Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 489 posts

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#301

Post by Hyperborian »

irrational wrote: post #273
mxschumacher wrote: post #100

Demand for oil&gas will continue to grow for a long time due to: - SUV/pick-up boom (America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series!) and more cars + trucks in countries like Brazil, India, China, Indonesia - crazy growth in air travel (look at order numbers of Airbus, see how many airports are under construction, see miles traveled via plane) - simultaneous shift away from coal+ nuclear, giving a huge boost t…

Why are pick-ups so popular? I can understand if you are a construction worker, farmer, etc. that actually needs a pickup truck; but why are they so popular for other people? The vast majority of pickup trucks I see have beds that are so clean that it is obvious that has never been used to haul even one bag of cement or load of dirt.

Because the pickup truck form factor is the most efficient and inexpensive one there is. No really, hear me out! I see this asked all the time, but you're actually asking the wrong question.

I mean, think about it, what's the most minimal, lightest, cheapest form a motor vehicle could possibly take? It would have wheels, of course, some sort of frame to attach everything to, somewhere to put the engine, and somewhere to put the driver. That's it! A cab up front to house the engine and driver on a frame with wheels. Add some simple low sides to the frame to keep stuff in and that basically describes a pickup truck.

The truth is, for any particular load carrying and/or towing capacity, a pickup truck is the most efficient and least expensive common consumer option. Adding a cover over the back, additional seating, and other amenities just adds weight and cost. A tiny subcompact pickup truck version of even the smallest little hatchback can be cheaper and lighter then the hatchback can ever be simply because it's the same thing but made with less stuff.

I suspect the real question you want to ask, is this: why are such high cargo/towing capacity vehicles so popular? In other words, why do we buy such huge vehicles?

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#302

Post by cartoonworld »

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #256
cartoonworld wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone throws some sandbags and rock salt in the bed, next to the shovel and tinfoil blanky. Sure gonna need it when you're stuck in the ditch :) I'd take computer managed digital torque delivery over feathering my old clutch plate, if you even still get to run one of those. The dual-clutch trans will need your other foot. Mushy delivery (Sounds like an f150 to me) and out of the mud aren't really compatible.

> Everyone throws some sandbags and rock salt in the bed, next to the shovel and tinfoil blanky. Sure gonna need it when you're stuck in the ditch :) At least you can remove that weight when you need to. I bet it's a lot easier to tow a 4,000 pound truck out of a ditch than a 6,000 pound truck.

No it isn't, not at all. The tow operator is equipped for both, already. And if you're pulling with a 3k winch maybe you need to make stop at harbor freight.

Anyhow, instead of faffing around with silly sandbags, a mid-engine truck is what you're dancing around. Closest thing I've heard of is the Isuzu ELF (NPR in my neck of the woods) which they've been producing since the 60's or so. The motor is kind of underneath the cab. Nobody wants what you're selling.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#303

Post by tigerBL00D »

irrational wrote: post #273
mxschumacher wrote: post #100

Demand for oil&gas will continue to grow for a long time due to: - SUV/pick-up boom (America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series!) and more cars + trucks in countries like Brazil, India, China, Indonesia - crazy growth in air travel (look at order numbers of Airbus, see how many airports are under construction, see miles traveled via plane) - simultaneous shift away from coal+ nuclear, giving a huge boost t…

Why are pick-ups so popular? I can understand if you are a construction worker, farmer, etc. that actually needs a pickup truck; but why are they so popular for other people? The vast majority of pickup trucks I see have beds that are so clean that it is obvious that has never been used to haul even one bag of cement or load of dirt.

A pick-up truck, especially one with a four-door cab, is by design the swiss army knife of vehicles. If you are not constrained by something specific, then a pick-up is the rational choice.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#304

Post by OnlineGladiator »

fspeech wrote: post #292
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not arguing that an ICE vehicle is more efficient than an electric vehicle - I am saying that adding weight reduces efficiency for both. I was not making a general comparison between the pros and cons of electric vehicles, I was pointing out that one person's comment about better traction for electric vehicles was incredibly disingenuous because ICE vehicles can get the same benefit by simply adding weight - and…

Your argument is incorrect as pointed out by dropin685 earlier. Additional weight by itself does not waste energy. It does require more power to accelerate. The extra power is turned into higher kinetic energy for the same cruising speed. However kinetic energy is not waste. It can be recovered during deacceleration. It's the lack of regeneration that causes ICE powered vehicles to waste energy, which doesn't apply t…

I am obviously failing to communicate as this was meant to be about the effects of weight and traction, and how batteries are not unique for adding weight to a vehicle (other than a lower center of gravity, but that has nothing to do with my original point).

While regenerative braking is most common in electric vehicles, this also is not unique to electric vehicles. A hybrid vehicle can just as easily benefit from this, such as the Prius.

> Additional weight by itself does not waste energy. It does require more power to accelerate. The extra power is turned into higher kinetic energy for the same cruising speed. However kinetic energy is not waste. It can be recovered during deacceleration.

This is incorrect unless the engine/motor, drivetrain, and tires are all 100% efficient - additional weight always wastes energy.

But I agree with you, electric vehicles are more energy efficient than gasoline vehicles.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#305

Post by appleiigs »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #264
johnrgrace wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logistics and refinery technology. It can be easier to move a cargo of crude via ocean than build a pipeline. And refineries are not all identical, western canada has tar sands that produce very heavy oil which require a much more complex refinery with more capital expense, the existing refineries in eastern canada have lower complexity refineries that are well suited to refining Saudi Arabian oil.

Actually incorrect. Bitumen from Alberta shipped through Line 9 is now refined in Ontario and Quebec and is now the majority of oil consumption in central Canada. The poster above posted an out of date article and then drew incorrect conclusions from obsolete information.

No, it's not out-dated dude. In a different post from you, you're quoting the National Observer which I've never heard of. In Wikipedia's entry it says this: "According to an article by Vivian Krause in the Financial Post, the National Observer has received funding from The Tides Foundation of San Francisco, and Linda Solomon Wood is the sister of a former chairman of the Tides Foundation. Terence Corcoran in the National Post referred to the National Observer as a "left-wing Vancouver online magazine".

For facts: As per BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 report, Canada consumed 108.8 millions tonnes of oil equiv. It imported 29.1 of crude. 65% from US, remainder from rest of world. 19% from Saudi.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#306

Post by Tepix »

rossdavidh wrote: post #97

So, interesting and all, but not even mentioning what is happening to coal the last few years seems like an odd omission. Coal is essentially disappearing from the world's energy mix. As big as coal was, it takes a while to go away completely, but the trend does not seem to be slowing down. By some estimates, there are a lot of cases now where it is more expensive to keep running an existing coal-fired power plant, t…

I'm afraid coal is not disappearing quickly either, I know someone who works in the mining industry and he tells me that they are still selling a growing amount of mining equipment for coal mines. These things have long lead times. If they sell the stuff now the coal mines will be in operations for decades.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#307

Post by cartoonworld »

potta_coffee wrote: post #298
donkeyd wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ballast would then make the truck use even more fuel, which wouldn't make much sense.

The minimum required ballast probably wouldn't make any difference at all. We're talking about a V8 with tons of torque and horsepower.

>We're talking about a V8 with tons of torque and horsepower.

Take a look at the market. Lots of the trucks actually sold are dumpy underpowered RWD sixes or less, and the new motors are getting smaller, better, and more fuel efficient. Doesn't sound like the market wants a heavier boat to careen down the interstate in.

You can charge a whole lot more for the industrially useful V8's (which are still dumpy IMO, their job is "Don't stop turning over.") and much better diesels anyhow. At least telling uncle charlie about the OEM underslung sandbags will get quite a chuckle at Thanksgiving dinner.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#309

Post by WorldMaker »

wonderwonder wrote: post #279
Cshelton wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. While I do not believe we have hit peak oil yet, I do not believe we are far off nor will oil and gas demand continue to grow for "a long time". - The personal transportation industry will go through the biggest change it ever has in the next decade. Bigger than horse + buggy -> automobiles. An electric car will be cheaper to operate and maintain. Production of EVs will proliferate even countri…

I think this overlooks several key facts. 1. Poor countries cannot afford the EV infrastructure. As Africa gains in wealth it is absolutely going to rely on gasoline engines, the government stability is not there to allow for a wide spread EV charging infrastructure. Plus EV is far more expensive putting it out of reach for emerging economies. 2. You are overlooking the power of existing industry. Natural gas has mas…

> 1. Poor countries cannot afford the EV infrastructure. As Africa gains in wealth it is absolutely going to rely on gasoline engines, the government stability is not there to allow for a wide spread EV charging infrastructure. Plus EV is far more expensive putting it out of reach for emerging economies.

On the flipside, poor countries with less sunk infrastructure costs in place have more raw capability to leap frog on infrastructure evolutionary steps. There's no reason to run copper telecom lines to bootstrap fiber telecom lines if you are building from scratch today. There are developing nations with far faster internet speeds than the US average because they don't have miles and miles of copper to replace. Just as you accuse the previous poster of ignoring the power of existing industry, the same applies in the other direction to poor/developing countries that they have fewer existing industries to side-step in a bootstrap process.

A lot of people may not appreciate it yet, but EV infrastructure has less bootstrap costs than gas infrastructure. A lot of industrial nations have already invested so much sunk costs in gas infrastructure it seems cheap as free or magic, but gas stations don't build themselves and gas doesn't magically show up at the pump. The bonus that EV infrastructure is concomitant with Electric Grid infrastructure means that poor countries need only "one bootstrap" rather than "two" to get a strong renewable (distributed) EV Grid. EV infrastructure is almost a two-for-one deal with Electric grid infrastructure. It's a lot cheaper than reliable gas infrastructure, especially when you consider the overlap with other electric grid needs.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#310

Post by robocat »

McWobbleston wrote: post #294
aaronblohowiak wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for tesla being a net producer of CO2? Your assertion goes against my understanding that even when powered by coal plants, it is less CO2 per mile and over lifetime of vehicle as well.

It typically is unless you're comparing it to an efficient hybrid vehicle in certain areas. I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13 kg tons* C02 to produce, and found in my area a Tesla Model 3 getting ~58mpg equivalent to charge has a similar CO2 output as a 44mpg vehicle over 200k miles I'd say the Tesla still wins since you can likely recycle that 75kWh pack for energy storage afterwa…

> I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13kg C02 to produce

That just sounds completely unbelievable to me.

"That same battery if Elon is the believed will cost Tesla $100 per kWh by the end of 2018" so let's underestimate that it costs $7500 to the consumer. And let's say a barrel of crude costs $60, 13kg of CO2 is $2.50.

I think that is 0.0325% embedded energy - I can't see how that could come close to covering transport costs, let alone all the other CO2 uses in the production.

My crude heuristic is that $ cost indicates CO2 production, which helps when smelling the whacky numbers thrown around by most sources.

Post reply on HN