The Oil Drum: Canada

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown - from zero to hero?

.... to set ourselves on a new energy path - a path from our economies that are today over-dependent on oil towards the post-oil energy economies of the future. And moving towards this sustainable energy economy helps us meet our economic, political and environmental goals.

The stuff of Statesmanship? From a speech made by Gordon Brown on 13th July at The Union for the Mediterranean Summit. The whole speech is below the fold. My emphasis added.

Back at the beginning of January I changed cars, and now drive a Camry Hybrid. It came with the usual displays for mpg, where the power was flowing and such, and for a month I played with looking at the different displays and then, as with most new toys, started to ignore them. However, pulling into the garage one night just over a month ago, I switched off the engine and a little “Excellent” appeared in a hitherto un-noticed final display on the dash. Now how do I confess this? Since then my driving habits have changed - more than I would freely admit - by the wish to be praised by a machine. The commute home is under three miles, and in somewhat hilly country so this requires a little effort on my part, but more often than not I now get that little glow of satisfaction from such a sign as I enter the house, generating a feeling that I am doing my part.

Well, not completely, and in terms of the greater scheme of things not even at any level of significance. The problem that we are coming to face is much larger, and more imminent than can be solved with simple small measures. Yet by touting the gains in efficiency through use of hybrid cars, or the growth rates of the solar and wind industries, one can convey to the general public that there is a considerable amount of technical progress being made in solving what “short term inconvenience” we might face as this “peak oil thingee” comes to pass and we have to live through it. The scale of the problem is glossed over, and the inadequacy of currently proposed solutions in their impact on the overall size of the problem is lost in the debate over issues that may be resolved with additional investment and time.

The Tata Nano will sell for about $2500 (US) in the base model, and get about 51 mpg (US). Source: Wikipedia.

This article was originally written for The Hybrid Debate.

The hybrid car may be a milestone in the history of personal transportation, but it still burns petrol and releases CO2. In this sense, it’s no different from the Model-T Ford of 1908. True, the technology provides significant efficiency benefits. But it won’t be revolutionary until its next incarnation, the "plug-in hybrid electric vehicle" (PHEV), goes mainstream.

In a PHEV, the internal combustion engine (ICE) is further reduced in size; the electric motor and battery pack are scaled up; and a cable is provided, to connect the car to the national grid via wall sockets. With heavy-duty electrical components taking more of the strain, the ICE runs for shorter periods of time, thus improving the car’s efficiency.

I originally wrote this article for The Hybrid Debate.

The Hybrid Debate encourages people to consider how their choice of car affects the world we live in and imagine how mass acceptance of hybrid technology could influence other aspects of our lives.

The aim is to encourage informed analysis and public debate amongst advocates and sceptics of the new technology.

Writers and experts in areas ranging from urban planning to the economy have been asked to kick start the debate by imagining a hybrid future and the implications in their area of expertise.

www.thehybriddebate.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The future may be bright for hybrids, but it would have to be a very distant future, judging by the evolution of the car to date, and by the deeply ingrained tendencies of British drivers.

This is the fourth segment on the ASPO Conference and follows a report on the Workshop day, the first morning report, and the rest of Thursday. We pick up on Friday morning, which began with a talk by Peter Tertzakian on the impact of resource constraints. He began by showing the rate at which the electric light was adopted into American homes, noting that essentially 100% was not reached until the 1980’s from inception in 1890. Initially the rate of change was very slow. To make a change there has to be a compelling alternative at a cheaper price, and yet as energy consumption has grown there has been a pattern. First the economy grows, then pressure starts to build up, then there is a breaking point, with the introduction of “a magic bullet”, and the cycle restarts. We have reached a point where the cycle has reached the breaking point – and now we look for the magic bullet. He pointed out that this occurred early in Japan in the 1970’s, and that they made the switch and by adding LNG and nuclear they have been able to stabilize oil consumption.

Oil, however, has many attractive properties, so why should we now change from it? From the 1908 arrival of the model T car growth has led us to congestion, urban growth and commuting times that have increased more than 20%. And change is not necessarily productive, after buying fluorescent lights, he now leaves them on longer.

The problem is one of scale, with few realizing not only the size of the current problem but also that to come. In India Tata Motors are about to introduce a car that will cost a Lakh (100,000 rupees or $2,500) which can be anticipated to become an enormous success with their growing middle class, and concurrently a large fuel demand generator. Within the $65 trillion world GDP the largest growth rates are in the developing countries.

This is a guest article by Mark Yates, The Oil Drum member googlepeakoil.

Introduction

There is an urban legend that goes "car companies are withholding the 100 mpg car". It might not have been true before... and now while not withholding it, the 100mpg is ready - they're just being very very slow to make it and sell it!

For many years the car companies have said the "the batteries aren't ready" (here and here *) and I'm sick of reading it. They are in fact so "ready" that within a few months to a year 3 relativley small automakers (further details below) will be thumbing their noses at the big 4 auto companies as they bring to market electric cars (and a pickup) with 300-700hp electric motors, 100mph+ top speed and 100-200+ mile ranges per charge. Which might lead many to ask, "why are car companies saying the batteries not ready". Meanwhile, several groups of people such as Calcars have been converting various hybrids into Plugin Hybrids capable of in excess of 100mpg (in combined city/highway driving). The technology easily exists for the 100mpg production car. Please, "big auto" just make some yourselves!

* This page at Calcars lists where the various car companies are on PHEVs.

As part of my continuing video series on "things I could barely imagine just a few few months ago", is Mayor Bloomberg's overnight conversion on Councilmember David Yassky's hybrid taxi proposal. Last Summer I handed out flyers at LaGuardia airport trying to convince taxi drivers to buy the Prius or Camry hybrid models that get 60 and 40 mpg respectively, compared to the 13-17 mpg that the current Crown Victoria model gets. Many of them were interested and agreed that they needed to save money on gas since it was their #1 variable cost of $30-50/shift. But they feared taking the plunge alone. That all changed with Bloomberg's announcement that all new taxis will be required to get over 30mpg by 2012.

Hybrid taxis in Urban areas make tremendous sense. Hybrids get their best mileage differential in Urban areas and taxis are a perfect off hour / odd trip complement to dense areas with good mass transit and walking. See Mayor Bloomberg announce this on the Today show with CM Yassky who went on to support the Mayor's congestion pricing plan a few days later in a great "I'll support your green proposal if you support mine" deal. I hope more City Council and State legislators ask for similar quid pro quos...

All hail the green taxi...sorry, I couldn't help myself.

What's the meltdown price for uranium?

Add another certainty to death and taxes: Barring some sort of nuclear catastrophe or an instant, massive influx of new supply, the price of uranium oxide is going to continue its shocking rise for now.

The question for the fissile metal's producers, and for investors seeking to cash in on the gains, is how high can it get before its key nuclear power plant consumers defer plans to add reactors, or try to cut consumption at existing plants, as they wait for much delayed new mine supplies to come on stream and bring the price back down?

Since bottoming out at just $7 (U.S.) a pound in December, 2001, the "yellowcake" spot price has climbed almost exponentially, hitting $40 a pound about a year ago and a startling $120 a pound last month. This means it is very close to shattering the record high of $43 it hit back in 1979, which, adjusted for inflation, is the equivalent of $122.42 today. Already, some producers are predicting it could rise to $250 some time next year.

One of my repeated criticisms of the current US administration¹ is that it is dishonestly opposed to real alternatives to petroleum (and fossil fuels in general), and acts to obstruct those alternatives outside the public eye rather than having a fair and public appraisal.  Some of this obstruction is more or less direct (cancelling a domestic hybrid-car program set to deliver product in the 2007 timeframe and also suitable for PHEV modification, and replacing it with a program of dubious feasibility and a very long time horizon), but some of it is more subtle, taking the form of misdirection.

This misdirection is evident in the shameless promotion of unready and perhaps impossible fixes, such as:

• Cellulosic ethanol.
• Oil from ANWR (at best, a fraction of what we could save with better CAFE or just plain price-driven demand destruction), and last but not least,
• Hy(pe)drogen.