot ??
Is some, Elec, Mech or Chem professor going to speak up about how unrealistic this idea is?
No – I guess they need to stick on-message to keep their jobs.

Prjindigo
August 9, 2020 5:54 am

get rid of buses and rip useless housing out of the way for trollys.

use diesel for trucks, the power needed is far more efficient in diesel than in any other form

use batteries for cars and start making them much lighter: a lighter car uses less rubber and asphault, it kills less

Limit all battery cars to 50mph

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Prjindigo
August 9, 2020 6:38 am

“all while enjoying a new car that is quiet, cheap to power and fun to drive.”
Obviously this person has never driven an American Muscle Car. Loud, powerful and really fun to drive.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 10, 2020 7:59 am

I love the way the proto-totalitarian just declares that we need to limit all passenger cars to 50mph.
I know that he said limit battery cars to 50mph, but in the paragraph above he declared that all passenger cars need to be battery powered.

Reply to  Prjindigo
August 9, 2020 1:27 pm

The lighter you make a car the more vulnerable it is in a crash with another, heavier vehicle.

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 10, 2020 7:55 am

Even if you crash a lighter car into another lighter car, or crash a lighter car into a fixed barrier, the lighter car is still deadlier.

Reply to  Prjindigo
August 9, 2020 4:30 pm

Try that, and I’ll only own trucks (or SUVs, since they are counted as trucks)..
And if I get in a smash-up with your lighter car, you will quickly see the error in your thinking. Driving fifty instead of seventy would turn a ten hour trio into a fourteen hour journey. That’s not going to happen.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Prjindigo
August 9, 2020 6:33 pm

“a lighter car uses less rubber and asphault, it kills less”

In a crash, a lighter car is deadlier to those inside it.

MarkW
Reply to  Roger Knights
August 10, 2020 8:00 am

If lighter cars are so much better, why does he want to force cars to use batteries?

MarkW
Reply to  Prjindigo
August 10, 2020 7:54 am

Actual, real world data, shows that lighter cars kill more, not less.

MarkW
Reply to  Prjindigo
August 10, 2020 7:56 am

When refine crude oil, you can’t just say, today I’m only going to produce diesel. You always get a mix of products, from the lightest to the heaviest. The best you can do is alter the ratios a bit.
So what are you going to do with all the gasoline that is still being produced?

The Dark Lord
August 9, 2020 6:04 am

Worksite trucks ? They are tiny fraction of fuel use …

The Dark Lord
August 9, 2020 6:11 am

You would be wrong … Your “expectations” are meaningless … If it was cheaper it would already have been done … You do understand a semi does not include the trailer … It needs to be able to hook up to any trailer … Pretty sure the Tesla semi has the batteries in the trailer …

RegGuheert
Reply to  The Dark Lord
August 9, 2020 6:58 am

Umm. No. The batteries are in the truck, not in the trailer. The Tesla Semi can hook up to any standard trailer.

MarkW
Reply to  RegGuheert
August 9, 2020 9:00 am

Either the truck is three times bigger than a standard truck, or there’s no way it’s going to haul anything heavier than itself for 500 miles.

RegGuheert
Reply to  MarkW
August 9, 2020 6:58 pm

“Either the truck is three times bigger than a standard truck, or there’s no way it’s going to haul anything heavier than itself for 500 miles.”

Apparently your statements are based on nothing at all. The 500-mile range is for a Tesla Semi pulling a trailer with the rig fully loaded to 80,000 lbs. Energy requirements are between 1.6 and 2.0 kWh/mile. I did the calculations above, with references, and showed that with current technology a 1 MWh battery will approximately fit into the volume of two cubes 1 meter on a side. They are not that big, but they are heavy, weighing in at about 8000 lbs.

MarkW
Reply to  RegGuheert
August 10, 2020 8:04 am

You are neglecting the mechanisms that will be needed to control the heat in that battery. Especially if you are going to fast charge it.

MarkW
Reply to  RegGuheert
August 10, 2020 8:06 am

Any way, you have reduced the carrying capacity of the truck by 10%, and that doesn’t include the weight of the items you have conveniently forgotten about.
If you think that’s trivial, then you probably thing that batteries make sense.

Diogenese
August 9, 2020 6:20 am

One word
WEIGHT .
the weight of the batteries on a truck removes its payload .

August 9, 2020 6:22 am

Article excerpt:

Diesel vehicles were responsible for approximately 83 per cent of all deaths due to air pollution from road vehicles in 2015, according to the World Health Organization.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE, ….. that no one (government agencies, health originations, non-profits or politicians) really cares about that dastardly deadly diesel exhaust particulate.

All of the above, plus the majority of the US population, have all jumped on the “anti-cigarettes- cigarette smoke” bandwagon …… which has never been proven to be a “cancer causing carcinogen”, ….. while averting their eyes and their minds to the deadly effects of diesel exhaust.

There is something BAD wrong with Laws and Policies that forbid the smoking of cigarettes anywhere near school children of the age of 3 to 18 out of fear they will inhale cigarette smoke or second-hand smoke, …… while at the same time, …… force all school children to inhale diesel exhaust particulate by forcing them to ride diesel powered vehicles to and from their schools. Diesel exhaust fumes permeates the interior of all busses that transport school children.

rbabcock
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 9, 2020 8:52 am

How many deaths were there due to air pollution from road vehicles? 100? And were these in developed countries with stringent exhaust testing or third world countries with smoke coming out tail pipe.

That one statement means very little, especially coming from WHO.

Reply to  rbabcock
August 9, 2020 12:45 pm

How many deaths were there due to air pollution from road vehicles?

There is no way of knowing.

The lungs of young children and senior citizens can be damaged by diesel exhaust particulate with the results of said causing undiagnosed medical problems throughout the remainder of their lives.
———————-

Diesel exhaust, school buses and children’s health
The link between exposure to diesel exhaust and asthma has been borne out epidemiologically in studies indicating that children living along major trucking thoroughfares are at increased risk of asthma and allergic symptoms5 and of having objective evidence of respiratory dysfunction.6 Last year the National Resources Defense Council conducted a study to measure the level of diesel exhaust to which children are typically exposed as they ride on buses to and from school.2 The study showed that a child riding inside a diesel school bus may be exposed to as much as 4 times the level of diesel exhaust as someone riding in a car ahead of it. Exposure levels were higher in the back of the bus and when windows were closed. The study indicated that exposure of children to diesel exhaust while riding in a school bus for 1–2 hours a day, 180 days a year for 10 years might result in 23–46 additional cancer deaths per 1 million children. In addition, the investigators stated that the implications of this exposure for asthma are very troubling.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC121970/#:~:text=The%20study%20indicated%20that%20exposure,deaths%20per%201%20million%20children.

Diesel Exhaust and Cancer
Lung cancer is the major cancer thought to be linked to diesel exhaust. Several studies of workers exposed to diesel exhaust have shown small but significant increases in risk of lung cancer. Men with the heaviest and most prolonged exposures, such as railroad workers, heavy equipment operators, miners, and truck drivers, have been found to have higher lung cancer death rates than unexposed workers. Based on the number of people exposed at work, diesel exhaust may pose a substantial health risk.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diesel-exhaust-and-cancer.html#:~:text=Its%20major%20goal%20is%20to,diesel%20exhaust%20and%20bladder%20cancer.

rah
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 9, 2020 10:21 am

Well we could force the children not to be clothed, housed, fed, etc. Diesel trucks are what make all that possible. And BTW the exhaust of the truck I drive is cleaner than the typical ambient air quality of major metropolitan areas. I reckon you don’t know squat about the advances that have been made in the last 20 years in the pollution control systems in diesel trucks.

Hari Seldon
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 9, 2020 11:47 am

Dear Mr. Cogar,

—The gasoline (diesel) consumption by cars in Germany in 1995 was 7.447 million liters, and the average life expentancy 73,7 (men) / 79,9 (women) years
—The gasoline (diesel) consumption by cars in Germany in 2018 was 20.633 million liters, and the average life expentancy 78,7 (men) / 83,5 (women) years

Seemingly the gasoline (diesel) combustion by ice cars is very healthy, because 20.633/7.447=2,77 times larger gasoline (diesel) consumption (combustion) has led to +5 years (6,78%, men) / +3,6 years (4,5%, women) increase of the average life expentancy.

Here is also an interesting article from the leader of the the department “respiratory diseases” of the Red Cross Hospital in Stuttgart, Germany (Professor Dr. Hetzel):

https://www.top-magazin.de/stuttgart/2018/12/24/feinstaubalarm/

Background: The green led town council in Stuttgart started to prohibit diesel cars in Stuttgart. Prof. dr. Hetzel (one of the leading pneunomologist in Germany) qualified the measures introduced by the greens as “Volksverdummung” (brainwashing the people) for professional reasons.

John Endicott
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 13, 2020 7:11 am

Diesel vehicles were responsible for approximately 83 per cent of all deaths due to air pollution from road vehicles

That scary sounding sentence actually tells us nothing. The devil is in the (very lacking) detail. How many deaths are we talking about? (a handful? millions? somewhere in between?). Where are these deaths occurring? (Predominately in wealthy countries with strict pollution standards? or poor nations without such standards? both equally?) Unless a person is keeling over when a diesel vehicle is driving by (unlikely), how are they attributing their death specifically to Diesel vehicles (IE how is this attribution being made)?

goracle
August 9, 2020 6:25 am

“zero-carbon mobility” is a mis-nomer. How will electric car/truck/bus batteries be charged up? Shifting emissions from the tailpipe (where you see it) to a powerplant (where you don’t) doesn’t make electric car mobility zero-carbon. If you can’t see it, then it doesn’t exist?

TRM
August 9, 2020 6:54 am

The best use of electric motors is garbage/recycling trucks. They are usually 5 ton trucks and they stop and go every 30 feet. Electric motors having maximum torque at the low end are perfect fit to get the trucks moving.

Ian Wright has been delivering his drive train for a while now with great results.

https://www.wrightspeed.com/

His design uses an onboard multi-fuel generator (fulcrum) to power the electric motors. Do check it out. Very slick IMHO.

Keith
August 9, 2020 6:58 am

The battery supply limitations is a near-term limitation that may be resolved over time. The automobile and truck manufacturers are ramping up to supply the vehicles.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a30260038/ford-f-150-ev-front-trunk-revealed/
https://lordstownmotors.com/
https://rivian.com/r1t
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g29994375/future-electric-cars-trucks/
https://www.daimler.com/sustainability/climate/ecascadia.html

The the shortfall is rare earth element processing and an inadequate national power supply.

The 3kg of rare earth elements (REE) required for the permanent magnet in each EV car, let alone that required for larger trucks and buses, creates a supply choke point that is highly dependent on China’s REE processing. Rare earth element processing leaves highly toxic wastes that increase costs for domestic production. Even though there are several REE processing projects moving forward in this country they are still not operating. There are numerous other commercial and defense REE requirements competing for these same rare earth elements.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-rareearth-refining/china-set-to-control-rare-earth-supply-for-years-due-to-processing-dominance-idUSKCN1T004J
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11259
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020-rare-earths.pdf
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-rareearths-magnets-exclusive/exclusive-pentagon-to-stockpile-rare-earth-magnets-for-missiles-fighter-jets-idUSKBN1YO0G7
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/18/pentagon-legislation-aims-to-end-dependence-on-china-for-rare-earth-minerals/?utm_source=clavis
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic-aftermath-of-rare-earth-mining

There is not enough power for an all electric economy when the transportation sector is included.

Current US net power generation is somewhere around 4,000 TWh/yr.
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T07.01#/?f=A&start=200001
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/

Projected US net power generation by 2050 is around 5,400 TWh/yr
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/

The National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) Electrification Futures study calculated US annual power demand of 6,280 – 6,846 TWh/yr in a scenario that included most cars and trucks but only a 10,000 buses by 2050. They left out the school bus fleet.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71500.pdf

It is tough to run an all-electric economy when you are short 1,000 TWh/yr of power. Magical thinking.

griff
Reply to  Keith
August 9, 2020 7:15 am

There are, for example, lithium extraction plants opening up all over. Here in the UK they are even taking it from geothermal water under Cornwall

observa
Reply to  griff
August 9, 2020 7:59 am

Lithium is not the immediate problem griff as Oz has plenty a lot cheaper than that to begin with. THIS is the problem getting it into a safe useable rechargeable form at reasonable cost with longevity in mind and what to do with it all when it won’t do that anymore (do follow Part 2 as well)

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 9, 2020 10:45 am

I’m fairly certain that lithium doesn’t qualify as a rare earth element (REE).

griff
Reply to  MarkW
August 10, 2020 12:01 am

The point remains: when demand increases it becomes economic and desirable to prospect for and mine minerals/elements in demand…

Mines in Cornwall have reopened in recent years, for example, after demand for a range of commodities has increased/driven price up.

I mean, that’s capitalism, what y’all are so keen on?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 10, 2020 8:02 am

The reason why it becomes economic to re-open old mines is because the price has gone up.

Great Greyhounds
Reply to  Keith
August 9, 2020 7:30 am

We can just use all the diesel that the trucks are no longer using to power diesel generators, power shortage almost diverted!!! /S

damp
August 9, 2020 7:04 am

Why does the author seem to think that a truck battery is equivalent to a car battery, if said battery is actually providing the motive force for the vehicle? Don’t we have to convert “battery” into “horsepower” or some unit of work if we want to compare apples to apples? A truck may produce more pollution than a car, but pound-for-pound, including the pounds it’s carrying in that big tin warehouse in the back, does it?

How many car batteries = one functional truck battery is the information I missed in the article.

Keith
Reply to  damp
August 9, 2020 7:42 am

Good point. A Tesla S ER has a 100 kWh battery which weighs roughly 1,000 lbs and will achieve 400 miles range in ideal conditions. The new pickup trucks going into production have 150-200 kWhr batteries. The Daimler eCascadia Freightliner box trucks have 300 KWhr batteries and Daimler’s Class 8 regional semi has a 500 kWhr battery pack for 250 mile range. To achieve Tesla’s 500 mile range for its class 8 semi would require 1,000 kWhr batteries (10,000 lbs?) let alone a large charging infrastructure. To achieve the capability of a long haul semi would require at least 2,000 kWhr, weigh 20,000 lbs and a diesel semi will still have double the range without requiring significant power demand.

MarkW
Reply to  Keith
August 9, 2020 10:47 am

The fast charge for most car batteries is in the 200 to 400 amp range.
Can you imagine how much juice is going to be required to fast charge a truck battery?
Now imagine 10 trucks, sitting side by side, all fast charging at the same time.

Reply to  MarkW
August 9, 2020 1:37 pm

Build a modular nuclear power plant next every interstate semi-tractor charging station. Multiply that by the thousand or so charging station-plants needed just in the US interstate highway system. Then watch watermelon heads explode at the idea of 1,000 emissions-free nuclear power plants across the nation.

observa
Reply to  damp
August 9, 2020 7:42 am

“Replacing diesel-powered transport trucks with electric ones could cut noise, air pollution and carbon emissions. (Shutterstock)”
As you pointed out damp –
https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2019/12/why-are-electric-cars-so-bad-at-towing/

Loren C. Wilson
August 9, 2020 7:47 am

The buses and trucks are the least efficient use of batteries. The mass of batteries required to drive a truck for eleven hours (legal limit in the US of A, equivalent to about 650 miles or 1000 kilometers) will reduce the payload significantly. That means more trucks on the road, not less. Let people who have moderate commutes buy an electric vehicle. My retired neighbor plans on buying a Tesla and solar panels, Since the car will usually be home when the sun is shining (unlike people who still drive to work every day) it can be charged from the panels. This may work for him but he calculated that the payback period will be ten years.

John Robertson
August 9, 2020 8:49 am

Meh.
Forget Batteries,the payload winds up being so small that there is no point moving the truck.
A truly “ecological solution” would be to harness members of the Fright Industry up to engineless trucks.
Cause we have no shortage of these righteous gasbags.
If we must suffer these parasites to live amongst us,we may as well get some value out of them.

Oh right slavery is bad…But these critters have volunteered,for they demand goods must be moved,but internal combustion engines are forbidden.
Of course cross country freight will be awfully expensive,using Fright Industry Meat,even if you pay no wage and death march the “volunteers”.

But the ends justify the means,or so these same people insist.
And think of the enrichment the roadside flowers will gain,all that fertilizer.

Sarcasm just does not cut it any more.
The Creatures of Gang Green are beyond parody and impervious to truth or mockery.

Wagmc
August 9, 2020 9:09 am

There are three reasons for getting rid of gasoline cars: plastics, aviation and pharmaceuticals.

We need to convert road vehicles to natural gas and save the liquids for the things for which there is no effective substitute.

MarkW
Reply to  Wagmc
August 9, 2020 10:48 am

So we have to hobble our economy now, so that we don’t have to hobble our economy some time in the distant future.

Reply to  Wagmc
August 9, 2020 5:08 pm

Oil distillates are not interchangeable. Oil was first used for kerosene production, an intermediate distillation, I believe. The lighter distillates were waste products – that included what is now called gasoline.
The main light distillate products are: Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
Gasoline (also known as petrol)
Naphtha

The lighter distillates can not be used for the items in your list, like jet fuels. So the question becomes, if we get rid of gasoline-fueled autos, how do we safely get rid of the millions of gallons of unneeded light distillates?

StephanA
August 9, 2020 9:10 am

Those electric scooters would be a real laugh riot in the snow.

Bro. Steve
August 9, 2020 10:03 am

Who is the “we” that needs fewer cars? And what “need” would that be fulfilling?

MarkW
Reply to  Bro. Steve
August 9, 2020 10:49 am

“We”, is everyone other than the author.
The “need” is the author’s need to feel good about himself.

August 9, 2020 10:31 am

The hard-left The Conversation is totally in the tank for climate alarmism. Eleven months ago they announced that the only opinions they would permit to be expressed in article comments are those in support of climate hysteria. They wrote, “the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.”

Even before that, The Conversation long had two moderation policies: the official written one (“their Community Standards,” which are basically Quora’s BNBR + “Be Constructive”), and the actual one (“Be Leftist”). No matter how nice, respectful & constructive you were, and no matter how thoroughly you documented your claims, suspicion of casting doubt on the climate emergency was grounds for deleting your comments at The Conversation. But no matter how vicious ad hominem attacks are, they’re acceptable if they are directed toward someone skeptical of the climate crisis.

Although they made their anti-scientific bias official, I’m still waiting for them to change their name to “The One-Sided Conversation.”

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Dave Burton
August 9, 2020 2:40 pm

Dave
“The One-Sided Conversation.”
Monversation? (Urban Dictionary).
Or perhaps just simply Monotony.

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
August 9, 2020 6:15 pm

Hmmm… “Monversation” can’t be it, because that would take the “con” out of “conversation,” which is the opposite of what they do. “Monotony” is about right.

Or… well, there’s something of a trend toward shortening names…
“Kentucky Fried Chicken” ⇒ “KFC”
“The Huffington Post” ⇒ “HuffPost” (usually abbreviated “HuffPo”)
“Federal Express” ⇒ “FedEx”
“Quantam Computer Services”⇒ “America Online” ⇒ “AOL”

So how about…
“The Conversation”“The Con”

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Dave Burton
August 9, 2020 11:46 pm

Yes.
“That about sums it up for me”

Stevek
August 9, 2020 10:49 am

Battery production can be increased , and it will be if demand goes up. I would by EV if it saves me money, but with low gas prices and efficient ICE engines, EVs are not there yet. Also with buying EV you are at the mercy of your home electricity provider. With all these green policies, who knows what price of electricity will be in the future, somebody has to pay for all the new capacity. We just bought top of the line Honda Odyssey for 45k. Has adaptive cruise control, tons of storage, 3 row seating and seats can lay flat, full entertainment system, AC seats, 460 mile range. Cost of EV that has same features would cost way more.

KT66
August 9, 2020 2:20 pm

A much smarter way for heavy trucks is diesel electric. An clean and efficient ICE engine turns a generator that in turn powers reluktor type motors in each wheel. More efficient than a conventional ICE turning a series of gear boxes and axels, but without of the problems of large-battery powered electric motors. Most of the braking is done in the reluktor motors too. It might even cost less to make than current technology. It actually would reduce the load on the energy infrastructure. Doesn’t pass the green purity test, but who cares?

Hybrid large trucks would have more pay load because they would weigh less-not more. They would also decrease operations and up keep costs right off the bat. If it costs -I’m estimating here- 30% less per mile it’s money.

Reply to  KT66
August 9, 2020 6:26 pm

Diesel-electric is not much different from a hybrid automobile. Add a small battery pack and you get better acceleration, partial recovery of braking energy, and the ability to use a smaller diesel engine, usually run at closer-to-optimal speeds.

Reply to  Dave Burton
August 11, 2020 8:17 am

The one place such a truck would be very inferior is when pulling heavy loads on long, steep grades.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Burton
August 11, 2020 11:17 am

That’s something trains usually don’t have to worry about, as the tracks have been carefully engineered so that there are no steep grades.

ferdberple
August 9, 2020 3:04 pm

You cannot replace fossil fuels with batteries. Fossil fuels are an energy source. A battery simply transports energy from one location to another.

You still need fossil fuels to build the batteries and to gill them with energy. Why not simply skip the battery and fill the cars directly with fossil fuels.

Stevek
Reply to  ferdberple
August 9, 2020 7:15 pm

True especially with some ice engines getting 50 pct efficiency.

Peter Morris
August 9, 2020 3:30 pm

When the war picks up in earnest these people demanding rare earths for a barely measurable problem are going to be on the receiving end of a pretty vicious cancel culture.

How do they not see that?

Robert of Texas
August 9, 2020 3:38 pm

First of all, I do not buy into “CO2 is killing us all”. CO2 is harming no one. If it causes additional warming over and above natural warming, no one has found a way to measure it so it’s likely small. Note how the rising CO2 in the atmosphere completely ignored the Covid-19 economy shutdown it just kept rising.

But given that, if one wanted to reduce real pollution caused by combustion engines crowded into cities then one should pursue a hybrid vehicle. It only needs an electrical range of 40 to 60 miles and then the highly tuned combustion engine kicks in to provide the power. Such a vehicle would need to be light and probably small so it would only fill mostly urban or suburban niches, but it still is a lot more practical then a fully electric vehicle. Too bad the world seems to have just moved on from them due to the hype. Such a vehicle would dramatically reduce the amount of gasoline used within the cities, and therefore the real pollution a combustion engine produces. You would need 1/3rd of the batteries, and no extra infrastructure (assuming you plugged your car when at home).

The easier path would be to just keep improving the combustion engine – it likely still has a long way to go for max efficiency and lowest amount of real pollution.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Robert of Texas
August 9, 2020 6:50 pm

“But given that, if one wanted to reduce real pollution caused by combustion engines crowded into cities then one should pursue a hybrid vehicle.”

You mean a plug-in hybrid, right?

John Endicott
August 10, 2020 9:23 am

We need to change our transportation system, and we need to do it quickly.

Why?

Road transportation is a major consumer of fossil fuels,

So?

contributing 16 per cent of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, which warm up the Earth’s atmosphere and cause changes to the climate. It also pollutes the air, threatening health and costing taxpayers billions of dollars annually.

Assertion with little to no basis in fact with an underlying assumption equally devoid of any basis. Even if we took the above claim as true (they’ve never been proved to be so) why is it assumed a warmer world is a bad thing? Throughout history it’s the colder times that have been bad not the warmer ones. (not to mention that no “ideal” temperature is ever mooted. how can be know that warmer is bad if we don’t know what the ideal is?)

In addition to that, there are other benefits to burning fossil fuel is that the increase in CO2 is net beneficial to plant life which means more food to feed to worlds population.

rah
August 10, 2020 7:42 pm

As soon as I finish writing this I will going out the door to head to the terminal and take off.
This run, which I have done several times before will be hauling parts and materials in a 53′ dry van trailer to the TENNECO plant in Smithville, TN. There I will back into a door and be unloaded.

After being unloaded I will “dead head” or IOW pull that empty down to the BASF facility near the airport in Huntsville, AL. There I will back into a door and be loaded with catalyst for vehicle exhaust systems. I will be out of duty hours by the time I’m loaded and will pull around behind the facility to take my break (No charging station in site).
After my break I will bring that load which will have freight bound for locations all over the US and Canada back to our terminal in Anderson, IN and put it in a dock. I will not have to fuel during this run.

rah
August 12, 2020 7:51 am

I should have mentioned something else. The first truck I was driving with this company I started with in October of 2007 was a 2004 Volvo. When they finally took that truck away from me it had over 998,0000 miles on it. I remember because I wanted to keep it until it hit 1 million and I was so close. But that particular model year of Volvo was getting the lowest average mpg in the fleet so they wanted to get rid of them ASAP. (Fuel is by far the single largest operating expense for a trucking company.) It had the original engine and transmission in it. The only major component that had to be changed periodically was the turbo. I went through two of them in 500,000 plus miles.

I have been in this 2015 Cascadia Freightliner since it was new. As of this morning when I filled it up after getting back in it had 468,355 miles on it. I know this because I must enter the mileage every time I fuel. No major component has failed on it.

They tried to put me into a brand new 2020 Volvo late last year but I refused for a number of reasons. I intend to stick with this truck until I retire.