News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Saudis Are Lying About Their Oil Production? by Robotbeat on Tuesday September 24, 2019 @10:27PM (#21066990)
Yeah, and batteries and electric energy will actually get cheaper as a result.
Re:The Saudis Are Lying About Their Oil Production? by BlueTemplar on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @01:54AM (#21068050)
Not if you are expecting to replace most of oil in fairly short order...
Re:The Saudis Are Lying About Their Oil Production? by Robotbeat on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @10:58AM (#21071381)
Batteries, perhaps, but it does not actually take very long to start up a cell production line (and other aspects, such as raw materials). If given the certainty of policy, accommodating regulators, and federal financing support, the lag between demand outstripping supply and new supply coming online may only be 2 or 3 years.

And for electricity, the utilities actually need the extra demand because of energy efficiency reducing lighting costs and distributed solar and subsidized wind providing occasional gluts. Since EVs can fairly easily be set to charge (most the time) on a schedule when electricity is most abundant, this is good for everyone.

Re:The Saudis Are Lying About Their Oil Production? by BlueTemplar on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:27PM (#21073662)
Worldwide power consumption is 109 GWh/year, only 24 of which are for electricity. Oil is 31% of that (34 GWh/y), but only 4% for electricity (~1 GWh/y).

EDIT : Whoops, my bad, somehow forgot that we were talking about transportation, which is "only" a quarter of power use...

So you need to go from 24 to 24+(34-1)/4 = ~32 Gwh/year, a 33% increase, and you expect to be able to do that in 2-3 years ?!

(Napkin calculations, not taking into account various (in)efficiencies and intermittency issues, but the order of magnitude should be roughly this one...)

Re:The Saudis Are Lying About Their Oil Production? by Robotbeat on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @04:41PM (#21075180)
? Your energy units are weird. 109 Gigawatt-hours per year is just 12.4 Megawatts. Worldwide average primary energy consumption is 18 Terawatts, or 157,000,000 Gigawatt-hours/year (GWh/year). Electricity (which is higher usable energy than "primary energy) is about 3 Terawatts average globally, a lot more than 4%.

US average electricity is ~475 Gigawatts. But there's a huge difference between average electricity and nameplate capacity. Natural gas peaker plants have about a 200GW nameplate capacity in the US but only produce about 25GW average. If we ran just the peaker plants all-out, we'd generate an additional 175Gigawatts.

US gasoline consumption is about 400 million gallons per day. I drive a Volt, and typically I get about the same range in 10 kWh that I would in a single gallon (Model 3s do even better, however). So roughly speaking, We'd need about 4 TWh per day, or about 167 Gigawatts average extra. Technically, averaged over the year, then, our peaker plants would have enough extra capacity to produce enough electricity. But natural gas combined cycle plants would also generate about another 100GW if ran all-out. (None of this is terribly realistic as there will be local transmission constraints and weather-related demand spikes which the peaker plants are needed for, but it is instructive.)

However, it'd take a good 10-15 years to mostly turnover the whole gas car market in the US even with a revived "cash for clunkers" program, so the capacity expansion would have plenty of time to sort these things out. We can expand solar and wind over this time even while phasing out gas.

The main thing, however, is the battery production.

Re:The Saudis Are Lying About Their Oil Production? by BlueTemplar on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @05:29PM (#21075706)
Blame Wikipedia('s sources) for the weird energy units. (I didn't want to bother with conversion when most of the sources seem to be in Wh/year anyway...)

It's 4% of electricity coming from oil, sorry for the confusion. (Hmm, I might have made another mistake here - eh, it's smaller than the uncertainty anyway...)

167/475 = 35% Nice to see that the math seems to check out with your data too. The issue of intermittence would warrant whole books of studies, hard to do it properly in comments here...