Printable View
Firn,
the Verbund has almost only runninng water power plants, so no surprise that they have no storage, Tirol is where to look. :-)
Austrian power plants are well documented in wikipedia:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_%...her_Kraftwerke
Here you get owner and homepages. Interesting for me as German is the high capacity factor of the Austrain wind farms, they started late but did a very good job, we Germans can learn a lot from them.
Maybe the Austrians 'just' started later and are able to used the knowledge gained from their pioneering neighbour and profit from putting new technology on the best spots. Think about the law of diminishing returns, with place being a key factor of wind energy output. With new technology and bigger/higher wind farms the Austrian curve should naturally be above the German one ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulenspiegel
Good call about Verbund, I took also a quick look at Tirol. Seems like some recent pump storage projects were canceled due to understandable 'not in my backyard' opposition.
Firn,
yes the high capacity factor of the Austrian wind farms is a direct result of starting later, no discussion.
On the other hand they make money under conditions under which some Germans bitch, so the different owner structure leads to more efficient constructs in Austria. Maybe, small utilities can manage the connection of the wind generators with the net much better than the farmer in Frisia. :-)
The last point is quite interesting. Austria is not exactly the biggest country and has a couple of small utilities. In Germanys case a lot of of the windpower is strongly localized, just like in Austria. However thereit seems to fit rather well into the (Austrian) population density clusters. So one of the biggest problems for our Frisian Farmers, the lack of north-south connections should not bother those Austrian utlities, which are also located pretty centrally in Europe.
http://www.regioenergy.at/sites/regi..._2020_maxi.jpg
http://www.kozenn.at/fileadmin/image...er/kk062_v.jpg
The West of the country has obviously a lot of hydro power and is well suited for pump storage.
The actual headline in the Daily Telegraph is 'Fridges could be switched off without owner's consent to reduce strain on power stations', a strange report on a proposal by EU power generators to the EU Commission:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...-stations.html
Needless to say the power companies don't include paying compensation if private household or others appliances are remotely switched off.
Obvioulsy and understandably the article is rather polemic, it is in the end the Telegraph writing about an EU paper. The fridge is possibly the worst example and thus it ends up in it's headline. :D
Things like hot water storage seem the most usuable appliances. You could store supply spikes and can switch it off on demand peaks. Overall the topic is highly interesting and is a part of the evolution of the internet of things. If the markets work under the set of new circumstances energy prices should come actually down relative terms. I would love to see an button/option to allow the dishwater to start at will within some timeframe, provided the bill gets cheaper. We sometimes let the machine wash at night so that we can hang things up in the morning and switch the dishwasher on in the evening. Even simple programming helps a lot. The marginal returns get of course in general slimmer the more technology you employ.Quote:
Viktor Sundberg, energy strategy manager at Electrolux, warned: “This is Big Brother technology on a grand scale. The device inside the fridge or freezer will automatically change the way the appliance operates in response to the output of the grid.
“This method of shutting down household appliances could to be carried out almost instantly, saving the energy companies millions because they won't have to start up the turbines or pay huge industrial companies to cut production.
“Consumers are not benefiting at all and will be left paying more when they buy the appliances, as well as having their private goods controlled by outside forces.”
Needless to say that I won't tolerate any tampering when I'm let us say cooking. That would be evil.
BTW: I just read the Wiki article to get the English terminology concerning the subject of water heating and found that bit interesting.
In those quasi soviet states high up in the cold north the costumers rely even for warm water on their suppliers and that without in-building backup system. Obviously it seems like to be a very efficient solution which should also be reflected on the (low) price they have to pay. Markets and technological evolution at work in mostly quite decently working societies.Quote:
Densely-populated urban areas of some countries provide district heating of hot water. This is especially the case in Scandinavia and Finland. District heating systems supply energy for water heating and space heating from waste heat from industries, power plants, incinerators, geothermal heating, and central solar heating. Actual heating of tap water is performed in heat exchangers at the consumers' premises. Generally the consumer has no in-building backup system, due to the expected high availability of district heating systems.
Spoken like a hydroengineer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn
Too bad the Austrians would gain nothing by building lots of dams. Their tourism sector would suffer terribly. They're already losing their glaciers and will fight to keep horrible dams away from the picturesque sights of the Alps.
One of the many uncles is actually one, it seems to have some effect on me :D
I think we need to take a hard look for political and economic reasons at the existing plants for new pump storage. Hydropower output has remaind pretty flat over the last fifty years in Italy. Obviously the factor 'location' is the limiting one, as there are just so many good & usable spots.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...talia_1950.png
The monthly energy mix, idro = hydro. Eolica = windpower.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a_italiana.png
I think the future of that sector will be rather interesting. In the South we have a lot of potential for solar. The water is of course in shorter supply then in the North but ENEL could certainly have more then one big pump storage plant there.
Austria + Switzerland (30 TWh), Sweden (35 TWh) and Norway (80 Twh) have a lot of big natural reservoirs without or with underused pump capacity, they can simply increase the capacity factor of the pumps as first step and upgrade them as second step.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
OTOH Austria is actually building one pump storage with 1 GW power, this is per capita much more more than Germany has or will have in the next decade.
With at least 6 GW corsss border transmission capacity to Germany Austria has a good chance to cover up to 30% of the German long term storage demand and also deliver peak power.
I just wanted to point out how 'ragged' the overall energy mix percentages have become even compared to 2008 over a single year. Hydro always tended towards this but now we also have other renewables, especially solar. Quite a challenge.
After a good bike tour I googled a bit around as the topic is highly interesting and geographically rather close as there quite a bit of hydro plants around.
Projekt Obervermuntwerk II gives you a nice overview of another pump storage project in the Alps. In this case it is located in Vorarlberg, in the westernmost part of Austria, in some sense a rather Swiss place. ;)
The video is of course in German. I already posted the video link about the impressive Kopswerk II pump storage project.
The direct impact on the alpine landscape seems to be very low indeed and it is exactly the project I had in mind when I wrote about increasing the efficiency of already existing infrastructure. Two quite big lakes 300m of altitude get linked together giving the utility 21% more installed 'turbine' capacity and even 36% more 'pump' capacity. (Kopswerk II was another big pump storage project)
I think there should be an considerably bigger growth in net generated & storaged energy as more and more renewables get connected to the grid. From a business point of view such companies seem to have a wide competitive moat around them as such places and plants are scare and in high demand with a limited supply. Maybe I will take a look at their numbers, we will see.
ENEL, which stock price has done decently well since I bought it* only a month or two ago has short blog entry about the pump-storage plants in Italy, but seems to have forgot to add some...
P.S: Wiki to the rescue: 'Die Vorarlberger Illwerke AG ist ein sterreichisches Energieunternehmen mit Sitz in Bregenz. Mehrheitseigentmer ist mit einem Aktienanteil von 95,5 % das Land Vorarlberg.' So practically no real way to invest into it.
I got them at 2.75 now they are around 3. Mind you they could fall a lot. Nobody knows. But compared to their value, especially the asset part they seem still priced very low. But to repeat it again, nobody knows for sure.
This may be of interest (with link to original MoD report):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...stern-life-mod
Thanks Rick for that post, I only occasionally check The Guardian. A "lurker" responded:Quote:
An American academic thinks it is all exaggerated deliberately to ‘securitize’ the world’s issues and justify military actions and expenditures. He studies global energy and finds a disconnect with the material produced by militaries or think tanks.
Funny how things develop sometimes..
A couple of private investors (not including myself :D) did present yesterday their small pump-storage project to the public of my home village. Basically they want to use the very steep 700m drop between the valley floor and our plateau to get a highly efficient storage. The upper basin is planned to be underground! It should be placed in a relative isolated pine forest with little humus on the edge of said plateau.
Sadly I could visit it due to a meeting, in any case I will get more detail soon and talked to our major* beforehand about it, mostly about the revenue side. As far as I know it looks good from the credit side for the investors.
All in all I hope it will be a win-win-win situation for all involved. But I need to take a closer look. Another potential, very small step for energy security.
*His big farm has a very considerable number of solar modules on the roof, and it is pretty much the perfect spot being on a sunny ridge at roughly 1400m with the proper roof angles.
It's Thursday, so it must energy stories day for the Daily Telegraph.
Risk of UK power blackouts has tripled in a year, Ofgem warns or:Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...gem-warns.htmlQuote:
the margin of electricity supply capacity over demand could narrow to between 2pc and 5pc by 2015 and 2016.
Shale gas in northern England could meet Britain's gas needs for 40 years:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-40-years.html
Wind farms get generous subsidies for another six years:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...six-years.html
http://www.constructionweekonline.co.../#.UfXO66zYjAE
Will be very interesting to see if they can get to 9mbpd, or even close.Quote:
Iraq plans to invest $173bn in its energy infrastructure over the next five years in order to dramatically ramp up crude output, Oil Minister Abdelkarim al-Luaybi has said.
The investment in upstream activities, refineries and to increase natural gas production will boost oil production to nine million barrels of oil per day and bring in revenues of $600bn
IIRC Iran exports crude oil for refining across the Gulf and then imports the products, presumably at a premium. It will be interesting to see if new refineries are added.
Chatham House has come out with another excellent examination of energy consumption within Persian Gulf countries.
"The six GCC countries - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, the UAE and Bahrain - now consume more primary energy than the whole of Africa. Yet they have just one twentieth of that continent’s population. Energy intensity in the region is high and rising....
Almost 100% of energy in the region is produced from oil and gas without carbon dioxide abatement, and water security is increasingly dependent on energy-driven desalination. If the region’s fuel demand were to continue rising as it has over the last decade, it would double by 2024. This is a deeply undesirable prospect for both the national security of each state and the global environment."
http://www.chathamhouse.org/publicat...rs/view/193884
In February USDA released a major analysis, "Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation" (193 pgs) but I only discovered it now.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_chan...griculture.htm
Here in southeastern Ontario the weather has been relatively normal so far this year (unlike last year with its super-warm March which caused premature budding of fruit trees, then a summer drought followed by Sandy's spin-off).
It sounds like the Arctic has seen a return to more normal ice retreat as well:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Chatham House released a rather detailed (85 pgs) examination of oil theft in Nigeria, which has now reached industrial proportions (at least 100,000 bpd):
http://www.chathamhouse.org/publicat...rs/view/194254
The short video (3 min) is worth watching: the analyst (Christina Katsouris?) provides a thoughtful summary.
Ron Patterson started his own website prior to the closing of The Oil Drum, where Ron was one of the mainstay contributors. His postings were detailed and always sourced from EIA, BP, IEA, etc.
Dave Hughes is a veteran geoscientist, now retired from the Geological Survey of Canada where he was a leading analyst re. coal and unconventional gas. He is also a meticulous researcher who is careful in his assertions.
In yesterday's posting, Ron uses Dave's forecast re. US light tight oil (LTO) to conclude that the global peak in oil production will occur "no later than 2015." Ron is not prone to making predictions (he usually simply posts the data and offers his analysis) so I'm not sure what prompted him to do so this time.
In any event, Ron's prediction is quite in line with what the Joint Operating Environment said in 2008 (and again in 2010).
http://peakoilbarrel.com/world-oil-production-peak/
Rick,Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick M
The JOE's source for their information was the IEA report, this is what IEA is saying now.
http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/oil/
Bold highlights are mineQuote:
What is peak oil?
Peak oil can mean different things to different people. Some see it as the potential result of economies maturing and deploying more energy-efficient and diverse fuel technologies, meaning that year-on-year growth in world oil demand may level off. Others see it as the maximum possible annual rate of extraction of conventional crude oil, due either to physical resource constraints or above-ground political, economic or logistical factors. While others insist that since the definition of what constitutes conventional oil is constantly changing, total producible liquid fuels is what should be looked at.
Where does the IEA stand in the peak oil argument?
Our analysis suggests there are ample physical oil and liquid fuel resources for the foreseeable future. However, the rate at which new supplies can be developed and the break-even prices for those new supplies are changing. Global oil production levels are also dependent on the production policy of OPEC, which holds between one and six million barrels per day of spare capacity in reserve. Declining oil production in any given year can occur for one of several reasons unrelated to peak production, including OPEC production decisions, unplanned field stoppages and the impact of earlier investment decisions by the oil industry. A combination of sustained high prices and energy policies aimed at greater end-use efficiency and diversification in energy supplies might actually mean that peak oil demand occurs in the future before the resource base is anything like exhausted.
To me it seems the analysis is constantly adjusted based on new technologies and new oil field discoveries. None the less energy security will remain a principle security concern for most, if not all countries.
Thanks for your reply, Bill.
What the IEA says is sometimes inconsistent, even contradictory. Some of the strongest warning about PO and future oil supply have been oral statement by Fatih Birol, but usually they are not repeated/supported in formal IEA memos or documents.
In any even, a few lines of this year's WEO are quite striking and certainly warrant further analysis:
[The IEA sees] "oil output (excluding NGLs) dropping from 74 mb/d in 2012 to less than 13 mb/d in 2035, half of which would be from large onshore fields in the Middle East where decline rate are lowest."
Conventional, pump-able petroleum has been the mainstay of mankind's liquid fuel supply for over 150 years. To learn that even the IEA (which is traditionally overly optimistic in its prognoses) sees conventional oil supply shrinking to a mere 13 mbpd in 22 years' time ought to have alarm bells ringing.....
In recent weeks energy security has been an issue in the public arena in the UK, the catalyst being steep rises in the cost of electricity and for some the underlying, increasing costs of 'green energy and taxation.
For a couple of days the reduction in UK electricity generation capacity, under EU 'green' policies and being beyond planned operating limits was discussed. This was partly due to the announcement of the first new nuclear power station construction, for over twenty years, by a Sino-French consortium and with an agreed price double today's. See:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24604218
The British Society has recently published a special edition on The Future of Oil.
Most of the articles are behind a paywall but a few are free, including the excellent introductory paper by Steve Sorrell (UKERC) and Richard Miller.
This morning's Guardian includes this article (which provides links to the British Society journal and other links:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nomy-recession
Yesterday I listened to a BBC radio report on pollution in Beijing with mild interest which changed when a local academic commented (not exact words):I am not aware of China's domestic gas production or extent of imports, but it struck me that this public pressure could have a significant impact. Beijing's pollution is shared by other cities, such as Shanghai.Quote:
Yes atmospheric pollution is an issue here, especially when using international standard measurements. There is now public pressure for change and as much of the pollution comes from coal-powered electricity generation we are changing to gas-fired generation.
Anyone able to comment?
A better investment would probably be to use non-coal electricity for output growth and upgrade the existing coal-firing power plants with (better) emissions filters (or simply maintain existing ones properly).
Their many cars and motorcycles as well as the lack of green inner city areas, distance of Beijing from the sea, weather and geography all play their roles as well.
The rise of electrical scooters and more public buses may help the Chinese megacities' air quality a lot.
I'm sure in the event of a blockade or war the Chinese government could simply switch off power supply to residential areas or impose other forms of rationing.
Public transport is certainly a key element towards Energy security for China and to curb further rises in pollution. The Chinese push towards nuclear powerplants to cover the rising energy consumpition is another one and fits with the support for rail.
It is of course impossible for us to get a good idea about the quality of the investment and it's long term return on investment for the country. The Keynesian multiplier can be rather large and I think that the policy of urban rail is sound for the bigger denser cities with the opportunity costs looking not too bad. In smaller cities the calculation will be of course different. The financing ist obviously putting additional pressure on the state banks.
Another take on it from the Economist with some critical views:Quote:
Does the fact that new Chinese metro systems require operational subsidies pose a problem? It depends on your perspective. From a fiscal point of view, long-term operational aid will impose heavy burdens on local taxpayers, just as is true in U.S. and European cities. This is especially a problem because Chinese cities have intentionally set fares at very low levels (just 2 yuan a ride in Beijing), making it impossible to cover costs. Should China, with relatively low labor costs,* be in this situation?
I'm well aware of the bad state incentives, the already huge investment drive and the troubles with financing, but I think it is wise to take note of some of the opinions in the comments. What I know for sure is that the Chinese urbanisation level is still very low compared to Japan in the 80ies and will very likely rise considerably. The picture on the operating costs may well look more positive in years to come and in any case it is hard to imagine an alternative for Chinas larger cities urban transport problem.Quote:
Zhao Jian of Beijing Jiaotong University reckons that metros in fewer than 20 of the 38 designated cities make sense. He says that perhaps ten of those could be replaced with cheaper light rail, which runs above ground. The minimum core urban population that can qualify a city for an underground system is 3m people, but even a place that big may find the operating costs crippling. Mr Zhao says the systems in Harbin and Kunming are unnecessary.
Shi Nan of the Academy of Urban Planning and Design in Beijing says it is obvious that “we cannot count on private cars” to get around the big cities. But the metro projects mostly rely on government subsidies, and operating them will be a “bottomless pit”, says Mr Zhao. He says city officials tend to pursue grand projects that may not even make money because they will not be around to bear the burden. The performance of local officials is evaluated on how much they increase local GDP, not on whether projects they build are needed. Today’s leaders get credit for spending money. Tomorrow’s must foot the bill.
P.S: At least Line 13 in Bejing is not that empty. Longer trains should help.
It's not possible to determine the externalities in a metro/no metro comparison. The results of such comparisons are either subjective or based on an incomplete comparison.
A well-designed metro system can make sense in a European 0.5M city, especially if the train only goes underground in the most densely built-up centre of the city.
Brazilian bus lanes are a successful alternative, but you can only build them if you have enough space for another lane. The same applies to surface rail (I know rail lines running on streets, and they're both death traps for motorcyclists and just generally dangerous).
A few days ago information was posted about the Transatlantic Energy Security Dialogue which was held last month.
This video-linked event was organized by Jeremy Leggett in London and by Lt. Col. Danny Davis (US Army) in Washington and involved several analysts with military/security backgrounds. There were 21 participants in London and 28 in Washington.
The agenda was in two main parts:
1. Data of Concern (with important info from Mark Lewis and David Hughes):
- Lewis focused on decline rates, soaring upstream capital costs and stalling/falling oil exports.
- Hughes focused on shale (shale gas and tight oil).
2. Implications of Concern (including a presentation on "Implications for Militaries" by Paul Sullivan at NDU).
Notes (20 pgs) are available for Part One and are worth reading carefully.
I'll let you know as soon as notes for Part 2 are available.
Here is Leggett's synopsis with links re. Part 1:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/20...urity-dialogue
Some of the graphs from the Energy Security Dialogue were quite interesting, even if in some cases like the subsidies I would have like additional data like the development over time. Some thoughts:
1) The effect of the demographic boom of the OPEC countries, the overall lifesytle and some (stupid) policies have been discussed before. While you can understand how the idiotic energy policies of many a Gulf state developed you still have to shake your head about their gross stupidity which will have dire consequences for the long term wealth of the country.
Instead of selling the finite ressource at the high world prices you burn it at home as much as possible by pushing its price down low. You even use it to generate power for which you stimulate demand by reducing its price. :D
2) The fracking boom in the USA has certainly attracted a considerable amount of foreign captial, be it into the industry itself or sectors which profit greatly from low energy prices like European chemicals. I know too little to know about the business itself to comment on it, but if the fossil fuels in question are so important for the national security why do we not keep them in the ground when the need is far greater?
Personally I would advise most European countries to explore the issue but to leave the reserves where they are. Maybe I have read too much economic literature about WWII but from that angle and the environmental perspective it makes sense. If there is a supply shock it is quite likely that it could prove to be an highly valuable buffer.
"if the fossil fuels in question are so important for the national security why do we not keep them in the ground when the need is far greater?"
I agree, Firn.
For over 40 years the US has wished for/aimed at a reduction in oil imports. In numerous War College theses, etc we see military analysts arguing for energy independence, freedom from dependence on MIddle East oil, etc.
But surely it would make better sense in the long term to maintain a reasonably viable domestic oil (& gas) industry while relying on oil imports as well. USA and Canada need a domestic industry which is available, competent and ready to expand should something interfere with our regular supply of affordable imports.
But the degree to which we can deplete someone else's finite supply while preserving our own oil & gas reserves should be to our long-term benefit, one would think.
But we rarely hear this view expressed, even among military analysts.
The more pressing question for me is: If most pure shale gas companies in the USA do not make money with the production of methane, why should we copy this??Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick M
Hint: We have only shale gas in Europe, not meaningful volumes of shale oil or oil sands, the latter are highly profitable.
If shale gas operation requires subsidies then we can spend the same money with higher startegic impact on real REs.
Indeed, Rick, depleting the others reserves at a rather cheap rate and keep the own reserves for times of great need and high prices would seem wiser. This of course also a case in which capitalism does not work as the externalities are not taken into account by private agents. The state which did a fine job supporting the research should have been far stricter in regulating the market.
Ulenspiegel, I don't know on which guesstimates the business plan of many of those companies was founded and investement was comitted but I would be surprised to see the current prices of natural gas among the vast majority. A boom contains of course always the danger of overinvestment and the misallocation of capital. This might be half-bad if there is a good deal of sensible infrastructure as after the Railway Mania in the UK but it does not look as pretty for the current one...
It will be highly interesting to watch how the story goes on. In the meantime investments in other areas seem to be more promising in the long term.
I recently watched NASA | Regenerative Fuel Cells, Energy Storage Systems for Space Applications [HD] .
Great stuff, of course mostly about the things it says in the title.
The business plan of most companies was very likely quite solid on paper, however, reality sucks. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn
Pure shale gas companies need 4-6 USD/mcf to be profitable, the lack of infrastructure prevented and still prevents the selling of shale gas on the global market: the price dropped to 2 USD, now we are at 3-4 USD again, a price at which BTW utilities in the USA switch back to hard coal again.
As a typical shale gas well depletes very fast - usually in less than 7 years- it is very unlikely that pure shale gas companies made money with the production of methane in the USA. The whole affair is not sustainable in the current state and, therefore, a bad reference.
I do not dispute that in Europe the NG prices are (much) higher and shale companies may make profit under US conditions. However, with different ownership/production rights, less sophisticated technology, much smaller reserves and a much higher population density the overall picture is not clear and it does not help the proponents of shale gas to refer to the non sustainable US situation.
I support evaluation of shale gas production, but do not seee any need to support it in large scale. It is not a game changer, not in the USA, even less in Europe.
Changing the Game? : Emissions and Market Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies is a lecture by Hillard Huntington from the Energy Modeling Forum.
Perhaps the most important graphic was one showing the minuscle percentage of jobs added as a result of the big boom and its minor impact on the GDP. This should of course come to no surprise to people informed about the general makeup of developed economy but it was still impressive to see. Compare that with the response in the media and the 'feeling' of a student who asked about it.Quote:
Hillard Huntington discusses a study that evaluates the channels through which shale formations and new natural gas supplies can change energy, economic and environmental opportunities within North America. He concludes that continued shale gas development within North America is likely to have more sweeping impacts on future energy prices than on the economy or the environment*.
The regional price level of natural gas and the costs of transport were also nice.
*He focused on climate change and the respective emissions. The local impact was not discussed.
Ron Patterson picks up on Steve Kopits' presentation and questions whether OPEC is capable of responding when called upon to produce more oil:
http://peakoilbarrel.com/can-depend-...c-opec-peaked/
I spent some time recently to inform me a bit more about electrified vehicles and was actually quite surprised by the recent numbers of sales. The 2013 outlook feels actually a bit dated as it is a (electric) field in flux...
http://cdn.ecomento.com/wp-content/u...les-growth.png
Still market shares are mostly tiny...
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default..._2012-2013.png
Looking at the personal financial picture a buy looks far more attractive then I imagined, in this case as a second car for the family. I planned my next compact car purchase in 2016, we will see.
It is not that far-fetched anymore that in the long run electric cars will boost European utilities. Some oil imports might be substituted by an energy mix including other carbon. Used car batteries might indeed increasingly used for renewables. Still small numbers, still early days but it looks actually surprisingly good from my point of view...
Electric cars have been somewhat of a mirage but in the last years it is slowly, very slowly materializing.
However a vehicle with far more impact has been the eBike in various shapes and forms. The giant market driver is of course China, with 37 millions sold in 2013 pushing the fleet up to official 181 units. The EU sales are of course dwarfed, with only over a million hitting the streets.
The market growth has been very impressive indeed with China going in fifteen years from 60000 to those 37 million.
eBikes have become much more mature and are highly efficient means of transport for not that short distances. I tested recently a bit more expensive 29' hardtail pedalec with a central Bosch engine and was surprised by the 400W battery endurance and additional power. It worked great on a moderate gravel road but impressed me most up on really steep ramps in the forest. I would have prefered a bit wider tyres (2,5') and a little less pressure for more grip and a smoother ride.
But of course the vast majority in China uses still pretty cheap 'E-Scooters' with lead batteries for commuting, although lithium ones are growing over 40% compared to the 6% overall market growth there. They are having a huge impact on the way the Chinese move and are perhaps the brightest note in that terrible environmental mess.
Putin can't cut the gas off. He needs the money. At this point Putin is just as concerned with overdependence on Europe as a buyer as Europe is with overdependence on Russia as a seller.Quote:
Originally Posted by novelist
Russia is dependent on pipelines for exports. That makes them vulnerable: a pipeline is not a tanker; it can't be diverted to another destination. It only goes to one place, which means Putin sells to Europe or to nobody. He can't sell to nobody, because his government depends almost entirely on energy revenue. Europe would hurt if the energy trade with Russia stops, but Russia will hurt more.
The Russians are pursuing new pipelines that will allow them to send more gas and oil to Asia, but it will be years before they are ready. Europe will probably be able to diversify supply faster than Russia can develop new outlets, but for now, Russia and Europe are stuck with each other.
I don't really want to derail this thread into one on energy, but there are claims that the US can replace Russia with gas from fracking to supply Europe. Do calculations actually bear out? (If this has been discussed before, link(s) to relevant thread(s) is/are appreciated)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Maeda asked:I thought Firn (our resident economics guru) had posted on this, but a search found fracking has been mentioned - though not an answer to your question.Quote:
I don't really want to derail this thread into one on energy, but there are claims that the US can replace Russia with gas from fracking to supply Europe. Do calculations actually bear out? (If this has been discussed before, link(s) to relevant thread(s) is/are appreciated)
What I have read elsewhere suggests that there is no capacity in the USA to export such amounts as Europe would require, nor the capacity to bring it ashore either.
There are threads on Energy Security and the economic aspects of the Ukrainian crisis, which have various posts on European reliance on Russian gas supplies.
Simple answer: no. There is a surplus, but it's not that large, and the US has no gas export facilities. There are several under construction but their output is already committed to Asian buyers (prices in Asia are much higher).Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
The real impact of US gas independence on Europe is in displacement: as the US becomes self sufficient, the considerable amount of gas that the US used to import becomes available for others, like Europe, to buy. Again, though, this is tanker-transported LNG, and Europe would need to build more regasification terminals in order to exploit it. Just as Russia needs to invest time and money in infrastructure in order to redirect its current European exports to Asia, Europe needs time and money to build the infrastructure to replace pipeline-delivered Russian gas and oil with tanker-delivered imports from other sources.
Not meaning to turn it into an energy thread, but the energy relationship is an integral part of EU-Russian relations and it's always going to be part of the discussion.
"the considerable amount of gas that the US used to import becomes available for others"
Not really, for the same reasons that you gave re. inability of US to export its gas surplus overseas.
USA gas imports come almost exclusively from Canada via pipeline. These volumes have decreased during the past 8 years as US shale gas has swamped their market.
Continentally, there is a surplus, but Canada is no better equipped than USA to export large volumes of gas or oil overseas.
Returning to the issue of Russian leverage re. oil & gas 'weapon' I believe that Russia is better positioned to bear the pain of reduced exports than Ukraine, etc are able to cope with constricted supplies, esp. re. gas during the 4 winter months (Dec. 1 -March 31st). My guess is that Ukrainians are very worried about their ability to stay warm this winter.
Ulenspiegel and I discussed the issue of coal vs NG before. To some extent the European LNG terminals are already there as simple container ports which handle goal.
http://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/image...line_large.png
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0505190603.jpg
Some companies want already to reduce the competivness of coal. :wry:
http://www.datawatch.ze.com/assets/m...oal-market.jpgQuote:
A shale boom in the U.S. led to a collapse in gas prices that’s helped consumers and stimulated industries, forcing cheaper, more-polluting coal to be shipped to Europe for use in power stations. The U.S. doesn’t have environmental obligations placed on companies, unlike in Europe, where staying competitive is a concern.
....those container ports handle of course coal, not goals. :p
I have followed intermittentdly the market for electric vehicles of all sort. As written before in quantitative terms of electric bike demand, pedal-assisted or not, China is absolutely dominating the world market The growth there has been spectacular, aided in part by laws aimed at curbing the massive emission problem in Chinese cities.
In Vietnam eBikes have greatly increased their market share, by the looks and the facts.
Everybody who has been recently in the region knows that bikes with ICE keep a large part of it's economy moving. Gas is relatively expensive which can be observed by the special type of tank used there. Quite a few people take it home so that nobody gets any strange ideas :DQuote:
You’d have to be living under a rock not to notice the rising number of electric bicycles now zipping their way around Vietnam’s bustling streets, particularly in Hanoi. With the post-Tet buying stampede now in full flow, bike dealers are lining the pavements with the latest imports from around Asia. What follows is the inside word on the e-bike craze.
With IIRC around 80% of the world's production of motorbikes going to Asia trends there will have a huge impact on the global market.Quote:
On average, one electric bike rider who commute urban distance is estimated to pay only 50,000 Vietnamese dong (nearly 2.4 U.S. dollars) more in their monthly electricity bill.
Meanwhile, a scooter will cost around 500,000 Vietnamese dong ( 24 U.S. dollars).
...
In a recent interview with online newspaper VTC News, Nguyen Trong Thai, chief of the National Traffic Safety Committee, said that the number of electric bikes in Vietnam increased sharply in 2013 and 2014.
As one can see to some degree from my recent posts I became interested into electric mobility both from a technological point and in relations to the topic of 'energy security'. I also had a blast on ebike tours, so in that case the theoretical research was matched by practical experience.
e-mobility is increasingly making inroads into fields formerly occupied by ICE*, think bikes or drones, transforming them considerably in some cases. So while an electric scooter substitutes almost perfectly an ICE one a modern pedelec is a new, far lighter hybrid form. Arguably the biggest hurdle for many applications of e-mobility, for example larger vehicles are the weight and cost of the battery. Nobody knows how quickly the technology will progress
but it is good to take the past trends into account:
http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/...e00777c-f2.gif
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/Batter...%20Density.jpg
Still a very long way to go to achieve density parity, even if in other areas of the powertrain electric vehicles weight considerably less.
http://www.toyota-global.com/innovat...ol01_img02.gif
The Price per Watt has also gone down considerably. I'm not that sure about the break-even point of the total ownership costs but it gives a good perspective.
http://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uplo...nce-curve1.jpg
Once again the past development is no (sure) guide for the future but it offers a perspective on the present. Today the research into battery technology is a massive topic because there is just so much of importance which gets powered by them. The economies of scales in some industries are truly gigantic with knock-off effects into smaller fields. For example small drone technology was driven to a large extent by the increasingly more capable cheaper and smaller sensors employed by smartphones. In the case of batteries the tech spread was so far quicker and wider.
*internal combustion engine
A side show of energy security are direct military applications. It is important to point out that the energy cosumption of military forces is overall tiny compared to one of the civil world. While 'green' initiatives by the military can have merit they should arguably closely linked to military capability and not global sustainability. For a country facing a big war effort saving in civilian consumption has just so much more scope and arguably efficiency then doing so in the military itself. This doesn't of course mean that the armed forces shouldn't try to identify the lower-hanging fruits and sensible targets and picking those.
Military e-mobility is of course a diverse topic and it's application depends, like in the civilian world, on the specific circumstances. An electric MBT for example would be right now a lot of steps backwards in key areas like march speed, range and 'refueling'. On the other side of of the spectrum are micro drones which give the soldiers an eye up in the sky. In that case electric power has no competitor.
Staff like the Velocopter are highly interesting, but there much will depend on the development of battery price and density in the next decades. More on it's homepage.
How Much Energy Does the U.S. Military Consume? – An Update
http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/wp-...ption-2012.jpgQuote:
The DoD accounted for around 1 percent of the US energy consumption and 80 percent of the federal government energy consumption.
It's share in oil consumption is thus of course closer to 2 percent due the fact that USA as a whole have this energy consumption mix:
http://www.motherjones.com/files/ima...onsumption.jpg