As they say in the oil industry: the cure for low oil prices is low oil prices. In any case, if the developing world is really to develop as much as hoped for and claimed they will need a lot of oil. Even if it is all renewables based (which is a fantasy) those renewables require large oil inputs to be manufactured (those 400 ton mining trucks won't be electrified anytime soon). So while I expect oil to be down over the next year or so, I think the long-term trend is upwards, for better or for worse.
The heavy trucks used in the mining industry are almost entirely electric. If a truck is going underground, much better for it to not be spitting fumes that will kill your workers, and if the mine is at the top of a hill, the regenerative braking from a loaded truck going downhill will charge the batteries so much that the trucks rarely, if ever, have to be manually charged.
Those have diesel engines. You don't know what you're talking about. The electric drive is to make power transmission easier, and yes, to allow for regenerative breaking.
It allows regenerative braking in principle, I don't know if any mining truck actually has one. Imagine the size and weight of a battery to power a 200T truck (total weight up to 385 metric tons) for any significant time. These trucks use induction brakes, which do not give back any energy, for the same reason they use electric motors instead of a gearbox - a lone friction brake for such a heavy machine would be too heavy and wear out too quickly (they do have auxiliary friction breaks, though).
Yeah, you're right. I had two different Komatsu PR things open and one was talking about regenerative braking and the other was for these electric drive trucks. Doesn't look like they have any sort of battery. Just alternators to generate electricity from the diesel engines.
The comment is wrong. Those trucks have diesel engines. It's even on the page they posted. The electric drive is for power transmission/traction control.
Mining trucks and industrial infrastructure don't really reflect the bulk of petroleum use. Something like 2/3 of the total US petroleum input goes to simple civil transportation alone.
Heavy industry and core infrastructure are the last things that people interested in renewables will be fighting over. The low hanging fruit of personal vehicles and electricity generation is what's killing the middle east oil cartel.
The passenger transport market drives the others. Engine development is not easy when you need to meet modern emissions. Switch passenger cars to electric and the others won't have enough money to do the basic research needed for the next engine.
Sure, my point is just that the developing world is going to use a lot of petroleum in order to develop. Mining was just an example of where it's used. No one commenting has refuted that, and the people talking about electric mining trucks don't know what they are talking about and have probably never been to a mine before.
> Sure, my point is just that the developing world is going to use a lot of petroleum in order to develop.
And mine was that it doesn't need to. The only reason it needs a ton of oil is if it wants to emulate the US obsession with private transportation, which even the US is getting away from. It's not like Civ 6 here: they don't need to invent the internal combustion engine for themselves.
There is no realistic path to development based on renewables without setting global living standards significantly below current developed world living standards. Just look at the number of countries that are developing. Look at their populations, and assume 50% of those populations get to 50% of European levels of energy use. Now look at the transition to renewables. Also note that 50%+ of "renewables" in Europe is biomass, which is arguably not renewable and environmentally destructive.
The idea that developing countries can develop without increasing global demand for oil is a fairy tale, and impossible to believe by anyone who thinks about the issue for more than a few minutes. Admittedly, there are in theory possible paths that would avoid an increase in fossil fuel demand, but I have never seen someone bring them up when discussing this, nor have I even seen an understanding of the basic problems that need to be circumvented.
My argument is oil dependence is a ball and chain on the aspirations of the developing world. The need of minor counties to buy oil in dollars chains them to the US and European dominated financial system with ruthlessly exploits them and savages countries that try to fight back. Once the leaders of those countries are confident they can do without constantly importing oil they're going to run for the exits as fast as they can.
I don't like it when people here downvote things they don't agree with.
For one, it makes it hard to find the counterarguments, which are often where the best parts of the discussion are.
I think the point about the cure for low oil prices is low oil prices stands on its own, but not as a virtue (not that I think you were implying that).
It's a warning. Low oil prices cause complacency, which means the next minor emergency we have to go crawling back to them whether we want to or not. Low oil prices are the anesthetic in the mosquito's saliva.
With 10s of thousands of miles of lines, it would be pretty monumental to electrify the entire US train system. Considering how efficient modern diesel trains are, That should be pretty low on our list of things to convert.
Nuclear trains might make sense with some of the newer reactors... but we know that'll never happen.
True although even in Europe where almost all mainlines are electrified, many freight trains are diesel-electric. That's because often the the plant loading docks etc. aren't electrified.
Most freight is carried by diesel trains. While it is possible to use electric engines, the ecconmics don't work out and so only a minority of freight is on electric trains.
There are diesel trains in Europe. They tend to be more on branch lines, though, with the main trunks being electric. (Electrifying every branch is not economic.)
In the US, it could still be done (and has), but the economics are not as compelling because the price of diesel is lower.
I'm told that the big railroads in the US have a plan to electrify their main line. It remains a plan because the costs are more high enough that it isn't worth it. If they decide fuel costs will go up by enough they will dust off the plan and electrify.
Even renewables need tons of fossil to lubricate moving parts. Generators in a turbine alone is a massive oil guzzler. The world will always need oil until a synthetic lubricant that isn't insanely cost prohibitive.
We know how to make lubrication oil from other sources. Natural gas is a molecule easy to make from organic sources, and from there we already have the industrial processes to may synthetic oil. It costs a lot more than regular oil, and making your own natural gas drives up the cost, but it isn't impossible. Note that we can also make synthetic gasoline, last I checked (long ago, gasoline was $1.30/gallon) you could buy drums for about $8/gallon, the only people who paid that price were on a track and good enough that a better fuel was the difference between win and loss.
Yes, but the amount surely matters. If machines or car only require oil for lubrication, for example, that's probably one or two orders of magnitude less of oil needed.
