Is Tesla's Model S the beginning of the end for oi

[EmpowerRepower]

Hi,
I was very interested to see this mag cover in an oil industry mag, seeing EVs as a serious threat.



Tesla as a disrupter

The article that goes with it covers a lot about batteries, and is worth reading.

article

[Adverse Effects]

LINK THAT WORKS

[Richo]

Having the thought doesn't make it so.
Petrol use is less than half of total oil use.
And transport is only about half of that half.
And private cars is then a portion of that.

So even if most people hopped in a Tesla today it probably only represent 10% of oil use.

There would have to be other market sectors that change to make an impact.
And these aren't, pardon the pun, driven by Tesla or Lithium batteries but govt policies.

But it's always nice for them to have someone to point the finger and blame.

[bladecar]

Hi Richo,

I saw a comment recently saying that the 8 biggest goods ships traversing the world create as much pollution as all the cars in the world.

There needs to be a groundswell of opinion to move these ships to latest generation European emissions rules : )

Nothing can change while these ships are allowed to use the basest, most gross designs for their sh**ty first generation engines (pollution-wise, at least).

How can these ships escape world attention?

It's mentioned occasionally.

It should at least make twitter (which I have been on but don't use.

That's my opinion on pollution.   Doesn't make any other diesel much better though

[Richo]

I saw a comment recently saying that the 8 biggest goods ships traversing the world create as much pollution as all the cars in the world.

Ah you know what they say "out of sight out of mind".

[Johny]

This artlice was from 2009 - it's probably 8 now!

"April 23, 2009 The Guardian has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel...."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... world.html

[offgridQLD]

Yes some times you have to put things into perspective. I relate it to the eco magazines where they advertise all kinds of silly products that will save the earth. (solar torch, vac tube thermos, solar hat fan) and a host of other silly token products that save 0.01whr a year.

Then the energy used to deliver the silly product to there home in a transit van would take 1000 years to recoup.

Start big and work your way down. For most people there car - cars are the biggest consumers within there control. No point feeling warm and fuzzy about fitting your house out with LED light globes when your burning 60kwh (equivalent) a day of Diesel getting to work and back.

Though as mentioned industry numbers are just astronomical in comparison.

[mikedufty]

Still, cars and aircraft are the places it is most difficult to replace oil. The pollution from ships is not something intrinsic to sea going, its just cheaper and they can get away with it because they operate mostly outside national borders. I wonder if we could reach a point where sailing ships are viable again? Apparently the switch from sail to coal made for a huge reduction in costs at the time.

[carnut1100]

If we are willing to accept a reduction in shipping speed then yes we can go back to sail. With modern computerised controls, new aerodynamic hard sails, even things like a forest of Savonius rotors feeding an electric motor....all can be done, but not on a conventional container ship and not at the current speeds and costs.
In other words it won't happen until oil is too expensive to use.

[offgridQLD]

You would need to replace about 60 - 80MW of engine for most big supertankers and container ships. With around 50% thermal efficiency they are actually not to bad when it comes to turning the fuel into usable power.

So it wold take a stupid amount of sail to make that happen and just as crazy numbers for batterys or solar.

I think A nuclear reactor is about the only better option than the engines they use now.

[bladecar]

Mmm, I'm thinking about this.

How about a draglink type device laid on the sea floor. You hook up some vessel to the link and it follows the hook across the oceans to the nearest useful land. So, renewables drag this link around and around like a cable-car wire. Like a ferry across the river that uses that device.

When you think of Monster Constructions that have been done, tunnel makers, steel crushers, big ships, sky scrapers, dams, oil drillers, comms cables across the oceans, travellators at really big airports , ore trucks at mines, nazi constructions during world war 2, lifts into space: it wouldn't be too hard.

The skill would be partly in designing the towing device to manage big seas but when you think of launching planes off aircraft carriers and all the ingenious devices that industry has come up with...

Actually, you have the draglink but it tows submerged vessels a few metres below the lowest point of big waves.

See, no problem.

But it takes a common will. There's the problem.

[Chuq]

I think nuclear is the only option for something that huge - some of the US Aircraft Carriers are nuclear powered.

[jonescg]

We could try to use rail far more efficiently. I can't see why we couldn't just electrify the entire eastern seaboard with 25 kV for freight and passenger services.

[mikedufty]

You could also reduce the power requirements by having the ships go slower.    Its nice to get stuff faster, but is it really essential? Would be an issue for livestock etc but not for a lot of stuff.

[bladecar]

and livestock are in no hurry to get to where they're going.