Ieee Article: Electric Cars Unclean at any Speed?

Not exactly. The U.S. still imports 50% of its oil, and we can't frack our way to independence. Two things must happen.
(1) We must cut consumption. EVs, hybrids, all the other solutions. We use 18 million barrels/day, yet produce only 9.
(2) Once domestic consumption falls to the level of domestic production (it'll take at least 20 years), some sort of restriction must be placed on export of refined products. Otherwise, oil drilled in Oklahoma will just end up exported to China as gasoline, etc.

Once (2) happens, then this is TRUE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - not the phony kind politicians talk about.

Now, you are correct oil is a fungible market, but the tar sands hardly harms OPEC or dilutes arguments against it. That's because tar sands is marginal production - it costs $50 and up to produce, whereas OPEC oil is typically $5 to produce. So, OPEC will always mark up their oil to the level of the most expensive marginal barrel, whether deep offshore, tar sands, fracking, whatever - and pocket the difference.
OPEC needs high ($100) prices to balance their domestic budgets, so if tar sands or fracking "floods" the market, they will simply cut their quota to prop up the price - and tar sands producers, etc. won't mind, because that would mean higher prices for them as well. The two work in a symbiotic way, not in a competitive way.

So, tar sands doesn't free us from the the price effects that OPEC can impose on us, and this is true so long as we import even 1% of our oil.
With that being said, there is SOME strategic benefit to buying Canada tar sands oil since Canada doesn't currently have the pipelines or ports to sell it to anyone else. Enter the Keystone XL.
In the very near future, if OPEC doesn't produce (war, politics, whatever) , then China and India will come knocking to buy tar sand oil (once the pipelines and export terminals are built). We can't force Canada to sell us the oil if China or India is willing to pay more. So, as long we are an oil importer, we will always be at the mercy of OPEC.

 

^And since I literally live on the border with Canada here in Buffalo, NY, I can tell you that Canada is indeed not America and is not a "domestic" supply of oil. I think our media confuse a deep friend, ally, neighbor, and very similar country with a shared history to be "domestic" when it isn't the same nation and the oil sands don't benefit the American economy. I'm all so very much reminded of that every time I drive 10 miles up the road, and then I'm questioned intensely and occasionally searched when I re-enter US borders as I come home.

I love Canada, but we're helping the Canadian economy and hurting the Canadian environment buy purchasing tar sands oil. But the American economy is indeed buying an imported item.

To me, the Keystone XL pipeline debate is completely moot. I'm fairly active in the community here, and I've heard some respectable energy experts at University at Buffalo comment that its just as energy efficient - and MORE environmentally friendly - to fill tankers full of heavy crude oil on massive trains (as is already being done) and ship it off to refineries in Texas or Pennsylvania or New Jersey or wherever... The pipeline literally isn't necessary, it would just make delivery quicker. It would not be "better" in any way. The amount of energy it takes to shoot and keep oil pressurized through a pipeline - that can break in the future and cause leaks - is not very different from how much diesel it takes to run a train from Alberta to anywhere in the USA.

If they really are serious about transport of tar sands, then there needs to be new rail lines from northern Alberta to points in the USA. Its easier, cheaper, and serves multiple purposes rather than one single purpose.

And, an unknown factoid in the US debate aside from the environmental debate surrounding Keystone XL, one of the main reasons the USA feels pressured into approving it is the current Canadian federal government is threatening to approve an alternative pipeline to the British Columbia coast to fill tankers on the Pacific, where the primary export partner would undoubtedly be China.

Keystone XL is more about geopolitics than domestic politics. American politicians don't seem to want the oil to go to China, although much of it would probably end up there anyway even if it were piped to Texas first.

And then you throw in the volatility of Canadian politics. As a close neighbor and someone who visits Canada every other weekend, I can tell you that when the next Canadian federal election happens in 2015, it is unlikely the current federal government will maintain power. If that is the case, the politics surrounding Keystone XL potentially change. The current Canadian government is very friendly to the idea of fast-tracking an oil pipeline to the Pacific to export oil to Asian markets. A future Canadian government potentially wouldn't have the same mentality, and no one knows what is going to happen.

For my fellow Americans who need a course on Canadian Politics 101, Canada is currently being led by a Calgary politician with close ties to the oil industry. Prime Minister Harper has a majority of seats and leads the Conservative party, which is similar economically to our Republican party. He's been in power since January 2006. While Canada doesn't have term limits on how often you can run as Prime Minister, they do have voters that get tired of the same face regardless how good or bad conditions are. Nearly 10 years will have been a very long time in power by the time October 2015 comes around. Prime Minister Harper's Calgary base is almost like America having an oil man from Houston becoming our President. There are two other parties that have potential to win in 2015, the NDP's Tom Mulcair, a social democrat, or Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, the son of a very successful and very popular former Prime Minister. Neither of these parties necessarily will want to "fast track" anything, and there will be a complete dynamic change if one of these other newly elected party leaders becomes PM. Unlike the US, when a politician is elected in Canada, barring a minority government, stuff actually gets done. There is no separation between a Presidential arm and a Congressional arm... So Canada's situation is more important than the US situation. A Canadian Prime Minister leads a much more efficient government when elected and can actually govern, unlike a US President who can only block legislation unless the veto is over-ridden. Come two years, Canada's own government may not approve Keystone XL. I mostly think they will elect a new PM because the previous Liberal government was elected in 1993, and between Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Prime Minister Paul Martin, Canada had multiple Liberal governments for 13 years from 1993 until 2006. The economy was doing great in 2006, but Canadians just wanted a new face... 2015 will probably be much the same. I don't think the NDP is a serious alternative, so I don't think Mulcair has much chance of being the next PM. I would place my bet on Trudeau being elected Prime Minister with a Liberal government come 2015. He was just nominated leader of the Liberal party at a convention in April this year, and he's returning some very impressive poll numbers against the Conservatives and NDP.

For those interested in polling, here is a Canadian resource that brings together averages of all the major polls...

ThreeHundredEight.com: Canada

Currently (the poll average for July 2, 2013) Trudeau's Liberals have 36% support (enough to form majority government since there are multiple parties involved), Harper's Conservatives are at 29% (way down from the last election where they got 39% to win) and the socialist/NDP vote with Mulcair has 23% support. Canada is looking like its headed back to a Liberal government (which is no surprise given the history of politics) in 2015. And if Trudeau is elected Prime Minister, his word goes. There's no fight between a President and Congress, Trudeau's decision will be final without all the riff-raff in the US system.

If Obama can just stall out the US process until October 2015 by just saying "it needs more study", Keystone XL may be a plan that never sees the light of day because the Canadian government would likely oppose building it out if power changes hands.

So, there's a lot of pressure to approve it now and get it constructed starting before 2015 - and it has to do more with policies outside the USA than within.

...and I hope my crash course in Canadian politics 101 wasn't confusing, its a very different multi-party political system vs the US.

 

...home away from home for me, I was born in Buffalo and my dad was a nuke engr from U of B. Anyways you guys are hitting me up with what the author Zehner calls value judgement arguments. To me, there have been many changes in the world energy picture in the last 5-10 yrs, which have weakened the technical arguments in favor of a switch to electrifcation, so now we have somewhat less bi-partisan value-judgement (political) arguments in favor of electrification.

 

Exactly what Big Oil wants us to think. Frack a few wells, then have a fawning, corporate-owned media gush over this "revolution" that will make us "independent", all while ignoring or misrepresenting actual, hard economic and geologic data.

Look, this is not a conspiracy per se. It's simple financial self-interest. Big Oil can't kill EVs today the way they did back in the 90s....too many people have woken up, thanks to climate-related disasters, $147 oil, and the success of the Prius, among other factors.

But think about it: if they can delay EVs, they get a higher price per barrel, all else being equal. All they have to do is convince the public to make those 'bi-partisan value judgements'. And if they've converted people here at Priuschat.com to this view, then I would say they are doing a pretty good job!

 

It's great that folks here on PC understand the dilemma of our oil economy ... too bad the rest of the nation is so horribly in the dark.
.

 

I hope you are being sarcastic.

 

I don't think trade is a bad thing, just that this idea that we have somehow tapped a huge "domestic" supply of oil is a farce. Canada isn't OPEC, and you cannot ask for a more friendly or benign nation than you find in Canada, but it isn't a domestic supply of oil.

The arguments against electrification have only gotten more strange, not better. It is now better to squeeze oil out of tar sands and rape the environment 5x as bad, so its okay just because we're not importing from OPEC?

This is a weird way of thinking about the future considering Canada, like the US, has immense natural resources. Canada has over a quarter of the world's freshwater supply, so hydro generation is something they still need to continue to capture and capitalize on. Canada is a cold weather climate nation, but they do have one perk: if it isn't during the brutal 3 months of winter, they have more sunshine than south of the border during this time of the year. And the winter isn't that bad at the border, it only really starts to get brutal once you get several hundred miles north. The sun is out for many hours in northern Canada, and there is solar potential in the vast wilderness north of the border. They have a very windy climate in many areas, wind generation is entirely viable throughout the entire nation.

And then right here in America we have immense possibilities as well for renewables that simply go untapped. Solar is viable all over (even here in Buffalo solar can work even though winter generation would be at a minimum, we have more sunshine than Miami during this time of the year), wind is viable all over. Renewables really have only gotten started, the possibilities are very high. Yet we're going to debate a silly pipeline for tar sands oil?

The same basic underlying problem exists, IMO. The argument really hasn't changed, its just the politics that have gotten in the way of making rational decisions.

Just think of the Keystone XL pipeline: its a debate that doesn't need to exist. One large multi-national oil corporation (TransCanada) stands to gain a lot of ground from the deal. It isn't necessary to transport oil. You could do better for the economy by building new rail lines that connect northern Alberta to the American rail grid.

You have the benefit of being able to deliver that oil anywhere, if there is a refinery in New Jersey or California instead of Texas or Oklahoma, it can go there. The rail lines can have multiple purposes rather than just oil transport. And rail companies can compete, you have more than just one multi-national corporate interest at stake.

I don't know why the Obama administration hasn't promoted this as the safe alternative to bring more tar sands oil to America. If we need more capacity, build more rail. It transports oil in mass amounts very effectively, very efficiently. And its *safer* than a pipeline which will leak in the future. All pipelines leak. ALL of them do.

BTW, you refer to this Zehner guy a great deal. I wouldn't put that much faith into one individual's analysis. You always have to take data from everywhere you can get it.

 

Hahaaaa.......love it!

 

The problem with the "debate" in America is that everything is put under the lense of only two choices, only two opinions, and only two sides. It blows my mind how many people actually buy into this only one way or the other way mentality. There's 5 or 10 or 20 ways to do virtually everything. The argument is so much more complex than a stupid/silly pro economic vs pro environmental debate. That's such a false dichotomy, it isn't economy vs environment and people on here know that, but the greater debate is always diluted with b.s. to make everyday Joe think that way.

EV's are already successful, its just a matter of building out infrastructure. I will admit battery technology just isn't up to par yet at price points that are affordable. Not everyone can afford a Tesla that can get 250 miles per charge. I'm a middle class income earner, and there's no way I could squeeze a $65,000 car payment into my budget for housing and everything else. Battery prices and capacities have to become more affordable and practical.

Of course in the interim, we can build more cars like the Prius plug in or the Volt, cars that can go several miles on electric only and switch over to gas when you need range. Once we get to the point where you can build a $20,000 vehicle that has 100 mile electric range before it switches over to gas, the mass switch to electrification can finally begin. Car makers will be more willing to deliver the technology to different car formats (no longer relying on the hatchback, you could get a crossover SUV or large sedan if you like), and people could afford it. Until that point comes, government has an obligation to subsidize it to keep the technology growing. The private market doesn't have enough incentive on its own to keep fostering this technology as we transition.

Right now the technology still needs improving, manufacturing has to improve, because most people cannot afford $40-50k vehicles that get 30 miles for a charge before switching over to a 35mpg gas engine (referencing the Volt without federal subsidy). Government subsidy can't last forever, but its a good way to encourage growth in the industry for the next decade or so.

Once we reach that $20k barrier where you get electrification for the masses, that's a game changer. And that helps everyone, whether you're Democrat or Republican or whatever. Electrification should be bi-partisan.

AND, its worth noting, if battery technology becomes that efficient in the future, you can increasingly just drop the internal combustion engine altogether and stuff more batteries in for the cost savings you get from not building the ICE. So really I'm waiting for the day that you can buy a 200 mile range electric car for $20k, and one that can use a supercharger and get an 80%+ charge in less than 20 minutes. That's one of the biggest game changers of all.

 

Let's not forget that many railroads are now in the process of switching their locomotives to LNG, since it's cheaper than diesel. This will lower the carbon footprint of oil-by-rail even more.

Berkshire's BNSF Railway to Test Switch to Natural Gas - WSJ.com

 

Allow me to define insanity for all of you:

(1) Use massive amounts of LNG to power giant excavators to dig a tarry, gooey substance out of Alberta soil
(2) Leaving behind toxic tailing ponds, pour this goo into giant, LNG-powered dump trucks
(3) Ship goo to 'upgrader', then use even more NG to churn goo into diluted bitumen, a.k.a. 'dilbit'
(4) Transport 'dilbit' in pipeline across pristine wilderness, promising "no spills"
(5) Compressors and pumping stations along the way are powered by NG / electricity
(5) Dilbit arrives at refinery. Massive amounts of NG, and NG-made electricity, used to refine it into gasoline/diesel.
(6) Ship gasoline in an LNG-powered semi-truck to gas station 100+ miles away.
(7) Burn said gasoline in an ICE car that will get 22mpg, and idles at stoplights and drive-through windows


OR

(1) Use all of that LNG and NG in power plants here in U.S. (hopefully with CO2-capture)
(2) Send electricity to an EV.
(3) The electricity from just the LNG and NG used in 1-7 above, which transformed Alberta tar into 1 gallon of gasoline for a 22mpg ICE car, could -by itself- power an EV for 250 miles.....forget the gallon of gasoline!!


Tough choice, I know.

 

^LOL, the fact is that the pro-gasoline argument is so full of holes it just takes seconds of reading to realize how empty the old industry is. Gasoline's time has come, and it has gone. The time to transition is already passed.

We all love the range that gasoline gets with present day technology (me included), but you cannot commit to oil sands in Alberta as the holy grail of energy supply for the next several decades. Oil sands are too environmentally destructive and too energy intensive to be anything more than a bridge fuel to get us away from oil for transportation needs. The tar sands just extend out a problem of oil eventually running out anyway, and this doesn't even take into consideration the problem with the environment.

Plug in electric hybrids are where we need to be to bridge the gap until battery technology improves in price. Tesla is already building the cars of the future today, but the price has to come down. That's all that is left to do.

 

What bothers me the most is that this drivel even got posted by IEEE Spectrum. Whether you like EVs or not, there is so much BS in that article, that the author could build a biodiesel plant.

Unfortunately, many people will now use this article as a reference in an argument against electric vehicles, meaning we have to 'waste more energy' debunking this @#$% every time someone mentions it. Somewhat ironic that we have to spend more electricity on powering our computers, and ourselves, just to counter all these arguments every time someone is going to bring up this article now.

Would be great if if someone with a well respected background would debunk/address some of the holes via IEEE Spectrum.

 

The comments pretty well disassembled the article. I have not read them all but there are a lot of counter facts and data. At least one author of a study cited in the piece pointed out how the original author took things out of context.

I don't see this one article as making that big of a difference. Those who read it including the Spectrum readers have pretty well torn it down.

As for IEEE Spectrum, I dropped my subscription when I realized it was just a 'high brow' version of "Popular Science." Too many cute articles and opinion pieces, Scientific American with an attitude.

Bob Wilson

 

Well per any Zehner references I make (2), I am just trying to make my posts relevant to the Original Post. As far as Zehner's book, I could have written that in my sleep. I tend to see the book as fluff, sort of like arguing against ethanol E10 because it does not make gasoline burn cleaner (Congress's orig "justification" for E10 was cleaner air). In reality Congress was trying to create jobs by creating alternate energy oportunities.

Hey I bet you had some nice July 4 in Buffalo! When my grandparents used to have a cottage on Lake Erie everyone would build humongous bon fires on the beach from driftwood and shoot off massive fire works from our good friends in Canada. Maybe they have clamped down on that.

 

One of the 'gray beards' in Prius_Technical_Stuff knocks it out of the park:

Source: comments in the article

Bob Wilson

 

great post indeed, thanks for sharing!

 

I am not sure what this has to do with plug-ins versus gas cars, but surely a few facts should be pointed out.

An oil pipeline costs about the same per mile as laying railroad tracks. The cost of transporting oil in a pipeline is much lower than a railroad though, as you do not have to pay for all the rail cars, conductors, diesel to power the railroad etc. The gulf coast refineries are the ones that can handle the type of syn-oil coming out of the oil sands. Refineries in the midwest can also handle it, but can be used to process the oil coming out of the dakota oil. Refineries on the east coast can not refine it without major investment, and oil companies will not invest without large government subsidies. Refineries in California will not refine it because of CARBs regulation. Therefore a deadicated line is much less expensive, and flexibility is not needed.

It will be mainly the companies working on oil sands oil, and the canadian government that will benefit from keystone. Hopefully these lower costs will put more money into the north american economy. Otherwise the money just gets wasted. I would rather have "evil" oil companies and the "evil" canadian government have the money than flush it down the toilet or give it to great OPEC "friends" .

The Obama administration wants to be seen as blocking the use of this oil. Why would they ruin their argument by saying it will come into the US anyway, if we don't approve Keystone?

Your rhetoric is wrong about safety. Trucks and rail have many more spills and spill a higher percentage of oil than pipelines. The pipeline if built needs to be regulated for safety, which is much easier than regulating the trucks and rail.

By switching to more electricity for transportation, less oil sands oil will be used with or without keystone. That is the environmental argument. Oil Sands oil has a bigger environmentally negative effect than electricity used in a phev or bev.

 

True, be we are talking about utilizing N. America's existing railways to get to refineries. Presumably, the only new/upgraded rail lines would be in Alberta, at a fraction the distance of Keystone. Besides, once built, railroads can carry a variety of cargo, not just one

Pipelines have their own overhead in terms of dilbit/syncrude upgraders, compressors, pumping stations, and all the attendant personnel. Yes, the overhead may be smaller overall than railroads, but railroads can amortize them over a larger # of miles, as well as charging more to their customers due to cargo & destination flexibility that pipelines don't have. The main thing is marginal cost to move a barrel of oil, and yes pipelines are cheaper, but this cheapness must be balanced against potential spills, delivery flexibility, as well as the fact that we are trying to make oil more expensive, so we use less of it!

This is all true - right now. N. Dakota has done pretty well developing its oil without a pipeline, but by using oil-by-rail. Alberta is a bit further from refineries, but doable. Regarding east coast refineries, sooner or later they will have to upgrade to handle heavier crudes since the world is fast running out of light, sweet. They were hard hit during Libya's war and reduction in its light crude exports. They could also receive refined (heavy->light) oil from the Gulf coast, if only congress repealed the Jones Act. As far as California, it is possible the tar sands could meet CARB, but it would take heavy investment, such as:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/business/energy-environment/oil-industry-in-canada-bolsters-efforts-for-cleaner-production.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And, probably some carbon capture efforts as well. Main competitors are fuels shipped 10,000 miles from middle east in tankers burning bunker fuel. And don't forget this, which also helps with cost and CARB:

Berkshire's BNSF Railway to Test Switch to Natural Gas - WSJ.com

​

​

Another misconception. Keystone will raise prices, not lower them. As I've posted earlier, the current lack of infrastructure means Canada has no one to sell it to except U.S. Thus, tar sands sells at substantial discount to global standard, Brent. Once pipeline is built, refineries on Gulf coast will sell resulting gasoline and diesel to highest bidder. This puts American motorists in direct competition with China and India, which would not result in lower prices. But yes, Canadian government and N. American oil companies will make out like bandits. As far as OPEC is concerned, they are also making out like bandits thanks to China and India, so they hardly worry about tar sands oil. If they ever did worry, they would just cut their production, the global price goes up, and the American motorist gets screwed anyhow......without even physically using 1 drop of their oil. Because of Asian demand, the U.S. is no longer the "swing buyer" in global oil markets, and the window for us, by ourselves, bankrupting OPEC is essentially shut.....unless the Asians are onboard.

This is one thing that has really bothered me about the Keystone protesters. A lot of them probably subscribe to the notion that the Drug War has failed, and you can't win it unless you "cut demand". Well, why don't they listen to their own advice.....the State Dept. analysis is correct -in the absence of a pipeline, the ravenous appetite for oil globally will ensure that the tar sands gets put on trains and shipped to the coasts. So, yes, it will still come into the U.S., but Obama can't block rail. He also can't hinder a foreign country's tar sands development. All he has is this one piece of infrastructure to use as a political football to appease a hysterical base. I am personally pro-Obama and anti-Keystone, but the arguments pro and con are not sound.

But each spill is much, much smaller and detected much, much sooner.

Yes, the pipeline needs to be regulated, but will it? Remember, this is not oil, its dilbit. Look up the Kalamazoo spill. When this oil leaks, the dilutants evaporate, and this stuff goes back to being goo....very hard to clean. In water, it sinks, doesn't float.
Railways actually have a pretty good safety record for hazmat (although volumes are low). They can meet regs, but there is always 'external factors' (truck stuck in crossing, etc.) that pipelines don't have

 

Really if it was less expensive the Canadians would have proposed it. There is not a huge amount of rail cargo that needs to get into and out of alberta from Nebraska. If you allow the pipeline, the oil companies will pay for it. If you ask them to build a railroad, they will balk at the higher operating costs and continue to use trucks. Large amounts of trucks, cause more traffic, etc, until they get to the us portion of the pipeline and rail networks. The reason you hear about oil pipeline spills so loudly is they happen much less often than burning trucks full of gasoline or oil. Loading and unloading all these rail cars and trucks and cleaning up the spills does create more permanent jobs than a pipeline. IIRC after the pipeline is built it will only take 35 more people to operate it. The president was happy with his photo op standing next to the southern part of the pipeline.


Again electricified cars, bev and phev is about reducing oil use, which will reduce use of the oil sands. Picking trucks over pipeline doesn't really change the amount of oil very much. Making it a safe regulated pipeline is the important thing.

You have not followed the news. The east coast refineries are getting closed down. No one wants to invest in them without government subsidies. CARB has set a LCFS where oil sands get taxed at a much higher rate (A mystery rate that can rise to whatever carb feels like doing. Oil companies are not investing in california refineries, because under carb rules they make more money with shortages.