EV's and Transportation as a Service to kill Alberta economy by 2030?

[Street Pharmacist]

Interesting technology improvements in batteries by a Canadian now working with Tesla. They've doubled a battery's lifespan
https://electrek.co/2017/05/09/tesla...fetime-double/

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

^ so then we are all agreed. It's absolutely happening, only not in the time frame the article suggests.
I expect vehicle ownership will become less of a status symbol; it might even be the opposite. Like the 77 Firebird used to be a status symbol everywhere, and now is mocked everywhere, except in Edmonton.

No, apparently we are not all agreed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think this is something that people are generally missing. I don't really know a lot of gearheads my age or younger than me. This obviously anecdotal and could be entirely because of where I live in the country, but I find many millennials and Gen Zers are more likely to roll their eyes at someone driving a big, gas-guzzling SUV or truck solely for status. Then there are the numerous jokes my female friends make about dudes whose profile pics on dating website and apps are pictures with them and their cars/trucks.

Especially on the island here, going "green" seems to be more trendy than driving around in a nice car.

You might be surprised to hear that millennials are actually shockingly similar to boomers when boomers were that age in the 60s and into the 70s.

Anti-establishment, environmental, communal, spiritually, as opposed to monetarially driven. The similarities are astounding, now that I think about it more.

A lot of people thought society, as it was known, was coming to an end because kids (lazy hipsters) didn't seem interested in careers or other traditional things that drove society.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the commune... as we age, our priorities change.

[GGG]

One interesting problem that puts 2030 out of reach is the increase in electricity demand. Has someone run the numbers on how many natural gas / nuclear plants we need to build to support the electric cars and how much additional transmission we need to support say 30-50% electric vehicles. Right now just building the plants to replace the coal we are taking out of the system is a challenging timeline

Not that it can't be done from a technology perspective just the time crunch to do it. 3-5 years for natural gas plants and probably 10 for a nuclear plant leaves really long leads to ramp up the grid. There is no incentive to build these new plants prior to this new demand being proven. So as part of this conversion to electric cars we will see spikes in Electricity rates which push back the economics on cars.

In a 20/50/100 percent EV world what % of electricity would be transportation.

[Dan02]

Most charging can be done off peak hours for Evs though.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

One interesting problem that puts 2030 out of reach is the increase in electricity demand. Has someone run the numbers on how many natural gas / nuclear plants we need to build to support the electric cars and how much additional transmission we need to support say 30-50% electric vehicles. Right now just building the plants to replace the coal we are taking out of the system is a challenging timeline

Not that it can't be done from a technology perspective just the time crunch to do it. 3-5 years for natural gas plants and probably 10 for a nuclear plant leaves really long leads to ramp up the grid. There is no incentive to build these new plants prior to this new demand being proven. So as part of this conversion to electric cars we will see spikes in Electricity rates which push back the economics on cars.

In a 20/50/100 percent EV world what % of electricity would be transportation.

In Alberta? I don't see it as a big challenge. The BC Site C dam needs a market for its power. NG conversions on some of the coal plants are scheduled already, and don't have take a huge amount of time. Demand is going to ramp up gradually, so if it comes it shouldn't be to hard to build them as needed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Most charging can be done off peak hours for Evs though.

In fact it the charging can utilize existing renewable power sources that aren't much use off peak hours when the grid is full but there is no demand.

Also, if we figure out a way to store power on a large scale, it will also help.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

One interesting problem that puts 2030 out of reach is the increase in electricity demand. Has someone run the numbers on how many natural gas / nuclear plants we need to build to support the electric cars and how much additional transmission we need to support say 30-50% electric vehicles. Right now just building the plants to replace the coal we are taking out of the system is a challenging timeline

Not that it can't be done from a technology perspective just the time crunch to do it. 3-5 years for natural gas plants and probably 10 for a nuclear plant leaves really long leads to ramp up the grid. There is no incentive to build these new plants prior to this new demand being proven. So as part of this conversion to electric cars we will see spikes in Electricity rates which push back the economics on cars.

In a 20/50/100 percent EV world what % of electricity would be transportation.

Electricity demand in BC has remained flat even with population increases and a steady industrial demand. A big argument for why BCs Site-C dam is not economically viable is the flat growth rate for power demand as a result of energy conservation policies.

The energy conservation policies have been so successful at curbing power demand in BC that the provincial government is now pulling back on conservation efforts to increase the demand for excess power in the grid.

“The business case for Site C is far weaker now than when the project was launched, to the point that the Project is now uneconomic,” said Karen Bakker, Canada Research Chair and director of UBC’s Program on Water Governance, which prepared the report. “The good news is that we are not past the point of no return, according to our analysis.”

Supporters of Site C have said the project is a cost-efficient way to meet increasing electricity demand. But the UBC researchers say that their analysis incorporates several key changes since Site C was approved, including a decline in the cost of alternatives such as wind power, and a substantial reduction in BC Hydro’s forecasted need for electricity in 2024 and beyond.

Site C power likely to be exported at a loss

The report— the latest in a series of five— states that, according to BC Hydro’s own forecasts, predicted electricity demand has dropped significantly. Site C electricity will not be fully required for nearly a decade after the project is finished, and if demand growth does not keep up with BC Hydro’s current forecasts, power from Site C could remain in surplus indefinitely, according to the report.

“The surplus energy from Site C will have to be exported at prices currently far below cost,” said Bakker. “Our analysis shows that under some of the most likely forecasts, losses from these exports will total $1 billion or more.”

Proponents of Site C say that demand will increase because of LNG developments and decarbonizing the economy, such as through the use of electric cars. But the researchers say their analysis indicates otherwise.
“BC Hydro's own forecasts show that electricity demand will be relatively modest into the 2030s, even including anticipated demands from LNG and electrification of cars,” said Bakker.

The report also demonstrates that BC Hydro is significantly curtailing its energy conservation programs in response to Site C’s projected energy surplus. Producing new energy with Site C costs three times as much as energy conservation. But energy conservation could meet a significant amount of new demand for several years, said Bakker.

Other jurisdictions that promote energy conservation will see similar reductions in demand. Alberta is trying this on for size with their energy retrofit program.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Azure

In fact it the charging can utilize existing renewable power sources that aren't much use off peak hours when the grid is full but there is no demand.

Also, if we figure out a way to store power on a large scale, it will also help.

I've seen models where the EV's act as large scale distributed energy storage.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Even Somali Pirates could be distrupted by this technology

Norway to build electric autonomous ship

[d00little]

Originally Posted by Azure

Also, if we figure out a way to store power on a large scale, it will also help.

Energon cubes. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Energon_cube

[SeeGeeWhy]

Personally I think TaaS will be more disruptive to the jobs held by drivers than it will be to hydrocarbon demand. A bunch of low skill, disenfranchised, idle men is a huge problem. A much larger problem than Alberta finding new customers for its hydrocarbon. THAT problem gets solved by addtessing 3 points:

1. working out a solution for royalty sharing within all of western Canada;
2. refining things sensibly for both environmental safety and revenue optimization, and;
3. developing proper marine loading, monitoring and response infrastructure

There is zero reason an automated car also needs to be an electric vehicle.

EVs for personal transport make sense in areas with high population density. Not because of the limitations of the vehicle but because of the limitations of the grid infrastructure.

People also seem to forget there are still 1.5 billion people on the planet with virtually zero access to energy. Unless developed nations are just freely giving them these expensive, low EROI technologies, they're never going to be able to adopt it.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

There is zero reason an automated car also needs to be an electric vehicle.

Mostly that I don't enjoy spending large parts of my day next to the exhaust systems of internal combustion engines?

Perhaps those lovely yellow skies we get in the winter?

One day we will look back and wonder how the hell we thought it was reasonable to walk down a street full of devices pumping combustion exhaust into the air.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Mostly that I don't enjoy spending large parts of my day next to the exhaust systems of internal combustion engines?

Perhaps those lovely yellow skies we get in the winter?

One day we will look back and wonder how the hell we thought it was reasonable to walk down a street full of devices pumping combustion exhaust into the air.

I think the point is that electric is only one way to power a vehicle. We don't now what the future will hold but there is a possibility that other options will become available down the road.

Solar is cheap and growing like crazy, but if there is a huge breakthrough in nuclear fission, solar will die a painful death.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Mostly that I don't enjoy spending large parts of my day next to the exhaust systems of internal combustion engines?

Perhaps those lovely yellow skies we get in the winter?

One day we will look back and wonder how the hell we thought it was reasonable to walk down a street full of devices pumping combustion exhaust into the air.

Improving air quality is vital. But you discount the value of ICEs a great deal in this statement.

Perhaps you forget how lovely it must have been to work in a field beside the methane emissions of an ox to get your food before you had rocks, liquids and gases to burn to help you do that work, provide heat, and even open the possibility of transversing great distances to do a job that is not necessarily manual labour.

Pretty sure it was only 5 or 6 generations ago that my ancestors were living in sod buildings in Saskatchewan working their land for food. Jesus that must have been a difficult and short life.

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the point is that electric is only one way to power a vehicle. We don't now what the future will hold but there is a possibility that other options will become available down the road.

Solar is cheap and growing like crazy, but if there is a huge breakthrough in nuclear fission, solar will die a painful death.

Azure read me properly, I meant from a technical perspective, there is no reason an automated car also has to be 100% EV. Y'all already know that I'm working to make that fission breakthrough a real option. We have some exciting news to announce soon on that front.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

One day we will look back and wonder how the hell we thought it was reasonable to walk down a street full of devices pumping combustion exhaust into the air.

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the point is that electric is only one way to power a vehicle.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

There is zero reason an automated car also needs to be an electric vehicle.

I'm surprised to see you post this.

Wireless charging technology is the most efficient method of maintaining the fuel capacity for a fleet of autonomous vehicles. The idea of running ICE fleets of autonomous vehicles negates many of the efficiencies found in the reduction of components necessary to move the drive train of a vehicle that electric vehicles provide.

The storage of mass amounts of fuel, and incorporating automated refueling of volatile combustible material is a further efficiency hindrance for the proposal of ICE engines making up a component of an autonomous fleet.

There will obviously be different maintenance needs and costs to maintain a fleet of autonomous electric vehicles, but there is significant cost reductions of fleet maintenance by removing components of the ICE drive train.

Even the fuel distribution method is significantly more efficient (and thus less costly) unless you envision a future with gasoline pipelines to various refilling hubs.

These are just economies of scale arguments. When you incorporate the environmental regulation component it is difficult for me to come up with a way for ICE engines to compete on the market further down the line.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Y'all already know that I'm working to make that fission breakthrough a real option. We have some exciting news to announce soon on that front.

Very cool...I'd like to know more about that. However, whether it comes from coal, hydro, wind, gas, nuclear, geothermal, or fission the system will convert it all into electricity. So I'm not sure why fission has anything to do with EV's.

Unless you are going to use the fission power to generate hydrogen...or to pull CO2 out of the air and transform it back to a liquid fuel.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm surprised to see you post this.

Wireless charging technology is the most efficient method of maintaining the fuel capacity for a fleet of autonomous vehicles. The idea of running ICE fleets of autonomous vehicles negates many of the efficiencies found in the reduction of components necessary to move the drive train of a vehicle that electric vehicles provide.

The storage of mass amounts of fuel, and incorporating automated refueling of volatile combustible material is a further efficiency hindrance for the proposal of ICE engines making up a component of an autonomous fleet.

There will obviously be different maintenance needs and costs to maintain a fleet of autonomous electric vehicles, but there is significant cost reductions of fleet maintenance by removing components of the ICE drive train.

Even the fuel distribution method is significantly more efficient (and thus less costly) unless you envision a future with gasoline pipelines to various refilling hubs.

These are just economies of scale arguments. When you incorporate the environmental regulation component it is difficult for me to come up with a way for ICE engines to compete on the market further down the line.

Very interesting - can you teach me more about that? I am not sure I follow you all the way on your logic.

The claims of efficiency gains of EVs are dubious for me given that most electricity generation options are about 45% efficient before transmission and storage losses. Is it really a net gain? And if it is, is it meaningful enough to justify a complete re-tool of the supply chain?

We already do distribute and store massive amounts of gasoline where we live. I don't think it would be unreasonable to imagine a TaaS style autonomous ICE or hybrid to be programmed to pull up to a station that has a full service attendant to take care of that. Long haul rigs that are proposed to be automated are largely automated for the highway driving portion of the trip and still rely on a rested human driver to take care of the city and refuelling tasks.

Your point about fuel distribution being more efficient is what I was getting at about EV fleets being viable in cities only. I am unconvinced that generating and distributing electricity in that way would be meaningfully better so as to justify the mining, processing, upgrading, etc of the electric grid to a high voltage network that would enable a massive conversion to EVs. I don't think our command of material science is quite there to allow moores law type advancements to be realized in battery technologies. Now... should you tell me that we could do this all with batteries that have 1000x the storage capacity, 100x the cycle lifetime, and could be done with low voltage systems... man, then you're talking.

I mean, I'd love to see it happen. I think we could reclaim a lot of the footrpint in our cities from things like parking lots and repurpose them in a multitude of ways. But I think that's where the impact will reach it's extent. In centres of high population density. Lots of European, North American and SE Asian cities fit that vision. What I don't fully grasp is to what extent the fleet would be effectively converted and what impact that would have on global demand for hydrocarbon.

I'll be honest that I don't know THAT much about the potential, you seem to know more than I do. Would love to hear more about your position on this, I am open to being convinced.

[Erick Estrada]

I realize many here seem to believe EV's are the be all end all but some auto manufacturers are hedging their bets with Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars as it offers advantages over EV in faster charging and longer distances.