# Replacing heavy machinery with robots **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 11, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199 "2014-05-11T17:15:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/1 "2014-05-11T17:15:47Z")
Some people worry about the world’s dependence on fossil fuels and the future of oil prices/production rates. Suggest that alternatives like solar and wind power, battery backup, electric cars and so on ought to be able to replace most of what we do with oil and eventually the debate will come to a point along the lines of, “The world is reliant on oil. Mining to build your windmills and solar panels requires oil. Agriculture requires oil. There are just limits to what alternatives can replace.” That isn’t a fringe point either. Besides the sheer scale of the use of oil as an energy source, we use it in thousands of ways as a raw material as well. Even if it is possible to replace petroleum with things like corn oil or hemp oil, we’d want to also farm those things with equipment that didn’t run on petroleum or we’d be working at cross-purposes. The topic overall is probably too broad for one thread. I want to talk about just one aspect of the issue: replacing heavy industry/machinery with what I’m calling ‘robots’, even though the machines I’m imagining may not all require such a fancy name. Take the example of a bulldozer. Pretty much everyone takes it for granted that earth-moving equipment has to run on gasoline (or maybe propane or natural gas). I can’t think of an example of an electric bulldozer that exists today, but why not? And since the mechanical engineering of things that run on electricity tends to be quite different from the techniques to run things on gasoline, the design could end up being quite different, both to take advantage of ‘robotic’ machines and also to accommodate the different power source. [Check out this thing, for example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g). It’s a robot that runs around like a cat, next to links to lots of other surprising robots if you are interested. If an electric bulldozer has to be plugged into the grid or be tethered by a cord to a large battery array, it might not be practical for it to spin around and maneuver like a gasoline-powered bulldozer. If it were on legs instead of tracks, however, it could be a platform that walks around forwards and sideways and backwards without tangling itself in its cord. It could easily be more agile on uneven terrain. The actual earth-engaging portion of it might hang down from the center of the ‘platform’ and do its work from a full range of angles, with the kind of agility that robot arms can deliver and a bulldozer bucket cannot. And a viable fuel cell might even allow for untethered heavy machinery like this. If it can act like a bulldozer, can a ‘robot’ act effectively like machinery to mine copper, silver, cobalt, lithium and so on? If we are to truly build an oil-independent society, we’ll need electric heavy transportation ([here](http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=7EBCA177D9AA46A9AE176A89FAC3BB52&AudID=6EF55B05AA694954939FA7B6FB605DAB) is a preliminary attempt), electric mining equipment, and electric factories to build the solar panels, wind mills, batteries and other equipment, not to mention building the robots themselves. Some way of doing agriculture without oil will have to be devised- again, maybe ‘robots’ on legs will be the answer. When I say “oil-independent”, I don’t mean that 100% independence is necessary. The people that worry about it as a goal tend to be concerned with things like constricted oil supply in a world of rising demand, climate change, and other things like the acidification of the oceans and other effects of the overall filthiness of oil in a crowded world. It already looks like electric transportation is possible- a plug-in hybrid that gets 100mpg is already available at close to an affordable price, and these things are still pretty new. **I don’t want to talk about electric cars though** , and I think it is clear that we will need more than just those to really remove oil as a threat, both to the economy and people’s finances as well as the environment and people’s health. To destroy 75%-90% of global oil demand ought to be ‘good enough’ to say it is more-or-less the solution to the problem. But that will require replacing heavy machinery with ‘robots’. The debate is 1) to what degree is this possible, and in what kind of time-frames and 2) Considering the state of the world today, do we have a realistic choice to not attempt this? ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/2 "2014-05-11T17:34:59Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I want to talk about just one aspect of the issue: replacing heavy industry/machinery with what I’m calling ‘robots’, even though the machines I’m imagining may not all require such a fancy name. Take the example of a bulldozer. Pretty much everyone takes it for granted that earth-moving equipment has to run on gasoline (or maybe propane or natural gas). How much fossil fuels do heavy industrial machines actually use compared to personal motor vehicles? I’d imagine that the percentage is comparatively small. In any case, electricity still needs to be generated from an energy source, and today this is still predominantly from fossil fuels. [Over 60%](http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3) of electricity is produced from fossil fuels: > [@](#): > > Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were: > > ``` > Coal 37% > Natural Gas 30% > Nuclear 19% > Hydropower 7% > Other Renewable 5% > Biomass 1.42% > Geothermal 0.41% > Solar 0.11% > Wind 3.46% > Petroleum 1% > Other Gases < 1% > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/3 "2014-05-11T18:05:56Z")
> [@dofe](#): > > In any case, electricity still needs to be generated from an energy source, and today this is still predominantly from fossil fuels. [Over 60%](http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3) of electricity is produced from fossil fuels: True. However, [Germany has demonstrated 60% of national grid power generated via wind and solar](http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/15/renewable-solar-wind-energy-produced-much-60-germanys-electricity-october-3rd/), and they’re still working on it. That part can be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/4 "2014-05-11T18:30:32Z")
You’re talking about three different things here - the powerplant (electric vs. ICE), the control (robot vs. driver) and the propulsion (walker vs. wheeled/tracked). Addressing the last alone, it is unlikely that a walker will provide improved results compared to a more traditional vehicle. A bulldozer, for example, benefits from a resilient propulsion system, a low center of gravity and a large footprint. A walker will have a much harder time getting enough traction to push a large quantity of material and has a propulsion system more prone to mechanical failure. For speed, wheels are an order of magnitude better than legs. There are robots being developed which are fast for a walker, but a remote control car built by a bunch of guys can literally be ten times faster than the output of a multimillion dollar government contract. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/5 "2014-05-11T19:39:59Z")
I expect things like bulldozers or combines to still have drivers, and the machines don’t have to be walkers. I’m thinking that there are both advantages and limitations to trying to run everything off of electricity, which might result in approaches that look different that we have today. For example, a human-controlled robotic miner might be a walker which can brace itself against the inside of a tunnel in any direction for traction as it chews through the earth. Or maybe that’s ridiculous and we’d just use big electric drills. Either way, the point is to replace petroleum with electricity in heavy industry. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/6 "2014-05-11T20:00:56Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > For example, a human-controlled robotic miner might be a walker which can brace itself against the inside of a tunnel in any direction for traction as it chews through the earth. Or maybe that’s ridiculous and we’d just use big electric drills. No, that doesn’t make sense. Even if you wanted to brace your tunneler against the ceiling, you could do that just by using more wheels on top, with a suspension system. Where walker-like machines make more sense is where you have large, unbalanced loads that are only applied while stationary. A truck-mounted crane, for example, often uses legs to increase its footprint without being a truck twenty feet wide. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/7 "2014-05-11T20:05:53Z")
The Caterpillar D7E bulldozer uses electricity to power the drive train. It still uses a diesel engine to generate the electricity though. Sort of like a hybrid car. In any event, it’s not really clear what you think robots have anything to do with petroleum. The more devices and heavy machinery can use electricity, rather than gasoline, diesel or natural gas the more electricity can be generated by larger, more centralized power sources that don’t necessarily need to run off of fossil fuels. On of the main reasons we still use gasoline for most cars is because gasoline is still the most efficient method of storing energy to be transformed into mechanical motion. But it’s largely irrelevant whether those devices are controlled by a human or a computer. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/8 "2014-05-11T20:14:41Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Take the example of a bulldozer. Pretty much everyone takes it for granted that earth-moving equipment has to run on gasoline (or maybe propane or natural gas). I can’t think of an example of an electric bulldozer that exists today, but why not? A bulldozer could run on electricity, gasoline or any number of fuels. Which are actually used depends on the cost per energy unit and the compactness of on-board storage. Right now, the cost and compactness is best met by gasoline or diesel fuel, which can store vastly more energy in 1 cubic foot that the best battery or hydrogen tank. If batteries improve by a factor of 10, all bulldozers will probably be electric. That still leaves the need to produce electricity to store somehow (you can’t dig it out of the ground), and that cost should not be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/9 "2014-05-11T23:44:17Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > If batteries improve by a factor of 10, all bulldozers will probably be electric. That still leaves the need to produce electricity to store somehow (you can’t dig it out of the ground), and that cost should not be ignored. Right. Speaking of ‘digging it out of the ground’, one large consumer of fossil fuels is the fossil fuel extraction industry itself. I’m not imagining a world without drilling- wouldn’t it be more efficient to run oil-drilling equipment on solar power so that we could keep more of the product we’re trying so hard to extract? ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/10 "2014-05-19T12:21:33Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Right. Speaking of ‘digging it out of the ground’, one large consumer of fossil fuels is the fossil fuel extraction industry itself. I’m not imagining a world without drilling- wouldn’t it be more efficient to run oil-drilling equipment on solar power so that we could keep more of the product we’re trying so hard to extract? Amusing concept, but it’s almost paradoxical. If the solar power were cheaper, this means that there would be less pressure on prices for energy sources of all types. (basic supply and demand). This would, in the near term, _reduce_ prices for the fuel needed to run the oil drilling equipment, which would mean it would continue to be cheaper to use fuel instead of solar electric… Of course, in reality, there are many other concerns which work against this as well. However, I have read of proposals to use a nuclear reactor to supply the energy to process out the oil in the Alberta tar sands. This is quite amusing, since you could alternatively just use the nuclear reactor to supply the energy directly… ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/11 "2014-05-19T21:32:48Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > However, I have read of proposals to use a nuclear reactor to supply the energy to process out the oil in the Alberta tar sands. This is quite amusing, since you could alternatively just use the nuclear reactor to supply the energy directly… Oil is not generally used to generate electricity. So you probably could not use the energy from the nuclear reactor in place of the oil. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/12 "2014-05-27T17:21:17Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > True. However, [Germany has demonstrated 60% of national grid power generated via wind and solar](http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/15/renewable-solar-wind-energy-produced-much-60-germanys-electricity-october-3rd/), and they’re still working on it. That part can be addressed. Germany has one of the highest costs of electricity per kWh on the planet. This is a huge disincentive of having a business or even living in this country. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/13 "2014-05-27T19:23:39Z")
Just to add another warning of the danger of these types of policies and how Germany is trying to dig itself out of the economic mess they have created: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10577513/Germany-is-a-cautionary-tale-of-how-energy-polices-can-harm-the-economy.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10577513/Germany-is-a-cautionary-tale-of-how-energy-polices-can-harm-the-economy.html) > [@](#): > > Germanys shift to renewable energy was once Angela Merkel’s flagship policy - now it has become her biggest headache. > “For me, the most urgent problem is the design of the energy revolution,” said the German Chancellor in her first television interview after being re-elected last month. “We are under a lot of pressure. The future of jobs and the future of Germany as a business location depend on it.” > \ > > To pay for this green adventure, surcharges on electricity for households have increased by 47pc, or €15bn, in the past year alone. German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe; before long, the average three-person household will spend around €90 a month for electricity, almost twice as much as in 2000. Currently, more than 300,000 German households a year are seeing their power shut off because of unpaid bills. > > \ > > Compounding problems, when the wind stops blowing or the sun disappears, the electricity supply needed to power the national grid becomes scarce. This has pushed Germany into increased use of heavy oil and coal power plants, which is why\*\* the country released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2012 than in 2011\*\*. > > \ > > German industry is in trouble. Energy prices are 40pc more expensive than in France and the Netherlands, and the bills are 15pc higher than the EU average. Even though Germany’s energy-intensive manufacturing sector is given a break with reduced levies, industries such as chemicals and steel are among the hardest hit, with energiewende costs of up to €740m a year. Germany’s policies have resulted in higher costs and greater carbon emissions. Not one to laud as an example. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/14 "2014-05-28T14:09:53Z")
That article is an obviously slanted anti-renewables hit piece. Take a look at [this](http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/myth-busting-germanys-energy-transition/). That article characterizes the shutdown of Germany’s nuclear reactors as “Ms Merkel caved in to shrill demands for the country’s atomic reactors to be closed.” But look > [@](#): > > Germany’s switch to renewables started in 1991, and the nuclear phaseout started in 2002. > [@](#): > > To say that these policies cause higher CO2 emissions is an excercise in cherry picking data > Germany’s recent uptick in coal consumption has been a temporary situation, primarily driven by high natural gas prices which made coal power cheaper. It’s simply incorrect to lay that at the feet of the nuclear power phaseout or the Energiewende. As for the higher prices, well that is how renewable power works- the costs are almost all up front and the benefits take effect over the long term. No acknowledgement of this in the article you cite. In the long run the renewable infrastructure will be paid for and Germans will be relieved of the burden of having to pay for fuel every year for electricity. Give it time. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/15 "2014-05-28T16:12:58Z")
The Daily Telegraph is a mainstream UK paper that has existed for almost 160 years. [SmartPlanet.com](http://SmartPlanet.com)…seriously? > [@SmartPlanet.com](#): > > Fact: Germany’s switch to renewables started in 1991, and the **nuclear phaseout started in 2002**. > > \ > > Fact: The count of coal plants under construction has actually fallen by six since Germany **began its nuclear phaseout in 2011**. Well which is it? 2002 or 2011? Both are quoted in your excellent piece of unbiased journalism. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/16 "2014-05-29T01:59:04Z")
Look. I cited Germany as an example of a country that is getting a very large proportion of its power from renewables, in response to criticism that renewables just can’t scale up or something along those lines. Your criticism is different- that renewables have raised electricity prices in Germany and therefore it is not a good model for other countries to follow. But this is easy to respond to by pointing out one simple fact: Germany was an early adopter of renewables. Look at the trend in [solar prices](http://www.ysjournal.com/articles/2012/5/11/images/YoungScientistsJ_2012_5_11_6_97658_f3.jpg), and [wind prices](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/wind2.jpg). In the US today, solar power is equal to or cheaper than grid in many places. In Hawaii, solar + storage is already past grid parity, and it is coming to the rest of the country, and indeed, to the rest of the world. By 2020 nearly every country in the world will be past solar grid parity. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t matter how old The Telegraph is, they published a blatant hit piece on renewable power. Their take on Fukushima is “nobody died,” a highly dubious claim. [The USS Ronald Reagan suffered serious radiation contamination from the event](http://nypost.com/2013/12/22/70-navy-sailors-left-sickened-by-radiation-after-japan-rescue/), just for starters. The list of harms to Japan from this even goes on and on and on- I bet a large majority of Japanese would gladly exchange higher power prices for that meltdown having never happened. This is just one of many slanted, failed arguments in that article. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/17 "2014-05-29T03:06:06Z")
Command and control markets do not work. History is my cite. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/18 "2014-05-29T06:04:39Z")
Well, I _did_ point out that solar either already is or soon will be cheaper than grid. That’s not command and control, it is competition. The smart money is on capitalizing on the cheapest energy (without polluting ourselves to death- you must admit there is value in that). ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/19 "2014-05-29T11:52:47Z")
I believe that a lot of the large mining earth moving equipment is already electric. If your in the market to purchase one to play around with check here: [https://mining.cat.com/products/surface-mining/electric-rope-shovels](https://mining.cat.com/products/surface-mining/electric-rope-shovels) ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199/20 "2014-05-29T12:00:56Z")
And another thought. The reason a lot of mining equipment is already electric is that it is used in one place and it is easy to get the electrical power to the equipment. Your standard bulldozer is portable. I am sure we all have seen them rolling down the highway to the next job. Now is there electrical power available at that jobsite to run an electric bulldozer ? That is the problem. The cost to bring in power to a new job site to run a bulldozer for a few weeks of the earth work phase of a project is prohibitive. This is why most construction equipment runs on diesel. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/replacing-heavy-machinery-with-robots/688199.md?page=2)