Peak Oil

[blueback]

I've been researching Peak Oil for some time now and I'm curious what the rest of you think about it.

If you're unfamiliar with the term, I'll give a brief overview:

Peak Oil: the point at which oil production begins to decline and never increases

The world's supply of oil is finite and will run out eventually. In this case "run out" means that we will pump out all the oil that is worth pumping. Eventually all the oil left will be so hard to extract and so impure that it will take as much energy to produce it as it supplies, at that point the oil supply will have effectively "run out."

An oil company scientist named Hubbard predicted when US production of oil would peak. He described how production follows a bell-shaped curve and predicted US production would peak in 1970. He was, depending on who you ask, 6 months to a year off. When is theory was applied to world oil production he predicted the peak would fall roughly on year 2000. Of course, he couldn't predict geo-political events like OPEC restricting supply, so the peak was delayed. Further analysis of his theory, factoring in the decrease in oil production when OPEC was messing with supply, puts the peak of about 10 years (2010).

Numerous other experts and neophytes have made their own predictions and, with the exception of those who think oil is generated abiotically in the core of the Earth, the consensus is that the peak will happen before 2040. The problem with accurately predicting the peak is that oil is produced by private corporations or government owned companies and both have strong incentives to overstate their reserves.

The problem with Peak Oil is that fossile fuels have driven all the progress of the last 100 years. Oil is an ancient reserve of solar energy that is amazingly easy to harvest, transport, and utilize; it is a chemical energy source without compare. All the technology we (the US) use on a daily basis requires oil. It is a raw material for plastics, the energy for transportation, and the main ingredient in all our food. Additionally, it is the prime source of economic growth; without an increasing supply of energy our economy would shut down.

So, here are the basic problems:

* Oil and natural gas are directly responsible for the Green Revolution in agriculture which sustained the population boom of the last 100 years. For every calorie of food you eat it took 10 calories of oil to make. Dumping the accumulated sunlight of history onto our crops has allowed us to exceed the carrying capacity of the land we live on. Without that supply of chemicals, it will be impossible to sustain the current world population.

* Oil is the primary source for many of the raw materials used in modern industry. Again, as the supply is exhausted we might be unable to find economical alternatives.

* Oil is the primary source of energy for transportation pound-for-pound it is better than any other energy source. The global (and national) economy depend on transportation. If the cost of driving grows too much our economy will effectively shut down.

Peak Oil is the greatest risk management problem the human race has ever faced. It is possible for us to transition to other sources of energy, but doing so will require at least 1 and probably 2 to 3 decades. Since we don't know when the Peak is going to happen, we should start transition immediately. If transition is started after the Peak, we will have several decades of intensive work to do with a steadily decreasing energy supply. There is also the possibility that the Peak will come as a suprise. If it does, the shock has the potential to echo through the global economy. If investor confidence is shattered we could find ourselves in a global recession over-night. Such a shock could trigger resource wars between the super powers (US, Russia, China) and nations with oil (OPEC). Such wars could exhaust our remaining supply of time and energy to the point where transition to alternative energy sources is impossible. If we miss the window for transition the human race could back-slide into the middle ages within a single generation. However, there would be no supply of energy left to rebuild with and the few of us who survived mass-starvation, plague and war would be the first generation of humanity to step into a future with little hope of ever knowing what technology was.

[thod]

Peak oil is already here.

All this garbage of classifying Canadian oil shales etc as reserves doesnt fool me. There is no way to extract all that oil. There will always be oil available but it will be ever more expensive oil. Oil production is falling. You get Bush telling the Saudis to pump more but they wont. They know their fields are running out. You dont build more refining capacity for something that is decline. By the time those plants were on line there will be no need for them.

The biggest problem is going to come from agriculture. You need that oil to make fertilisers. We will have to switch to varieties that do better under organic methods. These are more labor intensive. We will see a return to village life. You will have to live close to the fields you work. It wont be quite the same as 19th century. We will still have machines powered by ethanol etc to help the harvesting.

Plastics will still be produced but they will be more expensive. You wont get everything tripple wrapped from the store. The store itself will become more local since you no longer own a car.

Its transport that will be hit hardest. All these spread out suburbia will become ghost towns. Without the car they are pointless. You will see a return to steam trains crossing the country. There is plenty of coal and wood around still. But most things are going to be provided within walking/cycling distance because thats all you will have.

History will be see the oil age as temporary blip. Oil will continue to rise in price, the future is less transport and less conumer oriented. It will happen in our lives. The dense cities will still thrive. The domitory towns around them will suffer most. The agriculural villages will grow. The mid west mega farms will suffer since they are so reliant on pesticide/feriliser/machinary. They will need labor for the new organic methods. These people will come from suburbia.

Food is going to become much more last century too. Buying banana's in Alaska means heavy transport and storage costs.

[AgentofGaming]

We do have solar energy, hyrdo (think Niagra falls), nuclear plants, methane retrieval (garbage burning) and steam engines. Wouldn't that be more pre-industrial instead of middle ages? How about everyone living like Victorian England, with Solar and Electric cars for the ultra rich, and Steam/Electric trains for the poor?
No more freight trucks, going back to the age of the railroad.

Well provided we haven't reached critical greenhouse gas levels, at least there's less 'global warming beyond return' risk.

[blueback]

The problem with switching to alternative sources of energy is that EVERYTHING has to switch.

For example, it doesn't matter what the engine burns, it still has to be manufactured at a factory. The engine factory has to run on a source of energy that is sustainable. Also, it doesn't matter what the factory runs on, the steel the factory is made out of has to be refined, which means the refinery has to run on sustainable energy. We could use coal to smelt the ore, but the coal will eventually run out too.

Eventually, everything (with a few exceptions) is going to have to run on electricity. Very few things will run on chemical energy because the chemicals will have to be either manufactured or redirected, they won't be harvested from the ground.

I see either a future of stone buildings burning wood for warmth or a future of electric vehicles, dirigibles, solar power and local agriculture.

[AgentofGaming]

Yes it'll obviously take time to adapt. Say if a solar storm knocked out all the transformers (not robots ;)) in America, it would take months to restore power. Production requires energy too definitely, but we'll just have to throw out all the internal combustion engines and start tapping into the power grid (conservatively until the renewable are up).

Well when coal runs out we'll run off solar, wind and hydro. When is coal's peak?
Then there's always synthetic fossil fuels and synfuels (gas from coal) but those take energy and produce more CO2 than before.

It will be an interesting future, a blend of advanced and advanced, almost seems like fantasy except that it'll be post-apocalyptic. In such unstable conditions, I would hope that it doesn't end up in countries plundering each other and nuclear war.

It all comes down to renewable energy. A pity solar panels are inefficient. 1 hour (or was it second?) of solar rays on the whole Earth is the world's energy use for a year.

However some things won't change like walking. Like if you had a car, you still have to walk to an office. Wheelbarrows are still cheap, now they'll be used for more than gardening.

[Vortex]

Peak oil theory relies on some bad assumptions:
1) The worlds supply of oil is finite, and were approaching exaustion limits
2) We can't artificially create oil

Point 1 is true, in the sense that there is a finite amount of readily available oil reserves on the planet. However, we haven't reached that point. New fields are constantly discovered, new drilling techniques are constantly invented; if you go buy predictions from 20-30 years ago, we should be 100% depleted by now, or nearly depleted.

In the Rocky Mountains alone, there is, IIRC, at least 1 billion barrels worth of oil in oil shale (some estimates go considerably higher). It hasn't been exploited for a number of political and technical reasons, but its still there, and will still be used if cheaper, more politically expedient methods become more expensive in the opportunity cost scale. Its completely fallacious to claim that were going to run out of oil anytime soon.

As for the second assumption, its also 100% wrong. Thermal Depolymerization (TDP) technology alone proves that humanity is not dependent on fossil fuels for the creation of oil. Ethanol, fuel cells, even electric - could all one day potentially solve the problem of fuel for cars and jets, leaving the only remaining consumers of oil synthetic plastics and lubricants. All this technology, mind you (yes, even TDP) is in working condition right now. Opportunity costs simply dictate that conventional oil be used for the time being.

Finally, there is a common misconception about energy in general when it comes to political arguments. Oil != energy. Oil is oil, and is used mostly in synthetic products, like plastics, fertilizers, and lubricants. While gasoline is the largest portion of this usage, its also not breaking the 50% use barrier. All our "energy" is produced by and large by coal power plants, along with a smattering of nuclear and renewable. Barring logistics (which currently use oil) you could run the entire electric grind in the US without a drop of oil burned for electric generation (currently, there are a few oil power plants in the US, but their net output is trivial compared to the total amount produced).

[FLBareBear]

Well, just to add my $.02 worth.....

While the world supply of petroleum is limited, I do believe that it will last the rest of my life, more or less. So I'll burn it 'til I cant afford it.

We are sure to have another 15 to 20 years of oil, I figure. :suspicious:

[blueback]

Peak oil theory relies on some bad assumptions:
1) The worlds supply of oil is finite, and were approaching exaustion limits
2) We can't artificially create oil


You've actually got 3 assumptions there.

#1A, that the supply of fossile fuels is finite, is true. There are a couple people who think that oil is generated abiotically somewhere deep in the Earth but they're the kind of "scientists" that most scientists make fun of and don't invite to parties.

#1B, that the peak is imminent, is the real problem. It's hard to say how much oil is available because the people who know best (oil companies) all have very good reasons to overstate their reserves and overpredict undiscovered reserves.

#2, that oil can't be artificially created, isn't actually one of the assumptions in Peak Oil theory. Oil is being artificially created right now, and production will probably increase in the future, but only to a certain extent. Artificial oil is mostly made from coal, and the coal is finite, too. Besides, it takes so much energy to make that it barely breaks even.


New fields are constantly discovered, new drilling techniques are constantly invented; if you go buy predictions from 20-30 years ago, we should be 100% depleted by now, or nearly depleted.


Well, yes, new fields are being discovered. However, they are small and hard to get to. Also, the RATE of oil discovery has been dropping for decades while the RATE of oil production has been rising. Either someone is going to suddenly discover a huge reserve of oil or we are going to run out.

You're right, we should be. Also, we are nearly depleted.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Besides, the question isn't whether or not the peak will happen, but when and how suddenly it will happen.


In the Rocky Mountains alone, there is, IIRC, at least 1 billion barrels worth of oil in oil shale (some estimates go considerably higher). It hasn't been exploited for a number of political and technical reasons, but its still there, and will still be used if cheaper, more politically expedient methods become more expensive in the opportunity cost scale. Its completely fallacious to claim that were going to run out of oil anytime soon.


Yeah. You might want to actually research that claim. The report I linked to above includes says this :
"The world’s largest known oil shale deposit covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming…Production from oil shale is energy-intensive, requiring other energy sources to heat the shale to about 900 to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit to extract the oil. Furthermore, oil shale production is projected to contaminate local surface water with salts and toxics that leach from spent shale.”
There's more info then just what's in that report, but if you don't care to find it on your own you won't listen to me if I cite it. The point is that oil shale (and tar sands) will never produce oil at a rate comperable to current demand. It takes too long to get the oil to flow and it takes too much energy for the oil to be cheap.


Opportunity costs simply dictate that conventional oil be used for the time being.


Sure, there are plenty of high-cost ways to fill barrels with chemical fuel, but they are high-cost and REALLY slow. Nothing compares to sticking a straw into the ground and sucking up oil. Even when the cost of pulling oil out of the ground grows to the point where alternative methods of producing oil are competative, the rate of oil production will still drop. Peak Oil theory simply says that the "peak" is the RATE of oil production that, once reached, will never be reached again. It takes into account all those alternative means of producing oil. They won't be fast enough to make a difference.


Barring logistics (which currently use oil) you could run the entire electric grind in the US without a drop of oil burned for electric generation (currently, there are a few oil power plants in the US, but their net output is trivial compared to the total amount produced).


Oh, well that's easy then. I wonder what all those smart people were worried about. We'll just run the electric generators without "logistics". That way we won't have a problem.

I assume by "logistics" you are referring to all the things which burn chemical energy that help keep the generator running. Like the cars that are driven by the people who work at the power plant AND the the trucks that deliver food to the Wal-Mart that those people shop at AND the fertilizers that grow the food that gets delivered to the store.

The economy is a system. All systems exist to convert energy into useful work. No energy, no work.

[thod]

We are sure to have another 15 to 20 years of oil, I figure

World food prices are already spiraling upwards. Many countires have recently placed price controls on basics. Its all down to the price of oil. The average US citizen spends so little of their income on food that they dont see it.

Do a google on "world food prices".

[Stealth]

We are sure to have another 15 to 20 years of oil, I figure. :suspicious:

What's important though, is not so much how many years of oil we have left, but how long we can maintain the daily production output that is required for the economy to continue to function.

All the machines and actions that constitute our modern civilization requiere a certain amount of oil per day to remain operational, currently the world uses in the range of 80 million barrels of oil per day.

If daily oil prioduction falls below this demand, which is largely inelastic, then we will first see demand destruction in the poorer countries, who will be outpriced by the first world (this is already happening because of high prices, even though there is still enough oil.). When production falls below demand in the first world we will likely see systemic collapse there. This is because in our societies action is usually taken in response to immediate events, but problems like peak oil require decades of preparations. And also because timely implementation of alternatives and the restructuring of society would require "uneconomic" moves and investments (though they are ultimately more economical than systemic collapse.) and investors are more likely to focus on short term gain.

So, in theory scarcity of oil would stimulate the implementation of alternatives, however, when oil actually becomes scarce, it will be too late because the entire manufacturing process of all possible alternatives is also completely dependent on oil and will become more expensive as oil becomes more expensive. As someone else has said, if we want to create a car that runs without oil, we also need a car factory that runs without oil, a steel factory that runs without oil, an iron ore mine that runs without oil etc.

Another problem is that there is no central directing apparatus that could help society to addapt to declining oil production. Today there is obvioulsly a large amount of waste and we could probably manage with half of todays oil consumption (well some countries at least, like the US). However since distribution in a market economy does not follow principalls that make any logical or logistical sense , scarce oil is unlikely too reach vital destinations, and will instead reach random destinations that are able to exchange money for oil. Basically, vital oil reserves will continue to be wasted on pointless actions, while vital operations canot be maintained which will cause systemic collapse, unless there is rationing. But even with rationing it will be impossible to maintain our standard of living, though it may latter rebound when, or rather if, technology has finally adapted.

Though population at that point will likely be significantly reduced, because current population levels and agriculture practices cannot be maintained without enourmes fossile fuel input. Actually current agricultural methods are also unsustainble because of depletion of available fresh water reserves. Many underground aquifiers now lie in climates much drier than at the time they originaly formed, and when they are depleted irigated agriculture in those regions will no longer be possible.

[blueback]

If you look at the Energy Information Agency's (EIA) report on energy use it shows that we have used more energy over the last 100 years then over the last several thousand.

That sounds like a problem, but it is just the underlying issue. The problem is that energy use facilitates use of everything else.

There are all sorts of resources we have been exploiting at rates that are expanding exponentially: fresh water, virgin forest, clean air, mineral deposits, fossile fuels, global temperature, etc. The fact that it has worked this long is no indication that it will continue to work indefinitely. There is only so much space on the planet so we can postpone dealing with side effects for only so long.

Research indicates that we are approaching peaks in all those areas. Not only are we running out of resources that can be measured by weight, area or volume (minerals, water, land) we are running out of resources that are less tangible. If you think of the Earth's atmosphere as a giant heat-sink we have been exploiting it by dumping waste heat, but there's only so much heat the atmosphere can absorbe and remain in equilibrium. If you think of the bacteria and viruses around the world in the same way, as a sort of evolutionary-sink we have been exploiting them through overuse of antibiotics, retro-virals, and various other ways of fighting them. The problem is that we are accelerating their evolution and we will only be able to stay ahead of them for so long; eventually they will reach a tipping point we can't follow them past.

Our increasing rate of energy consumption simply speeds up our consumption of everything else. So, our problem isn't just replacing the energy source with another form of energy. If we could replace global use of fossile fuels with direct solar-electric overnight we would still be in trouble. What good will it do us to have electric cars if there's no more fresh water? What good will fresh water be if climate change shifts biomes randomly? What good will a stable climate be if a super-bug wipes out most of humanity?

No, energy supply is an important issue, but it shouldn't be "solved." It should be a catalyst to draw every human being's attention to the fact that we have to slow down.

Every other species on the planet is weaker then us because they aren't concious. They aren't aware of their own existence so they can't make any choices that are better then their genes allow. We can. Humans, more so then any other species, have the ability to alter their environment. We aren't slaves to nature, we conquer nature, at least for a while. We are still slaves to cause-and-effect.

We are reaching the limits of our environment. We can either continue to expand exponentially until we exhaust every natural resource and 90% of us die or we can take control of our own biological drives and reach equilibrium with our environment.

[INTJayW]

I've been researching Peak Oil for some time now and I'm curious what the rest of you think about it.

We are screwed::scared: The peak happened in late '05, the world now has to come up with 3% of 85 million barrels per day every year to make up for the declining rate of wells around the world. That's about 2.5 million barrels per day in production capacity that the world is losing every year without replacing it. in 5 or 10 years that number will jump to 8% a year, at least that is what most petroleum geologists are predicting. in 10 years the world demand for oil will be 105 million barrels and its production will be struggling to achieve 70-75 million barrels per day. <last statistic is off the top of my head> That is a 30-35 million barrel per day gap between demand and production capacity. The last time we had a gap that big <Iran-Iraq war of 1979 I think was the year> The price of oil went up 1000%. and the US went into a steep recession 12% or so unemployment 800 dollar Gold etc....

Oh what a Coincidence the price of oil is 106 today and the US is once again going into a recession, and the price of Gold is up close to $1000. Huh!

I would start thinking about investing in a good sturdy bicycle like they do in china, your going to need it.:thumbsup:

[Agile]

This problem is not because of human overuse of resources, but because of human undervaluing of resources. Every year in every industrialized nation, that nation's money supply inflates a little bit, causing the real price of goods and services to go up, this in turn causes people to seek more units of that nation's currency. That is, companies need to make more sales this year than last year, to stay in business, instead of the same number (or even a declining number). People need to earn more money, etc. This causes us, in turn, to consume more in the way of resources. Supply creates it's own demand?? And so the cycle continues. As such, I do not blame humans or human nature for this problem, and I do not think you all should either. Fix the banking system, and you will see extreme positive corrections in the quality of life for an overwhelming majority of people on this planet, including peak oil, resource 'overuse,' etc...we are still creatures and many forget this...rather than force us all to change our value systems so we can continue to pad someone else's bottom line (slave labor), we would all be in a better position without needless inflation to put people in debt and force them to buy and sell (produce economic gains) to pay off the debt. This is what is driving peak oil and environmental destruction, though the latter has to do with issues regarding property rights.:thumbsup: Libertarian INTJs, can I get an Amen?

[blueback]

I think you're confusing the emperical issues with the moral ones.

Humans are selfish, lazy and short sighted. We always have been and we will continue to be for the forseeable future. Oil is an incredibly dense source of energy that is incredibly easy to store and transport, of course we are going to exploit it.

I think the problem driving every other problem is our instinctive urge to expand our numbers. It's an innate biological drive that made a lot of sense before the industrial revolution. Before the green revolution (modern food production) the Earth supported 2 billion people, now we have around 7 billion. For every 1 calorie of food you eat it took 10 calories of oil to fertilize it, harvest it, process it, and transport it. We are eating oil.

Not only that, but more people means more exploitation of every other resource. Everyone needs t-shirts, and school books, and shoes, and soap, and parking spaces, and all sorts of other things. Humans have this blind spot when it comes to the tragedy of the commons that is guiding us right off a cliff like a herd of lemmings.

If oil was an infinite resource, we could fill the Earth until we were all standing on top of one another. But since it's not, we have to reduce our population. Even switching everything to solar power won't save people because you can't fertilize crops with electricity. Our future is one of drastic population reduction either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Of course, my pet strategy is that we should hold on to our huge population until the inevitable super-plague hits. That way we will have enough people left over to keep some sembalance of civilization going.

[INTJayW]

Even switching everything to solar power won't save people because you can't fertilize crops with electricity. Our future is one of drastic population reduction either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Of course, my pet strategy is that we should hold on to our huge population until the inevitable super-plague hits. That way we will have enough people left over to keep some sembalance of civilization going.

So, you’re just going to get out your lawn chair and sit on the front porch, with beer in hand and watch the whole thing go down?

[blueback]

Nope. But I don't think people are going to suddenly mature-up and start taking the current predicament seriously.

What I'm going to try to do is convince everyone that converting from a fossile fuels based economy to an electricity based economy will be profitable. If it's profitable, it will become inevitable.

The real problem is that no one's really sure how soon we should start. According to my research, the most optimistic (but still realistic) estimate is that the peak will hit in 2035. However, the research also shows that we need at least 2-3 decades of hard-core industrial conversion to ride over the crest of the peak without going into a huge recession. That means that we should be startin right now. . .but we're not.

I just hope the resource wars don't start before I've had a chance to try and help.

[AgentofGaming]

I would start thinking about investing in a good sturdy bicycle like they do in china, your going to need it.:thumbsup:

Good idea... but I think most of those people in China have converted to using cars. :)

[Agile]

I think you're confusing the emperical issues with the moral ones.

If anything I wrote left you confused, please quote me and I will be happy to clarify it for you.

By reforming our monetary system(including a host of related trade legislation), commodities prices would reflect their true value, and consumption will become more expensive, as it should have been (nearly 100) years ago. If you know anything about early class-action suits against polluting factories, abandoning the gold standard to finance a war, or the reason behind the expansion / recession cycle, (aka business cycle) you know what I mean.

Our food supply and our necessities only make up part of our oil consumption. Many petroleum products have substitutes. Before concrete, there was brick. Before partical board, there was real wood, metal before plastic, cotton, hemp, silk, before polyester, glass before polyxyz, and the list goes on. If someone took the time to break down oil consumption into discretionary and mandatory consumption I'd like to see it. If they also took the time to look at the substitutes for petroleum products and the viability of their use, I'd like to see that also.

I am with you on the (assuming we can do nothing about our economy as a whole) idea that peak oil theory is sound. It is not, however, anything more than a symptom of an overall valuation problem. In that end, my solution to peak oil would be the same reforms that would elminate the economic valuation problem. That should elminate depression, hyperinflation, asset (and service, look at health care) bubbles, runaway booms, and the resulting distasters they cause in low wage developing and third world countries.

[INTJayW]

I just hope the resource wars don't start before I've had a chance to try and help.

I gotta hand it to ya, you’re a noble man, and I hate giving bad news to good people.

The peak isn't 2035. (Maybe Nat Gas, or coal will hold out that long.) The peak is here now! An informal survey conducted by the ASPO of the worlds leading experts shows over 60% believe that the peak has either already happened or that it will happen by 2010. 30% believe the peak will happen before 2020, and only 10% are claiming that there is a possibility that oil won’t peak until 2030.

No insider is expecting oil to hold out until 2035!

I think you need to do a little more reading. Or just open up excel and plot the Hubertt’s Curve, who himself predicted the year 2000 way back in 1970's, he was wrong because he did not expect the oil embargo and Iran-Iraq war. but both those things only saved us 5 or so years. 2000+5 = 2005.

The EIA current stats show 2006 world production of oil was less than 2005 and the numbers are in for 2007 which are less than 2006. We can only see the peak in hind sight. But 2 years of declining production with the price of oil as high as it has been in 20 years and investment in drilling and exploration higher than it has been in 15 years. Finally, OPEC the peaple who can supposedly just turn on another tap that is left in reserve, show production flat since 2004.

You have negative 2 years left. Your hope for the world is misplaced.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

If anything I wrote left you confused, please quote me and I will be happy to clarify it for you.


Okay, I think your use of the word "value" confused me.


Many petroleum products have substitutes.


Sure, but few have substitutes that don't require petroleum in some way. Just because you can use a different chemical doesn't mean the machines that produce that chemical aren't powered by fossile fuels.


I am with you on the (assuming we can do nothing about our economy as a whole) idea that peak oil theory is sound. It is not, however, anything more than a symptom of an overall valuation problem.


Peak Oil isn't a symptom of anything, it is the simple fact that we use a lot of oil but there is only so much oil left.





blueback added to this post, 3 minutes and 17 seconds later...


... the peak has either already happened or that it will happen by 2010...


Yeah. . .I addressed that in my first post. I'm trying to get people to look at the subject. If you tell them the world is about to end they automatically assume you are a crackpot and won't look at anything you show them. If you base your data on government reports (GAO, EIA) they will at least listen to you.

[Agile]

Okay, I think your use of the word "value" confused me.
Your use of the term "population reduction" left me equally confused.

Sure, but few have substitutes that don't require petroleum in some way. Just because you can use a different chemical doesn't mean the machines that produce that chemical aren't powered by fossil fuels.

Right, because there aren't any other viable sources of energy. I guess you can dismiss an argument or you can debate with it, I'll leave it up to you to pick. If you choose to debate, keep reading.

If someone took the time to break down oil consumption into discretionary and mandatory consumption I'd like to see it. If they also took the time to look at the substitutes for petroleum products and the viability of their use, I'd like to see that also.



Peak Oil isn't a symptom of anything, it is the simple fact that we use a lot of oil but there is only so much oil left.

Your view:
Peak oil isn't a symptom of anything. It's cause and effect situation that exists in a vacuum.

As such you probably believe we can solve this problem, in a vacuum, by eliminating the consumer. Whatever. I'd like to see more than a parroted argument from you.

[pavman]

I just skimmed through here. I don't think there's really a problem due to the lack of environmental exploitation in North America, the arctic, the antarctic, and Alaska.

Oh, and oil shale is BS, don't buy into the scam.

Besides, if we all drove diesel, we wouldn't have this problem as the diesel engine was designed to run on any oil derivative fuel, such as ferfernut oil. ;)

Too bad no one liked it because it was smelly (like cigarettes). And the fact the large oil companies have a vested interest in keeping it from becoming the main engine of the modern era. Gets better gas mileage too. So you might ask yourself... is the REAL conspirator the oil industry itself?!

pavman added to this post, 17 minutes and 54 seconds later...

But 2 years of declining production with the price of oil as high as it has been in 20 years and investment in drilling and exploration higher than it has been in 15 years. Finally, OPEC the peaple who can supposedly just turn on another tap that is left in reserve, show production flat since 2004.

This is just what happens in cyclical periods with regard to commodities. The cycle goes like this:

Demand outstrips supply, price increases, the industry then tries to play catchup with demand by exploiting new commodity opportunities or tapping unused commodity opportunities, supply eventually increase while demand peaks or begins to decline once the prices stabilize, exploitation eventually decreases when the prices are too low to sustain investment, demand eventually increases again, repeating the cycle.

We just happen to be at the peak of Oil's demand cycle.

What I think a lot of folks fail to understand is that OPEC has a vested interest in keeping oil prices high as long as they can. Also, you aren't factoring in speculators who are trying to get rich off of the oil crisis. This increases the short-term price due to perceived over-whelming demand (thx CBOT).

Eventually we will adapt and come up with better/more alternatives to crude oil and/or tap more untapped reserves (such as protected lands in NA). Once this happens, then prices will stabilize again. Unfortunately, the green folks are kind of against drilling in certain protected areas that are not being properly exploited.

The oil prices are high not as a reflection of the true supply/demand situation we see, but as a reflection of the market speculation that is taking place, aided by the fact that OPEC decided not to increase production for the past 3 years in a row, even with all the pressure from other countries.

Think about it...what are we going to do? Invade Saudi Arabia? Russia? Venezuela? Its not like the UN is going to do anything, or the US for that matter, to really get OPEC to increase production.

There's a new process for extracting oil from garbage. I read about it roughly a year ago. The problem with it was that it took a lot of energy to produce the oil. Like oil shale extraction, there's a lot of scams out there these days that don't really solve the problem, they just move the problem to a different place. Hopefully an honest inventor will come along and find a way to create a better process.... perhaps it will be you... as INTJs are the best at system building, right?!

pavman added to this post, 28 minutes and 2 seconds later...

Before concrete, there was brick.
Actually, concrete (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)'s been around a lot longer than you probably think.

[meanlittlechimp]

You've actually got 3 assumptions there.

#1A, that the supply of fossile fuels is finite, is true. There are a couple people who think that oil is generated abiotically somewhere deep in the Earth but they're the kind of "scientists" that most scientists make fun of and don't invite to parties.


:laugh: This line made me laugh outloud. My office mates just looked at me funny - who said INTJs aren't funny.

Oh you might like this documentary if you haven't seen it - To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
They interview several leading geologists, economists, physicists and oil industry executives - who pretty much agree with most of your points.

[thod]

Demand outstrips supply, price increases, the industry then tries to play catchup with demand by exploiting new commodity opportunities or tapping unused commodity opportunities, supply eventually increase while demand peaks or begins to decline once the prices stabilize, exploitation eventually decreases when the prices are too low to sustain investment, demand eventually increases again, repeating the cycle.


This assumes you can produce an infinite amount of product. I sell my time to whoever will buy it at the highest price. Alas I only have so many hours to sell. I cannot work 25 hour days thus supply will not increase. It is the same with oil.

In a situation where supply is limited by the amount of oil in the ground you cannot make more. You could build more refinery capacity and suck it out faster. But then you have the build delay on the capacity and the fact is you are still running out. Most of the major oilfields are in decline, they are emptying. You cannot drill deeper, beyond a certain depth oil degrades to gas. Thus you are stuck with what we have and there are not many places left unexplored. To suck it out faster just to give cheaper oil now is not smart. They know its running out and the price will rise to reflect the demand.

Demand is increasing from China, India and the rest of the world. Supplies have not fallen off sharply. Demand has increased a lot. Oil is not so much more expensive here is Europe. The reason is the nosediving dollar making it expensive in the US. OPEC controls less than half the worlds oil supplies.

Hopefully an honest inventor will come along and find a way to create a better process.... perhaps it will be you... as INTJs are the best at system building, right?!


Oil is condensed energy, its solar energy trapped by plants compressed to oil. To grow lots of plants and compress them for millions of years until they turn into oil is not efficient. You would be better off using that energy to produce hydrogen or methanol. The problem with electricity has always been storage. A new energy source may well occur but I very much doubt it will be oil.

[blueback]

The EIA projected future oil consumption based on past oil consumption and they estimate that the oil peak is going to happen sooner rather than later simply because of how much oil we are using.

Lets say that the world has used up 1 barrel of oil so far, the EIA says that if we had another barrel of oil to use it would only last us 10 years, not the 100 years the last barrel of oil lasted. That means that if it was possible to consume every last drop of oil in the Earth (and it's not) we would use up the last half in a tenth the time it took us to use up the first half.

That means that the predictions of the timing of peak oil aren't greatly affected by new oil discoveries. Someone would have to discover as much oil as has already been used in 100 years for it to delay the peak by 10 years.

Therefore, it is not a matter of waiting for the market to produce a solution, it is a matter of reducing our dependance on oil before nature forces us to. We will stop using oil at some point in the future. . .it would be better for everyone if it was on our own terms.

[INTJayW]

Demand outstrips supply, price increases, the industry then tries to play catchup with demand by exploiting new commodity opportunities or tapping unused commodity opportunities, supply eventually increase while demand peaks or begins to decline once the prices stabilize, exploitation eventually decreases when the prices are too low to sustain investment, demand eventually increases again, repeating the cycle.

We just happen to be at the peak of Oil's demand cycle.

What I think a lot of folks fail to understand is that OPEC has a vested interest in keeping oil prices high as long as they can. Also, you aren't factoring in speculators who are trying to get rich off of the oil crisis. This increases the short-term price due to perceived over-whelming demand (thx CBOT).

Eventually we will adapt and come up with better/more alternatives to crude oil and/or tap more untapped reserves (such as protected lands in NA). Once this happens, then prices will stabilize again. Unfortunately, the green folks are kind of against drilling in certain protected areas that are not being properly exploited.

The oil prices are high not as a reflection of the true supply/demand situation we see, but as a reflection of the market speculation that is taking place, aided by the fact that OPEC decided not to increase production for the past 3 years in a row, even with all the pressure from other countries.

Think about it...what are we going to do? Invade Saudi Arabia? Russia? Venezuela? Its not like the UN is going to do anything, or the US for that matter, to really get OPEC to increase production.


I would answer this, but I think 'thod' & 'Blueback' have both done a pretty good job doing so, and I have nothing further to add.:thumbsup:

[blueback]

Right, because there aren't any other viable sources of energy. I guess you can dismiss an argument or you can debate with it, I'll leave it up to you to pick. If you choose to debate, keep reading.


Mmmm. . .I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning.

I have a challenge for you: try to find a source of energy that can be used without ever using oil. For example, you can chop down trees with an axe and burn the wood. However, the energy source you come up with has to be able to produce the same number of BTUs as oil is currently producing.
.
.
.
Still trying? Yeah, that's cuz there isn't a fuel source that can replace oil, at least not within a couple decades.

Solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc all have a lot of potential, but it still takes a lot of oil to make a solar panel. Until the whole process is electric we're still vulnerable.


Your view:
Peak oil isn't a symptom of anything. It's cause and effect situation that exists in a vacuum.


Well, you were doing pretty well there, right up to the point where you started putting words in my mouth.


As such you probably believe we can solve this problem, in a vacuum, by eliminating the consumer. Whatever. I'd like to see more than a parroted argument from you.


Well, eliminiting the consumer would relax demand. . .

Peak oil wouldn't be a problem if we weren't so dependent on oil. The variable most affecting oil demand is population so either make less people or make each person use less oil. It's actually pretty simple, I don't see why you're having such a hard time with the idea.

[INTJayW]

Peak Oil update from Reuters, Link below:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Headline: Global Oil Demand Undented IEA's Tanaka,

I particularly like this quote because it sums up the disscussion in this thread nicely.

Direct Quote:

"OPEC ministers have resisted a production boost, arguing that prices were driven by speculative investments in oil markets and a weak dollar -- and not by fundamentals."

Tanaka had a different view.

"Funds and speculators may amplify the impact of market sensitive factors on prices, but fundamentals decide price moves if they go up or down," he said.

So, the OPEC ministers don't want to boost production supposedly because they want to keep the price high. (The real truth is they can't increase production even if they wanted to.) The expert however say's simply:

"fundamentals decide price moves!"

Fundimentals being -> We are running out of the stuff!

[INTJoe]

A lot of people are failing to account for the fact that the US Dollar getting absolutely HAMMERED in the forex has a lot to do with rising oil prices than the actual supply of oil.

The US Dollar getting butt-raped doesn't just affect people vacationing overseas...it's hurting us all here at home, and much moreso than a lot of people realize.

[INTJayW]

A lot of people are failing to account for the fact that the US Dollar getting absolutely HAMMERED in the forex has a lot to do with rising oil prices than the actual supply of oil.

The US Dollar getting butt-raped doesn't just affect people vacationing overseas...it's hurting us all here at home, and much moreso than a lot of people realize.

If the US Dollar has such an impact then why is the price of oil rising in Canadian Dollars & in Euros as well????

[thod]

Oil is rising in all currencies due to demand. Its the falling dollar that is making it seem much worse than it is. Its not only oil. Every commodity that is priced in dollars will be rising even those for which demand is static. Euros can be seen as a commodity too and you can buy fewer for your dollars.

[Agile]

Actually, concrete's (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) been around a lot longer than you probably think.

I take this as convincing evidence we can find other building materials. I hope our plastics also have alternatives also.

Mmmm. . .I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning.

I have a challenge for you: try to find a source of energy that can be used without ever using oil. For example, you can chop down trees with an axe and burn the wood. However, the energy source you come up with has to be able to produce the same number of BTUs as oil is currently producing.
.
.
.
Still trying? Yeah, that's cuz there isn't a fuel source that can replace oil, at least not within a couple decades.


:thumbsup: Completely agree. Energy is the foundation of an economy. The most solid argument for how serious peak oil is, is the fact that oil is literally the most energy dense of the cost effective sources of energy.

Solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc all have a lot of potential, but it still takes a lot of oil to make a solar panel. Until the whole process is electric we're still vulnerable.

Well, you were doing pretty well there, right up to the point where you started putting words in my mouth.


I also agree with you here. The feeling also goes both ways.

Well, eliminating the consumer would relax demand. . .
I'm too lazy to quote, but in one of your posts you said we need to drastically reduce population. Acknowledged. Factual, correct in the technical sense, but cure by amputation is a last resort, for me anyway. It's extreme and impractical.


Peak oil wouldn't be a problem if we weren't so dependent on oil. The variable most affecting oil demand is population so either make less people or make each person use less oil. It's actually pretty simple, I don't see why you're having such a hard time with the idea.

Honestly, before I knew anything about peak oil, I knew that technology had long surpassed society in its development. But that was not an accident, and thus I will not blame society. In my view, that's naive. It's not consumption, not human nature, and not the little guy, that caused this. Those people are/were cogs. Those people are/were born into this. Those are not the ones that need to change. Change comes from the top down, and that's where it needs to happen. At the top. Do this and population reduction, will not even be necessary. That's all I'm saying.

I'm sure you could counter with the urgency of war, famine, or simply a global economic depression...feel free...I won't disagree with those either. I think I'd still prefer that to the 'humane' solutions of euthanasia by lottery, gluttony, armed conflict, and poor food choices...I digress...

I assumed that it was understood I was not debating whether or not peak oil was a valid theory/phenomenon, and focused my posts on solving the problem. This problem fits into a larger context. It's more prudent to consider other solutions in the short term, and gradually decrease consumption (soft landing), while solving the resource dependence problem as an economic issue, in the long term.

So again...

Peak oil is, in my opinion, (again) a result of economic over expansion, which results from improper valuation, caused by malinvestment, encouraged by cheap credit.

In short, inflation causes malinvestment and overconsumption, which leads to resource depletion.


If someone took the time to break down oil consumption into discretionary and mandatory consumption I'd like to see it. If they also took the time to look at the substitutes for petroleum products and the viability of their use, I'd like to see that also.

We can develop alternatives for mandatory consumption, when feasible, and allow discretionary consumption to bear the brunt of cost increases as oil becomes more scarce. (I would use the preceeding, for example, to decide where to spend gov't research dollars) We could also cap discretionary consumption using taxes, and I'm sure the government would love the extra revenue, to boot. As much as I am not in favor of any sort of carbon/petroleum tax, but it's a realistic option, given the context of this debate. So I offer it for intellectual purposes only, haha. This is not a complete solution, it's a start, and it avoids nuking China and India, (oops...I guess where, who, and with what pretext...I guess those haven't been asked yet).

As far as a better energy source...well...I'm sure we already have the source, and I'm sure it's ready, viable, etc, and either a corporation owns the patent or it's sitting in the back of someone's mind. And by better I mean denser, all other things equal. And hopefully also friendlier to the environment. By the way, this nature-worship...has got to stop.

Arrogant or not, I will make the statement. If humans do not exist, who effing cares whether or not we have plants, trees, animals, rivers, streams, clean air, etc. Does it even matter? Not in my view.

[INTJoe]

If the US Dollar has such an impact then why is the price of oil rising in Canadian Dollars & in Euros as well????

I didn't say the falling Dollar was the sole reason for rising Oil cost. But the typical American sees sky-rocketting gas/oil prices and things "OMG we need to stop using oil!" While this may be true, it would be awesome if the typical American actuall cared that "OMG, our national currency isn't worth wiping our ass with! Oil isn't our biggest problem."

Also, is the price of Oil rising at the same rate in Canada and Europe as it is in the US? Curious, as I really don't know.

[thod]

Oil shales article

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

I'm too lazy to quote, but in one of your posts you said we need to drastically reduce population.


I didn't say that. I said that if we continue on our current course we will have population reduction forced on us. We eat oil. When the oil runs out, we will have a lot of people and not a lot of food. . .that equals population reduction.


Honestly, before I knew anything about peak oil, I knew that technology had long surpassed society in its development.


What does that mean?


Change comes from the top down, and that's where it needs to happen. At the top. Do this and population reduction, will not even be necessary. That's all I'm saying.


What are you saying? What change? Where is the top?


I'm sure you could counter with the urgency of war, famine, or simply a global economic depression...feel free...I won't disagree with those either. I think I'd still prefer that to the 'humane' solutions of euthanasia by lottery, gluttony, armed conflict, and poor food choices...I digress...


You would prefer war, famine or depression to euthanasia, eating too much, or war. . .that doesn't make any sense.

What I said was that the problem is coming whether or not we want to deal with it. We will have to do the work sooner or later. If we delay, then we will have a lot of work to do and few options. If we start taking steps to mitigate the consequences now we will still have a lot of work to do but we will have many options.


This problem fits into a larger context. It's more prudent to consider other solutions in the short term, and gradually decrease consumption (soft landing), while solving the resource dependence problem as an economic issue, in the long term.


The "resource dependance problem" is directly related to consuption; or did you think that we were sucking the oil out of the ground and hiding it somewhere, not actually using it?




Peak oil is, in my opinion, (again) a result of economic over expansion, which results from improper valuation, caused by malinvestment, encouraged by cheap credit.

In short, inflation causes malinvestment and overconsumption, which leads to resource depletion.


You're theory is that the markets are irrational. There has actually been a lot of debate on that point and the general consensus is that the markets are, in fact, rational.

The prices in a market are the discounted present value of all future cash flows from the investment. Basically, the price of something is equal to the amount of money people expect to get from it in the future. The price reflects all currently avaiable knowledge on the subject, therefore the price is set rationally.

Resource depletion is a simple result of people being selfish and short-sighted. The average person doesn't care about the future, especially one that doesn't involve them. Unfortunately, the most powerful and influential people in the world are also the oldest, which means they don't have much of a future to care about. They are also the most set in their ways and the least likely to admit that the world is changing.


As far as a better energy source...well...I'm sure we already have the source, and I'm sure it's ready, viable, etc, and either a corporation owns the patent or it's sitting in the back of someone's mind. And by better I mean denser, all other things equal. And hopefully also friendlier to the environment.


Right. The market will save us. The same market that you blame for causing all the problems in the first place.

If a herd of bison are charging towards a cliff, well they are all going to go over the cliff. By the time the lead bison can prove that the danger exists by saying "look, there, in front of us, it's a cliff!" they are too close and all the bison at the back won't get the message in time and won't believe it cuz they can't see it even if they got the message.

The world is headed for a cliff and far too many people are refusing to slow down because they can't see the cliff yet. By the time the cliff is obvious it will be too late for a miracle solution.

[athenian200]

My N response:

So, eventually there will be no oil? Well, we have areas around hydroelectric plants, and a few wind powered ones. The goods needed for production could be transported by slower means that don't require oil. These areas would remain semi-stable technologically and eventually the technology kept alive in these areas would be able to find a way to recreate the main infrastructure using different methods. This won't work, however, because people will be fiercely competing over all the resources that still work, and only a very few people will still have access to them (if they're not destroyed by the fighting). Meaning everyone else will probably be out of luck, and will have to rely on primative farming/hunting and building techniques.

My F response:

Thinking about this makes me so terrified and angry. I've spent my whole life studying computers and other sorts of technology, and now I'm going to be thrown into a world where there can be no sort of advancement, no real choices, and no Internet? Just because everyone who matters is looking the other way, I'm doomed and I just have to watch everything that matters to me fall into oblivion? Why do I have no power, why?!? I'll probably die of starvation or exposure, or have to spend the rest of my life working like a dog in a sickly state just to survive, with no hope for the future and no satisfying mental stimulation.

[Jgib5328]

I read somewhere that there is potentially a lot of undiscovered oil in the ocean.

[blueback]

Sure, possibly. There might be a lot of oil on Mars, too.

It doesn't matter who much oil is left in the world. What matters is how much oil can be recoverd with a positive net energy. If it requires a barrel of oil to recover a barrel of oil then the oil might as well not exist because it isn't worth recovering.

100 years ago we recovered 100 barrels of oil for every 1 we spent. Today we recover 10 barrels of oil for every 1 we spend.

[thod]

I read somewhere that there is potentially a lot of undiscovered oil in the ocean.

Hmm, non of the ocean floor is more than 180 million years old, most is much younger. The continents float over it and you don't get the geological folds needed to trap oil. Without the plant life from the continents where is the oils supposed to come from? All the offshore oil seems to be close to land that was once on the surface. The ocean floor spills out from the cracks and remains there until a continent drifts over it.

Perhaps someone here has better geology/petrology knowldege than I do and can explain the theory.

[systemsguy]

There is battery technology for vehicles out now that can recharge a car in 10 minutes at full charge. And there are batteries that can push a car for over 120 miles which can be lengthened as efficiencies are worked out for production models. Service stations will replace the pumps with racks of batteries that will take power from the grid for storage to “refuel” Electric Vehicles (EV). At the home, you will have either a night charger that recharges the car overnight or a charger and a storage battery rack that trickle charges the battery rack so that when you need a quick 10 minute recharge, the storage battery will have the capacity to refuel your car at your house.

The technology is now available. The cost is now high but that is because it is not yet in mass production and economies of scale have not been set up.

The only question left is how we fuel the grid. There is coal, natural gas and nuclear at the time that can easily replace those fuels derived from crude oil.

The other problem is large companies with a vested interest in the internal combustion engines risk their entire infrastructure with EV’s being much simpler requiring less infrastructure. This might be a shocking statement, but in the next five to ten years, we can get rid of all internal combustion engine production completely replaced with electric vehicles. I am sure the large oil companies and the large auto manufacturers will not like this. But that is where we are heading and they are just postponing the inevitable if they fight these changes. Perhaps with foresight they might be able to take advantage of the inevitable transition – less they get shut down by the competition.

The conclusion is that we can get rid of all crude based consumption in transportation in ten years, and what is left can be used for thermoplastic production and such, which probably will put “peak oil” out a few hundred years since I suspect transportation is the biggest drinker of crude based energy.

A side effect is that we will effectively shut down the Middle East and all civilized nations can let that region stew in its own juices and leave them alone.

[blueback]

You're pretty close. According to my research we can replace all passenger vehicle ICE's (internal combustion engine) in the next ten years if we start right now. We'd have to build the new cars and start expanding the grid, but a crash course could just barely do it.

However, 2/3 of the oil used in transportation is used by semi-trailers, those big rigs that you see all over the place. At the moment no one has invented a battery big enough to power one of those things across the miles it has to drive to keep the economy chugging along.

[INTJayW]

There is battery technology for vehicles out now that can recharge a car in 10 minutes at full charge. And there are batteries that can push a car for over 120 miles which can be lengthened as efficiencies are worked out for production models. Service stations will replace the pumps with racks of batteries that will take power from the grid for storage to “refuel” Electric Vehicles (EV). At the home, you will have either a night charger that recharges the car overnight or a charger and a storage battery rack that trickle charges the battery rack so that when you need a quick 10 minute recharge, the storage battery will have the capacity to refuel your car at your house.

The technology is now available. The cost is now high but that is because it is not yet in mass production and economies of scale have not been set up.

The only question left is how we fuel the grid. There is coal, natural gas and nuclear at the time that can easily replace those fuels derived from crude oil.

The other problem is large companies with a vested interest in the internal combustion engines risk their entire infrastructure with EV’s being much simpler requiring less infrastructure. This might be a shocking statement, but in the next five to ten years, we can get rid of all internal combustion engine production completely replaced with electric vehicles. I am sure the large oil companies and the large auto manufacturers will not like this. But that is where we are heading and they are just postponing the inevitable if they fight these changes. Perhaps with foresight they might be able to take advantage of the inevitable transition – less they get shut down by the competition.

The conclusion is that we can get rid of all crude based consumption in transportation in ten years, and what is left can be used for thermoplastic production and such, which probably will put “peak oil” out a few hundred years since I suspect transportation is the biggest drinker of crude based energy.

A side effect is that we will effectively shut down the Middle East and all civilized nations can let that region stew in its own juices and leave them alone.


You people are still not grasping the situation. Peak oil is not mainly a transportation problem. Peak oil is an all around energy shortage problem first & a food production problem second, and then a industrialization problem.

As I have said somewhere in a previous post. 6.3 billion people on mother earth 80 million added every day! We need to figure out how we are going to continue to feed these people without the use of:

Diesel Tractors
Ammonia fertilizers
Oil based pesticides

Just 100 years ago believe it or not, the average farm in North America was 50 acres employing some 20% of the population of North America. And the plows were pulled by horses!

So what, I hear you say.

Well a horse needs to eat, just like we do! and for every acre that is sowed by a farmer, almost 40% of the food produced must go to the horses that do the plowing, in other words world food yields per acre will drop by 40% if we have to go back to using animal power as opposed to any other form of power.

Next issue, wheat yields per acre before ammonia fertilizers 100 years ago, where about 40 bussels per acre. Today wheat yields are about 140 bussels per acre. So, removing Natural Gas derived Ammonia fertilizers from farm production, yields per acre would drop to 28% of what it is today!

So, removing diesel powered tractors, and Natural Gas based Ammonia fertilizers world wide would cause farm yields to drop to 17% of what we are able to pull out of the ground today, and that is not even factoring in things like pests, alternate field production, water shortages etc...

The final flaw in the electricity will save us from Peak oil argument is quite simply the current amount of electricity derived from oil. (Which is about 60% of current world production capacity). You would have to not only find some source of electricity in the next 10 years to replace the 60% already derived from oil, but you would have to make up the difference demanded by India & China as well over the next 10 years, assuming all other world economies stay stagnant over that time frame. Further, the electricity will save us argument, does not factor in the efficiency (ie. Cost per terawatt) of the energy derived from the other sources as compared to the cost of oil.

You can't run a tractor on a battery, unless you want to pay $20 for a tomato:thumbsup:

The fact of the matter is 100 years ago when the world was not addicted to oil; food costs were so high that it took up over 30-40% of the average household income, and people only ate meat on fridays because they could only afford to eat meat once a week. That was back when we only had 1.8 billion mouths to feed. Now we have 6.3 billion mouths to feed!

Oh, and coal as well as uranium will peak just like oil and natural gas, they may not peak for another 50 years at current consumption rates. But if we start running out of oil & Gas now we will trade off to coal and uranium causing them to peak much quicker.

[blueback]

True. The Green Revolution led to a tripling of world population (2bil to 6bil) in 100 years. We have vastly overstepped the carrying capacity of the Earth and won't be able to support nearly this many people without free energy from oil.

I have yet to see anyone come up with a way to feed 6 billion people without oil. Just imagine the chaos that will be caused by 6 billion people who suddenly realize that 2 out of 3 of them are going to starve to death. Maybe we'll have a super plague before then and 4 billion will just die without anyone getting a chance to start a war.

In my mind, the only viable solution is to get all our energy in the future from space-based solar cells, maybe with nuclear power as a stop-gap. The elements and chemicals (steel, uranium, oil, etc) need to be used only for processes that can't be done with electricity becaues they're all going to run out sooner or later.

[Theodoric]

Hooray for fear mongering and misrepresenting facts! Whee!

Manufacturing does require energy. Lots of energy. There's only one problem with this. Energy does not equal Oil. Since cars are where a good portion of oil goes, lets look at consumption for them throughout their lifetime including manufacturing.

From the ILEA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Figure 1 shows the distribution of energy use over the manufacturing and use stages. The entire manufacturing stage is represented by the slice "Manufacture," which accounts for 10% of the car's total energy impact."

So it takes a large amount of ENERGY to manufacture a car. What of we moved on to use say, Nuclear power? The cost per MWh is nearly the same as that of oil and has the potential to decrease as research and improvements make nuclear energy production more efficient. But nuclear power does not run out because we aren't relying on what is a finite fuel source. And the great thing about Nuclear? The only byproduct is a small amount of waste which is merely a few spent fuel rods which can be reprocessed and some steam. Now, uranium will eventually peak, but the bottom line is that it won't peak nearly as fast as oil and more importantly will lead to more research and innovation, perhaps leading to nuclear fusion power which needs hydrogen, not uranium. To supplement Nuclear energy we could also use renewables such as solar and wind, however as of now they could only be supplements due to being inefficient and unreliable and are limited to only certain areas.

From Wikipedia:

France is one of the world's most densely populated countries. According to a 2007 story broadcast on 60 Minutes, nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe.[49] France reprocesses its nuclear waste to reduce its mass and make more energy.

Conclusion. It takes very little oil to manufacture a car. Nuclear energy is probably the best way to go since it is clean, efficient, and cheap. But what about other industries?

Glass To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Steel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Metal casting To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

More facts and figures here To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Point is, these are all ENERGY intensive industries, not OIL intensive. Really, about the only people hurt by oil running out are OPEC and people in the oil industry.

So with manufacturing out of the way we can now move on to transportation, the other oil hog out there.

We all know that it takes a lot of oil (in the form of gasoline, or petrol if you're from Europe) to operate a car. And that's pretty much the end of that argument. Cars only run on gas because thats the only fuel source we've been using in them for say, the last 100 years. There are many viable alternatives to gas. A car can be modified to run on Propane. Reclaimed cooking oil can actually be used to power a diesel engine, no further refinement necessary. But the two best are using electricity generated from the aforementioned nuclear plants and using hydrogen as a fuel source. The only drawback to hydrogen cars is that there is little current infrastructure to support them. We would need to quickly convert gas stations to be able to service hydrogen cars, but once this happened there would be little need to rely on gasoline powered vehicles for transportation.

But what about freight and shipping? Heavy trucks can just as easily be converted to hydrogen. Already several national parks have converted buses to hydrogen because they are quiet and do not pollute. We can also start going back to utilizing rail. There are already trains out there that use electric, not diesel or coal, to power them.

But what about agriculture? Surely, all that fertilizer is made from oil, right?

Wrong. Nitrogen fertilizer is produced by Natural Gas, not oil. From the IFA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

About 97% of nitrogen fertilizers are derived from synthetically produced ammonia, the remainder being by-product ammonium sulphate from the caprolactam process and small quantities of natural nitrates, especially from Chile. The production of anhydrous ammonia is based on reacting nitrogen with hydrogen under high temperatures and pressures. The source of nitrogen is the air, the hydrogen being derived from a variety of raw materials, including water, crude oil, coal and natural gas hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons provide the energy for the energy-intensive process.

The interesting thing, though, is that the only part of the natural gas used in the production of ammonia (the basis of nitrogen fertilizer) is the hydrogen. Since hydrogen can be produced through the electrolysis of water, it is possible to produce fertilizer from WATER, as noted in the above passage. The energy necessary for producing the ammonia can also be derived from fission, so clearly (if necessary) we can turn uranium into nitrogen fertilizer.

In fact, we could even go a step further, and use uranium to supply light, heat and mechanization power for multi-story vertical farming facilities, located in the middle of the cities they feed. This would greatly increase the carrying capacity of the earth, eliminate fuel wasted on long-distance food transport, and reduce the human footprint due to agricultural activities. You could even use hydroponics, thus eliminating the need for soil use. The land then freed up by vertical farming facilities could then be used for livestock, increasing meat and dairy production.

Oil will peak, but the idea that when it does happen we are all going to fall into the middle ages and worldwide plagues will occur is pure bunk. We simply have the technology now to move out of our oil dependence. We just need to use it.

[systemsguy]

You're pretty close. According to my research we can replace all passenger vehicle ICE's (internal combustion engine) in the next ten years if we start right now. We'd have to build the new cars and start expanding the grid, but a crash course could just barely do it.

However, 2/3 of the oil used in transportation is used by semi-trailers, those big rigs that you see all over the place. At the moment no one has invented a battery big enough to power one of those things across the miles it has to drive to keep the economy chugging along.

You sound correct about the large tractor trailers. I have not yet seen any battery testing on a vehicle that large yet (I am in the battery industry). I will ask around with my contacts in the next few weeks about the feasibility of powering a tractor trailer with the current new battery technology. The calculations should be quite basic: how many kilowatts required, and then, how many kilowatt-hours are required. That should give a rough idea of the magnitude of the requirement or the challenge.

But, to cut even 1/3 of the crude based transportation consumption, I think, would be a major impact in slowing down the depletion of oil reserves for the foreseeable future.

According to power companies I have spoken with, there is this large capacity available on the grid at night that is waiting to be used and is probably being wasted. Thus, having this extra capacity on the grid for transportation is no big deal – according to the power company experts. I am not sure I buy that idea in full, so I need to probe a little further with my contacts to understand this surplus capacity.

[blueback]

That's interesting. What do you do in the battery industry? Have you ever converted an ICE to battery electric power?

The calculations are pretty basic, I've seen them before. If I remember correctly the problem is that the weight of the batteries expands so quickly you use up all your freight weight to get the mileage you need. There's a limit to how large a vehicle can be. The only way to make it work with the current electricity storage technology is to make them so effecient and cheap that companies can run twice as many. Cuz they can only carry half as much.

I agree. Transportation can be accomplished just as easily, if no more easily, with electricity.

The power companies are right. They have to maintain a base level of power through the lines but at night it's more than anyone is using so they're effectively wasting it. If everyone was recharging their EVs at night that power would be used. Additionally, if everyone had EVs, and left them plugged into the grid, it would provide a lot of extra power that the main generating stations wouldn't have to provide. It would help level out demand because it would effectively be a bunch of small, local power sources. A bunch of EVs plugged in all day long (whenever people weren't using them) would acutally make the electrical distribution system more efficient.

At the moment EVs don't get the range ICEs do. The range to beat is 300 miles per charge/tank. Additionally, there are a lot of places in the country where you'd have to install high capacity recharging stations so that people could drive their EVs cross-country.

However, the average person only drives 33 miles per day, which is well within the capabilities of the cheapest EV. I think that hybrids would be a good transition technology, electicity for commuting and gas for long trips, but the car companies are dragging their feet.

[INTJayW]

But what about agriculture? Surely, all that fertilizer is made from oil, right?

Wrong. Nitrogen fertilizer is produced by Natural Gas, not oil. From the IFA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The interesting thing, though, is that the only part of the natural gas used in the production of ammonia (the basis of nitrogen fertilizer) is the hydrogen. Since hydrogen can be produced through the electrolysis of water, it is possible to produce fertilizer from WATER, as noted in the above passage. The energy necessary for producing the ammonia can also be derived from fission, so clearly (if necessary) we can turn uranium into nitrogen fertilizer.

In fact, we could even go a step further, and use uranium to supply light, heat and mechanization power for multi-story vertical farming facilities, located in the middle of the cities they feed. This would greatly increase the carrying capacity of the earth, eliminate fuel wasted on long-distance food transport, and reduce the human footprint due to agricultural activities. You could even use hydroponics, thus eliminating the need for soil use. The land then freed up by vertical farming facilities could then be used for livestock, increasing meat and dairy production.

Oil will peak, but the idea that when it does happen we are all going to fall into the middle ages and worldwide plagues will occur is pure bunk. We simply have the technology now to move out of our oil dependence. We just need to use it.

Before I begin I would just like to appologize now for this admittedly insanely long post , if you skip over it I understand, but if you read it. I promise it to be a good one. Some errors in logic just need to be addressed:

First of all: show me exactly where I said, that when peak oil happens we will all be driven back into the middle ages?? I would like to see that quote! What I was trying to demonstrate simply is that some technologies that we take for granted today because they are based solely on the economic supply of oil, will in future be replaced by more immediately proven cost effective methods of production. (I do have a precidence, I did not just pull the animal power thing from hat.) When cuba underwent its oil restrictions in 1990 or so back when the USSR was in trouble, all farming methods across the island went from using tractors to plowing fields with draft animals. We here in North America may find it more efficient to use ethanol produced from corn fields through distilation to plow our fields as long as the bulk of the efficiently distilled ethanal comes from the burning of the cobs, and the farmer can fix the tractor himself. But even in that case the farmer would still have to allocate some portion of his fields to producing the energy to plow the rest of his fields. Thus, he would still not be able to produce the 100% he does today, it would most likely be in the neighborhood of 80-90%, 10-20% would be used to grow corn to produce ethanol.

Second of all: blueback mentioned plagues and I don't know where he is getting his information from.

Thirdly, you are correct in that we do in point of fact, have the technology now to move out of our oil dependence. Unfortunately, that technology is either far too costly or too dirty at present for any major portion of the businesses or citizens of this would to use in the next 30 years to significantly offsett the rapid decline in oil, Natural Gas, Uranium and Coal we currently use. And the scaling up of those technologies are far too capital intensive for them to be any real solution to the oil issue over the next 20 or so years. Thus, we are screwed!


But don't take my word for it. Lets re-vist some of your pseudoscience solutions. Lets start with the production of Hydrogen, and why, with current technology, the hydrogen economy is, to use your word: BUNK!

"most hydrogen is currently generated from nonrenewable fossil fuels, such as natural gas. In fact, 85% of the world’s hydrogen is produced by steam reformation. In this process, natural gas is converted to hydrogen."

And, yes, hydrogen can also be produced using electrolysis. I believe I filed a test tube with the stuff in grade 7 science class.

"However, the technology has not achieved the efficiency and cost levels required because the precious metal catalyst materials used in the electrodes for electrolysis today are expensive and the reaction that produces the hydrogen is not efficient enough."

"Hydrogen can be generated from natural gas with approximately 80% efficiency, or other hydrocarbons to a varying degree of efficiency."

So hydrogen can be produced economically using natural gas, but what does that have to do with Ammonia & fertilizers. Well:

Direct quote from wikipedia:To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Haber process, is the reaction of nitrogen and hydrogen, over an iron substrate, to produce ammonia...

The Haber process now produces 100 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer per year, mostly in the form of anhydrous ammonia, ammonium nitrate, and urea. 0.75% of the world's annual energy supply is consumed in the Haber process (3.35% of world natural gas production is used for ammonia production...

The Haber process is important because ammonia is difficult to produce on an industrial scale. Even though 78.1% of the air we breathe is nitrogen, the gas is relatively unreactive because nitrogen molecules are held together by strong triple bonds. It was not until the early 20th century that this method was developed to harness the atmospheric abundance of nitrogen to create ammonia...

Generation of hydrogen using electrolysis of water, using renewable energy, is not currently competitive cost-wise with hydrogen from fossil fuels. So what would you need to make the generation of hydrogen using electrolysis of water cost competitive, and what do they mean when they are talking about efficiency, well here is a good definition:

"the electricity consumed is more valuable than the hydrogen produced..."

But, I think what you were refering to when you mentioned the production of hydrogen from fission was the use of nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen in the process refered to as high-temperature electrolysis (HTE). which would definately increase the efficiency from current levels.

"In contrast with low-temperature electrolysis, high-temperature electrolysis (HTE) of water converts more of the initial heat energy into chemical energy (hydrogen), potentially doubling efficiency, to about 50%."

What that means is that for every BTU of energy sent into the process from another source, in this case processed uranium, you receive only 50% of the energy back in the form of hydrogen.

I don't know about you but that does not sound very efficient at all! According to this process I should use 1 lb of fuel to produce 1/2 a pound of equivilant fuel in another form:huh:

Oh and, "[There are] Generation IV reactors at 850 to 1000 degrees Celsius, [which could be used to prodcue hydrogen at 50% efficiency are] considerably hotter than existing commercial nuclear power plants. However the Generation IV reactors are not expected until 2030 and it's not sure the reactors can compete by then in safety and supply with the distributed generation concept." (ie... wide spread use of renewable energy.)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And where do we get our hydrogen until then?

That's enough about hydrogen. Lets take a look at the 'Nuclear energy will save us argument'.

Here is a quick article from Austrailia about the difficulties of Nuclear Energy from the energy bulletin for starters:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, to your point about France being able to solve its energy issues with nuclear energy, the French solution to the 1973 oil crisis was nuclear for strategic reasons! I believe the French quote: "no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice." pretty well sums it up. By the way France went nuclear in 1973 for the same reason that Germany today has chosen to heavily subsidize its solar & wind energy industry. This is an indication of the undesireablility of nuclear because Germany had two choices renewables or nuclear and Germany has chosen the high cost renewables solution.:thumbsup:

In total, nuclear energy provides around about 17% of the world's electricity, and what do we have to show for it?

Nuclear Waste:

"Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. Fission products never existed on earth prior to the first atomic bomb, but are now present in small amounts everywhere . All are dangerous, but strontium-90 and cesium-137 are two of the most dangerous. Strontium 90 enters the body through the food we eat and what we drink. It is stored in bones, like calcium, where it compromises the immune system and may lead to cancer, especially leukemia. Cesium-137 is stored in the flesh of the fish and animals exposed to environmental contamination . At very high levels, such as around Chernobyl it makes the entire local environment uninhabitable, the food too dangerous to eat. Strontium-90 and cesium-137 remain hazardous for decades. The incidence of childhood cancers in the region, let alone birth defects, is horrific. Pasture as far away from Ukraine as Wales was contaminated with cesium-137 in 1986, and the animals that graze that pasture are only just now (2000) being judged fit for consumption. To seal this powerfully carcinogenic substance, 'geologically stable' rock formations have to be found in which to bury it (at depths of 1,000 feet). Areas where there are no earthquakes, no volcanoes to regurgitate and spread the stored waste in some future century. Preferably where there are few people at the moment. And no ground water movement to leach the radioactive substances and the toxic plutonium from the canisters when they eventually corrode away before the next 1,000 years. There are not very many suitable places."

"There is as yet no proven safe method for permanently disposing of high level radioactive waste."
-Dr. Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

Why nuclear won't save us:

"neither nuclear breeding reactors nor thorium reactors will play a significant role because of the long lead times for their development and market penetration. This assessment results in the conclusion that in the short term, until about 2015, the long lead times of new and the decommissioning of ageing reactors perform the barrier for fast extension, and after about 2020 severe uranium supply shortages become likely which, again will limit the extension of nuclear energy."

According to the International Energy Agency 2006 assessment (WEO 2006) there will be a Uranium shortages beginning in 2015 and continuing until sometime after 2030 as current stocks are exhausted and new production can't be expanded. If we were to go about replacing oil and gas, the Uranium shortage would be much more severe and would move peak Uranium much closer to 2025 instead of 2035, a point at which it would be difficult to even maintain currnet uranium demand let alone any new capacity just coming online at that time.

I suspect this is the reason why the US has overturned its long standing refusal to reporcess spent nuclear fuel, as per this article from the New York Times:To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 60

There would also be problems with transmitting power over great distances. You can get some efficiency over a few hundred miles of power cable, using alternating current but beyond that power transmission becomes prohibitively expensive.

Finally, the real curx of your argument is simply that nuclear fuel is in-exhaustible. I believe you stated that we are able to reprocess spent fuel and use it again. This is true but, and a big BUT, you only get 95% of the resource every time it is reprocessed. So reprocessing fuel will make it last longer but it will not stop Uranium from depleating like oil, Nat Gas & Coal.

Oh, and by the way reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates 189 times as much waste as the once through cycle.

It’s easier to throw ideas out their then to assess the merits of those ideas. And I think we have assessed the potential merits of your nuclear idea and found it to be meritless.:thumbsdown:

The future of the world will be one of wealth transfer from those countries who import energy to those countries who export energy. Not disappearing wealth. And generally speaking those countries with energy have smaller armies than those countries who need energy, thus preceding resource wars.

And Finally, we will not see the end of technology just because peak oil hits, but I guarantee that we will take a sober second look at those innovations & inventions that we have come to love in our modern luxury life style. Take air travel for an instance, it has been demonstrated quite some time ago that jet engines can actually run on high octane ethanol, or even hydrogen gas for that matter, but of course with a much lower range and Boeing is designing a flying wing passenger plane that looks kind of like a white stealth bomber which is supposed to be 35% more fuel efficient than current technology. But at $10 dollar oil and unsubsidized $12 ethanol how many people will be flying to the Bahamas for their yearly vacation if it costs $10,000 for a plane ticket. Not many, especially when their wages will only be 20K or less per year. (Less job supply & more job demand will mean lower wages.) Basic economic fact.


Peak oil will be the most significant issue of our life time, and probably the most significant thing since the second great war. You need to stop rationalizing whether it will happen or not. Take 6 months read the arguments if you have to, but when you come to the conclusion that this stuff is the real thing, start planning for it. If you don't it's your neck, not mine.

- Because Commen sense isn't so common.;)

[thegnat]

You know....there is another problem with peak oil that everyone seems to forget about. And that is our use of plastics if we don't recycle enough. Plastics are a side product of oil that could very much dwindle.

Aside from that, peak oil exists. Whether we want to admit it or not. Whether it comes sooner rather than later depends on our use of resources. And it will come. Because oil is non-renewable. When it gets combusted, BOOM, it's done.

Oh and to add: Fertilizer can also be manure from cows/horses. Some people actually go that way. All natural.

IMO we need to utilize *ALL* possible cleaner sources of energy rather than just depending on one. It puts stress on the singular energy source, no matter what it is. So let's utilize solar/wind/hydro/nuclear. Or maybe some in combination.

Alternative sources of energy *will* become more efficient in the near future.

[Theodoric]

Before I begin I would just like to appologize now for this admittedly insanely long post , if you skip over it I understand, but if you read it. I promise it to be a good one. Some errors in logic just need to be addressed:

First of all: show me exactly where I said, that when peak oil happens we will all be driven back into the middle ages?? I would like to see that quote!

I never said you said that. In fact, I never quoted you in my entire post. I was referring to the majority of the earlier posts and most importantly, the start of this thread.


If we miss the window for transition the human race could back-slide into the middle ages within a single generation. However, there would be no supply of energy left to rebuild with and the few of us who survived mass-starvation, plague and war would be the first generation of humanity to step into a future with little hope of ever knowing what technology was.

I highly doubt society is going to decay to the point where we are thrown into a new Dark Age with no technology just because one fuel source happens to run out.


What I was trying to demonstrate simply is that some technologies that we take for granted today because they are based solely on the economic supply of oil, will in future be replaced by more immediately proven cost effective methods of production. (I do have a precidence, I did not just pull the animal power thing from hat.) When cuba underwent its oil restrictions in 1990 or so back when the USSR was in trouble, all farming methods across the island went from using tractors to plowing fields with draft animals.

It could work on small self sustaining farms, but on the current megafarms of the American midwest it won't be a possibility. The number of animals needed to plow the fields, much less the human labor to harvest the food, would make this unrealistic. The draft animals needed could potentially use more energy in the form of feed than the current mechanized agricultural methods.


We here in North America may find it more efficient to use ethanol produced from corn fields through distilation to plow our fields as long as the bulk of the efficiently distilled ethanal comes from the burning of the cobs, and the farmer can fix the tractor himself. But even in that case the farmer would still have to allocate some portion of his fields to producing the energy to plow the rest of his fields. Thus, he would still not be able to produce the 100% he does today, it would most likely be in the neighborhood of 80-90%, 10-20% would be used to grow corn to produce ethanol.

Ethanol could be a good stopgap measure, though I believe the move to electricity is a much more plausible solution. We just need to develop efficient storage systems for it. It is theoretically possible. Batteries have been reduced in size but increased in capacity for decades now while at the same time lowering energy consumption.


Second of all: blueback mentioned plagues and I don't know where he is getting his information from.

Yes, it was blueback that mentioned the plagues, and no, I don't know where he was getting that from either. I fail to see how the disappearance of oil is going to magically create plagues. Maybe if oil was necessary for energy and food production, but we have other means of doing this.

However, it would be useful in maintaining population control especially in the burgeoning third world countries. If we see this happen it would drastically reduce the human footprint and lower our energy usage.


Thirdly, you are correct in that we do in point of fact, have the technology now to move out of our oil dependence. Unfortunately, that technology is either far too costly or too dirty at present for any major portion of the businesses or citizens of this would to use in the next 30 years to significantly offsett the rapid decline in oil, Natural Gas, Uranium and Coal we currently use. And the scaling up of those technologies are far too capital intensive for them to be any real solution to the oil issue over the next 20 or so years. Thus, we are screwed!

In the US the majority of the electricity is produced by coal, with a smattering of nuclear and natural gas plants along with a few renewables, mostly in the form of wind power. There are very few oil burning electric power plants now, probably due to the fact that in the 70s and 80s it was just too costly to operate an oil burning power plant. Coal reserves in N. America and China are at least that of current Oil reserves, so with the new 'Clean Coal' plants along with the ability to liquefy coal to produce diesel we should be able to run on this for some time.


But don't take my word for it. Lets re-vist some of your pseudoscience solutions. Lets start with the production of Hydrogen, and why, with current technology, the hydrogen economy is, to use your word: BUNK!

"most hydrogen is currently generated from nonrenewable fossil fuels, such as natural gas. In fact, 85% of the world’s hydrogen is produced by steam reformation. In this process, natural gas is converted to hydrogen."

And, yes, hydrogen can also be produced using electrolysis. I believe I filed a test tube with the stuff in grade 7 science class.

"However, the technology has not achieved the efficiency and cost levels required because the precious metal catalyst materials used in the electrodes for electrolysis today are expensive and the reaction that produces the hydrogen is not efficient enough."


You assume that electrolysis is the ONLY way to create hydrogen. Hydrogen production can be achieved biologically via organisms that produce hydrogen metabolically using light. Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting can also produce hydrogen without the unnecessary expense and complication of electrolyzers. Researchers are also pursuing biomass gasification which can produce hydrogen along with other valuable chemicals and fuels.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Generation of hydrogen using electrolysis of water, using renewable energy, is not currently competitive cost-wise with hydrogen from fossil fuels. So what would you need to make the generation of hydrogen using electrolysis of water cost competitive, and what do they mean when they are talking about efficiency, well here is a good definition:

"the electricity consumed is more valuable than the hydrogen produced..."


Assuming that:

1) We are still utilizing current methods of generating electricity.
2) Oil does not become so prohibitively expensive that Hydrogen is cheaper.
3) New and better methods of producing Hydrogen are not utilized that are more efficient than current electrolysis.

Hydrogen is a great way of storing electricity. You can produce all the electric power in the world from renewables like solar, wind, and hydro power, but if you have no way of storing it that electric power is useless. Batteries are not a viable way of storing energy due to the fact that they are heavy, contribute a massive amount of waste, and are inefficient. Hydrogen in the form of fuel cells and expendable gas are a much more stable and efficient means of storing energy.

Hydrogen is more powerful than gasoline. Liquid Hydrogen has a BTU (British Thermal Unit) of 60,000 per pound where as gasoline has a BTU of 18,000 per pound. Which means that hydrogen is lighter and more powerful, it can go further for it’s weight. While hydrogen is only a energy medium similar to a battery, its much more efficient, powerful and light-weight. In fact there is talk of using hydrogen as a power source for laptops and cell phones (Fuel Cells to run cell phones, Laptops). The reason being that you simply get more power for your weight rather than carrying around those big bulky batteries that are always needing replaced every couple years. You would have a lighter, more compact, stronger battery. It would be done through a fuel cell, basically a compact, reversible electrolyzer.

While blueback likes to keep going on about how efficient oil is there are several issues he fails to address. First, it takes a huge amount of energy to even extract oil from the earth. Then, this oil needs to be stored, then shipped to refineries. Once at the refineries, oil needs further energy to be turned into a useful fuel product (gasoline). Gasoline then needs to be stored, transported, and distributed to be used. Gasoline production is a terribly inefficient means of producing fuel. To top it all off, we then put this already inefficient fuel product in one of the most inefficient and costly systems in the world, the ICE. When taking into account that pound for pound Hydrogen has more energy than oil products and that it takes a huge amount of energy to turn crude oil into a usable product Hydrogen is the clear winner. Every time a form of energy is converted to another we are losing more energy, its simple physics. At least with hydrogen we are only doing one conversion as opposed to multiple.

It is also theoretically possible to combine hydrogen production, storage, and distribution facilities all into one. This would not only increase efficiency, but also eliminate the need for storage and transportation of fuel. The issue right now is that hydrogen needs to be cost competitive with conventional fuels. However, the cost of hydrogen can only go down with the advent of new more efficient technologies while the cost of oil can only go up with its increased scarcity.


Finally, the real curx of your argument is simply that nuclear fuel is in-exhaustible. I believe you stated that we are able to reprocess spent fuel and use it again. This is true but, and a big BUT, you only get 95% of the resource every time it is reprocessed. So reprocessing fuel will make it last longer but it will not stop Uranium from depleating like oil, Nat Gas & Coal.

Oh, and by the way reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates 189 times as much waste as the once through cycle.


Digging deeper I have found that you are right in that current nuclear power is exhaustible, much like coal and oil. The issue is when will it be finally exhausted? It truly depends on who you ask. Some speculate that Nuclear will peak sometime soon, around 2025. Others say that reprocessing and exploration may allow it to function far longer. Conclusion: We don't know when Nuclear will peak, so we will need to develop alternative energy solutions.

Nuclear does do one thing however by providing a long term stopgap measure to produce energy while solar, wind, and hydro power mature. Renewable energy sources right now are in their infancy and need to be researched further before they become a viable alternative to current energy production methods. As of now all of these measures are subject to daily and seasonal fluctuations. Also, only certain areas are they even viable, so we need to utilize storage solutions. Solar panels aren't going to work too well in the Pacific Northwest due to weather conditions. Wind power will only be viable in plains areas. We could set up solar arrays in desert and equatorial regions, generating electricity and then using it to produce hydrogen as a storage device.


Peak oil will be the most significant issue of our life time, and probably the most significant thing since the second great war. You need to stop rationalizing whether it will happen or not. Take 6 months read the arguments if you have to, but when you come to the conclusion that this stuff is the real thing, start planning for it. If you don't it's your neck, not mine.

- Because Commen sense isn't so common.;)

I never said that peak oil is not a concern or significant issue. It is a very important issue and should be addressed accordingly. Common sense dictates that it will happen. Oil is not an infinite resource and take millions of years to form. Unless we can figure out a way to synthetically reproduce the conditions that create oil we need to develop alternative ways of energy production.

My post shows that the technology is already there to ween the world off of oil so that when oil does finally peak if it already hasn't we will not be hit with global devastation like some theorists believe.

Some more reading on hydrogen:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(Algae)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Agile]

I'm too lazy to quote, but in one of your posts you said we need to drastically reduce population.

I didn't say that. I said that if we continue on our current course we will have population reduction forced on us. We eat oil. When the oil runs out, we will have a lot of people and not a lot of food. . .that equals population reduction.

You did say it. What you meant by it, however, is unclear.


If oil was an infinite resource, we could fill the Earth until we were all standing on top of one another. But since it's not, we have to reduce our population. Even switching everything to solar power won't save people because you can't fertilize crops with electricity. Our future is one of drastic population reduction either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Of course, my pet strategy is that we should hold on to our huge population until the inevitable super-plague hits. That way we will have enough people left over to keep some sembalance of civilization going.



I'm sure you could counter with the urgency of war, famine, or simply a global economic depression...feel free...I won't disagree with those either. I think I'd still prefer that to the 'humane' solutions of euthanasia by lottery, gluttony, armed conflict, and poor food choices...I digress...



You would prefer war, famine or depression to euthanasia, eating too much, or war. . .that doesn't make any sense.


It "doesn't make any sense" because you straw manned it. I compared the current state of affairs (latter list) to a short list of counter arguments you could have proposed, assuming they would happen, if we implemented my solutions.

The rest, in quick fashion...
Change comes from the top, means corporations, governments, international orgs, etc. Not from individual cogs, as I also described, as in people who have little power or influence, and largely act to carry out the will of others. But I'm sure you misread intentionally. Change does indeed come from 'the top.' Why do you think we have $110/bbl oil, right now? No one is saying markets are irrational. The distortion of interest rates, by injecting liquidity into the markets, leads to unnecessary economic growth.

As far as nuclear power is concerned, bureaucratic regulations limit the use and proliferation of nuclear power sources. So even if we wanted to expand our nuclear capacity, we'd have regulatory hoops (i.e., limits on competition in the name of 'public safety') to jump through. I'm not saying the remarks on Ce 137 and Sr 90 are not valid, just that you(INTJayW) picked less than one half of one percent of the total waste generated in nuclear power processes, to comment on, for safety and environmental concerns. And the only reason you have that information available to you, is because nuclear power is pretty much the only form of energy processing that is mostly transparent and has the majority of its costs valued in it's price. Oil does not. Coal does not. Natural gas, hydrogen, and ethanol, do not.

Back on nuclear waste. 100% of it is bad, not just the 0.3% you picked, Yes, all of it is nasty. However, is it impossible to contain and handle safely? No. God forbid we should have a cataclysmic earthquake that breaks a nuclear containment facility. But come on. If something like that happens, people would probably be hosed anyway, and nuclear contamination would seriously be the least of their concerns.

To put that in perspective, I wonder what would happen to our nearly, what is it...10,000? nuclear warheads and weapons (U.S.) if a cataclysmic earthquake occured. I wonder if any would go off, and if any would cause a corresponding level of devastation, compared to a nuclear waste site being compromised. Hmmm....

On Hydrogen, no comment. It's nuts. The people advocating it should be fired and only allowed to work in fast food. :)

[Theodoric]

On Hydrogen, no comment. It's nuts. The people advocating it should be fired and only allowed to work in fast food. :)

Really? And why is that? Can you back up your claim other than that "its nuts" or are you just that much smarter than the thousands of scientists, researchers, and engineers that have worked on hydrogen production and implementing it as a fuel source for the past two decades and we should just take your word for it? :suspicious:

[INTJayW]

I think through some sober discussion now, that we have established that we are in fact screwed!

Whether Peak oil is as mild as a severe 1930's type prolonged depression in economic activity or the very back of the modern industrial economy breaks and we have starvation, I don't know.

But, suffice to say that starting about 2015 and continuing through 2040 assuming the industrial production of the world is not diverted away from producing renewables, nuclear reactors and coal gasification plants into producing armaments to fight resource wars, the world as a whole will struggle with energy shortages.

I wonder if Shell is hiring?

[blueback]

Actually, nuclear probably is a very good option as a stop-gap between our current energy sources and whatever we use in the future.

We can reprocess the fuel so that it lasts a long time, and the new generation of reactors are much more efficient than the old ones. Any waste we produce can we disposed of somehow. We could encase it in lead and drop it into the Marinas Trench, or stick it in a granit mine, or shoot it into space, whatever. When the world starts to get really desperate for energy the possibility of contamination will be less of an issue.

You don't have to worry about nuclear warheads being set off by. . .well anything really. The process that occurs inside a nuclear warhead to produce the high-yield explosion is incredibly complicated and delicate, there's no way to activate it accidentally. The only danger is that the nuclear material might be spread by a conventional explosion.

The regulatory hurdles are pretty much just emotional holdovers from the end of the second world war and Chernobyl. It's nearly impossible for current and future generations of reactors to have a meltdown or to release radioactive material if they do. If we get desperate for energy you will see most of those check-boxes disappear.

[Agile]

Really? And why is that? Can you back up your claim other than that "its nuts" or are you just that much smarter than the thousands of scientists, researchers, and engineers that have worked on hydrogen production and implementing it as a fuel source for the past two decades and we should just take your word for it? :suspicious:

Hydrogen is a good fuel source. It's an intelligent fuel source. It's lightweight, somewhat safer to transport, and safer in an accident situation, than gasoline/diesel. When pure hydrogen is burned, it has harmless biproducts. It makes perfect ecological sense. But it makes little economic sense.

I have read a bit of criticism of a potential hydrogen economy. From my understanding, it's a panacea, because hydrogen must either come from water (inefficient) or natural gas (non-renewable). As far as I know, it's Oil 2.0, since it lacks the ecological nightmare, but retains the profit and control the industry has enjoyed for decades.

Theodoric, you mention hydrogen sources from bacteria, etc. I have also heard of this method of production, when reading about ethanol versus gasoline. Basically I'd say to be a valid point here, we would need to see that this method is efficient enough to be viable (more efficient than electrolysis, for example)and cost competitive, of course.

I would also add that the basic premise that you lay down in your post, puts us on about equal footing. I also believe that oil will run out at some point, and that by recognizing this, and shifting our economy to use alternatives, we can continue along without a panic / crash / fallout.

[blueback]

Hydrogen doesn't provide energy it transports it, and it does so inefficiently. There are limits to how efficient hydrogen can be that are impossible to overcome, they are inherent in the chemical reactions occuring. Even if you could store and transport it with 0% loss it would still be less efficient than electricity.

Additionally, we already have an infrastructure for distributing electricity, but we would have to build one for transporting hydrogen from scratch.

Additional additional, you really don't want a tank full of hydrogen in the back of your car. I have a series of stills from a video that show what happens when a hydrogen tank starts leaking and burning. It looks a lot like a cutting torch only it's 20 feet high, and that's if the tank doesn't just explode.

[INTJayW]

Hydrogen doesn't provide energy it transports it, and it does so inefficiently. There are limits to how efficient hydrogen can be that are impossible to overcome, they are inherent in the chemical reactions occuring. Even if you could store and transport it with 0% loss it would still be less efficient than electricity.

Additionally, we already have an infrastructure for distributing electricity, but we would have to build one for transporting hydrogen from scratch.

Additional additional, you really don't want a tank full of hydrogen in the back of your car. I have a series of stills from a video that show what happens when a hydrogen tank starts leaking and burning. It looks a lot like a cutting torch only it's 20 feet high, and that's if the tank doesn't just explode.


Oh, and if you want to cool the hydrogen to a liquid and transport it more efficiently in a dense form you would have to find someone who is willing to drive around with what is essentially rocket fuel!

[lordrrr]

I think we are screwed when we run out of oil. The only other energy sources we use are mere gimmicks compared to the enormous reliance on oil we have. Geothermal seems to be promising, as does all the other types of energy alternatives, but we are still screwed if we don't think of some saving move and fast.


Then again, it's going to be fun watching the world all break down, as evil as that sounds :)

[thod]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You seem to assume a pressure vessel.

[MichaelH]

I'd like to add to the previous discussion of internal combustion engines (ICE) versus electric vehicles (EV).

Practical EVs can already be produced:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

80-120 miles per charge, 5 hour (overnight?) charging time. Medium-size SUV. Big enough to pile the kids in and get them all to school, and soccer, and pick up groceries, and go to work, and come home to charge again that night.

Why don't current EVs get this kind of mileage? The patents for the batteries were purchased by Texaco! (Now aka Chevron.)

So we're stuck with monstrosities like the Zap Xebra, that gets less than 20 miles per charge in real-life use.

(At the same time, electric vehicle producers need to stop considering A/C as "future development" feature. These cars are a no-go to consumers in hot areas without it. I live in Fresno, CA, and it peaks near 120 degrees in summer.)

IMO the government should mandate ZEV production and revoke that patent as a matter of national security. We're having to fight in too many countries because of our oil needs.

[INTJayW]

I'd like to add to the previous discussion of internal combustion engines (ICE) versus electric vehicles (EV).

Practical EVs can already be produced:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

80-120 miles per charge, 5 hour (overnight?) charging time. Medium-size SUV. Big enough to pile the kids in and get them all to school, and soccer, and pick up groceries, and go to work, and come home to charge again that night.

Why don't current EVs get this kind of mileage? The patents for the batteries were purchased by Texaco! (Now aka Chevron.)

So we're stuck with monstrosities like the Zap Xebra, that gets less than 20 miles per charge in real-life use.

(At the same time, electric vehicle producers need to stop considering A/C as "future development" feature. These cars are a no-go to consumers in hot areas without it. I live in Fresno, CA, and it peaks near 120 degrees in summer.)

IMO the government should mandate ZEV production and revoke that patent as a matter of national security. We're having to fight in too many countries because of our oil needs.


Here Here. I agree!:thumbsup:

There seems to be some type of conspiracy against EV, with GM creating the first working model and selling a bunch them and, suddenly recalling them all and crushing them without any real reason why. I believe they built their EV just so they could skirt some California law.

And Toyota refusing to create a Pluggable Hybrid for so many years, & like you said battery technology being held back!!

That really makes me mad!!!

And on the same topic. Why the hell is Bush subsidising ethanol and not electric vehicles, probably becuase it takes less re-tooling in the auto industry to produce and E85 rather than create an upstart EV industry.

[Agile]

Instead of that, I think it should be made very public who owns the patent, what good it would be if the patent were sold to say, Honda, and that this message could be made very obvious, and memorable so even the dumbest couch potato would understand it.

I'd rather shame the company into parting with the patent, than creating a legal mess (even though IP laws ought to be reformed in some way) because they happen to help maintain our dependence on fossil fuels.

After a rough google search, it seems the patent on the large NiMH battery will run out in 2014. I thought a patent only lasted 7 years...?

[blueback]

yeah, EVs are the auto and oil industry's worst nightmare. If a corporation only exists to maximize profit then the electric vehicle is the equivalent to a corporation of mammals to dinosours; it's capable of performing in a resource scarce world. The oil industry earned something like 800 billion in cumulative profits last year (not revenue, profit). You better believe they don't want to admit that will ever stop.

[INTJayW]

Instead of that, I think it should be made very public who owns the patent, what good it would be if the patent were sold to say, Honda, and that this message could be made very obvious, and memorable so even the dumbest couch potato would understand it.

I'd rather shame the company into parting with the patent, than creating a legal mess (even though IP laws ought to be reformed in some way) because they happen to help maintain our dependence on fossil fuels.

After a rough google search, it seems the patent on the large NiMH battery will run out in 2014. I thought a patent only lasted 7 years...?

I believe it was Texaco (ie, good old standard Oil) who bought the patent from Ovonics, ECD and then forced them to shut down the line.

This NiMH battery in an EV could run 317 Miles on a single charge! That's more than I can drive my ICE car on a single fill up! And I only fill up once or twice a week & at current electricity prices, This EV is not only cost competitive, it is cheaper, and if you charge using Solar PV or wind your transport costs for the year would only be insurance, and depreciation on the car & Batteries, which are also cost competitive with existing technologies.

That, makes me so mad that I want to file some kind of class action lawsuit on behalf of all the citizens of the US and for that matter the world against Texaco!:angry:

Does any one know what the consequences would be if another country were to produce this battery? Or is it a world wide patent.

[systemsguy]

That's interesting. What do you do in the battery industry? Have you ever converted an ICE to battery electric power?

The calculations are pretty basic, I've seen them before. If I remember correctly the problem is that the weight of the batteries expands so quickly you use up all your freight weight to get the mileage you need. There's a limit to how large a vehicle can be. The only way to make it work with the current electricity storage technology is to make them so effecient and cheap that companies can run twice as many. Cuz they can only carry half as much.

I agree. Transportation can be accomplished just as easily, if no more easily, with electricity.

The power companies are right. They have to maintain a base level of power through the lines but at night it's more than anyone is using so they're effectively wasting it. If everyone was recharging their EVs at night that power would be used. Additionally, if everyone had EVs, and left them plugged into the grid, it would provide a lot of extra power that the main generating stations wouldn't have to provide. It would help level out demand because it would effectively be a bunch of small, local power sources. A bunch of EVs plugged in all day long (whenever people weren't using them) would acutally make the electrical distribution system more efficient.

At the moment EVs don't get the range ICEs do. The range to beat is 300 miles per charge/tank. Additionally, there are a lot of places in the country where you'd have to install high capacity recharging stations so that people could drive their EVs cross-country.

However, the average person only drives 33 miles per day, which is well within the capabilities of the cheapest EV. I think that hybrids would be a good transition technology, electicity for commuting and gas for long trips, but the car companies are dragging their feet.


I am a battery systems engineer. The places I am familiar with import the vehicle chassis without the engine, and install the electric motors and the batteries along with the charger equipment. I have seen several of the prototypes.

As far as recharging the vehicles as one would refuel one with an ICE, there would be large battery racks at the “gas station” with several megawatts of storage energy ready to recharge the much smaller vehicle batteries. I am part of a several megawatt project at this time, and it is not hard to do.

The power guys I spoke to a few days ago said that if people were to recharge the vehicles at night, they would not have to build surplus capacity above what they already have.

Perhaps the power companies will displace the automobile companies since an EV is simple and the power companies probably have a stronger case for a core competency in a lot of areas of EV design than a traditional auto company like GM and Ford. Perhaps the simplicity of an EV will reorganize the industry so much that things will be seriously shaken up in the next decade. I do not see the large supporting organizations around an EV as we have now organized around the ICE. The engineering and the manufacturing will be on a much smaller, focused scale – as far as I can see it.

[Theodoric]

Hydrogen doesn't provide energy it transports it, and it does so inefficiently.

The same can be said about oil really. Its just that hydrogen is more efficient than oil and does not have the many associated costs, like having to trek halfway around the world to a hostile country for it.


There are limits to how efficient hydrogen can be that are impossible to overcome, they are inherent in the chemical reactions occuring. Even if you could store and transport it with 0% loss it would still be less efficient than electricity.

Assuming that we will always need electricity to produce hydrogen, it will never be cheaper to produce electricity, and that the process of creating hydrogen will never become cheaper as the technology matures.


Additionally, we already have an infrastructure for distributing electricity, but we would have to build one for transporting hydrogen from scratch.


Which is also inefficient because batteries do not hold a charge indefinitely and electricity dissipates over power lines the further it goes from its source.


Additional additional, you really don't want a tank full of hydrogen in the back of your car. I have a series of stills from a video that show what happens when a hydrogen tank starts leaking and burning. It looks a lot like a cutting torch only it's 20 feet high, and that's if the tank doesn't just explode.

Sounds like a highly pressurized tank was being used and or the hydrogen is being cooled to the point where it is more like a solid rocket fuel and less like a gas. Current cars in production that utilize hydrogen as a fuel source do not utilize high pressure canisters. That and it is fairly simple to modify an existing car to create and use hydrogen as a fuel. The greatest thing about it? There is no loss of power like in electric motors and you don't need to replace the batteries (which in some electrics / hybrids can run over $10,000 USD) and create massive amounts of industrial waste.

Until electricity can be stored more efficiently and electric motors are improved I do not see electricity as a viable alternative to oil or hydrogen, especially in large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, and buses.

And I would like to see these stills.





Theodoric added to this post, 2 minutes and 23 seconds later...


As far as recharging the vehicles as one would refuel one with an ICE, there would be large battery racks at the “gas station” with several megawatts of storage energy ready to recharge the much smaller vehicle batteries. I am part of a several megawatt project at this time, and it is not hard to do.

The power guys I spoke to a few days ago said that if people were to recharge the vehicles at night, they would not have to build surplus capacity above what they already have.

So it sounds like we will need to create a system of distributing and storing electricity just like we would need to create one for hydrogen.





Theodoric added to this post, 18 minutes and 16 seconds later...

As far as I know, it's Oil 2.0, since it lacks the ecological nightmare, but retains the profit and control the industry has enjoyed for decades.

The only reason that this occurs with oil is due to the fact that the oil companies control a monopoly sue to international trade agreements and protectionist practices which stifle innovation and competition. Since you need to have a way of purchasing oil from hostile countries and a massive refinery to actually utilize oil it is extremely difficult for a newcomer to emerge.

However, hydrogen is relatively easy to do and cheap. Electrolysis kits can be made using simple items from a hardware store. A bioreactor is merely a lot of glass tanks, water, and some algae.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Meaning, anyone with enough funds can easily get into hydrogen production.

Due to bioengineering we can now have a 15% conversion rate of sunlight to hydrogen utilizing a bioreactor. This is actually a much better solution than photovoltaic solar panels which only enjoy a 5-9% conversion rate and have much higher startup costs associated.

But this is probably the most telling example of hydrogen's use as a fuel.

It would take an algae farm the size of the state of Texas to produce enough hydrogen to supply the energy needs of the whole world. It would take about 25,000 square kilometres to be sufficient to displace gasoline use in the US; this is less than a tenth of the area devoted to growing soya in the US but would equal the size of the state of Vermont, or three times the size of the everglades swamp in Florida

So instead of growing corn to make ethanol, we should grow algae to make hydrogen. It makes more sense, because we do not have to go into the costly conversion process of turning corn into ethanol because the algae does it for us.

Besides, there are millions of miles of absolutely useless land that can be converted for this.

[thod]

Some seem to be talking about hydrogen as if its sci fi. Honda released its fuel cell car this year. 270 miles range on a single set of cells seems good enough to me, how far can you get on a tank of gas. Take a look then say how far fetched it is since its already a production vechicle not a concept car.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Theodoric]

Some seem to be talking about hydrogen as if its sci fi. Honda released its fuel cell car this year. 270 miles range on a single set of cells seems good enough to me, how far can you get on a tank of gas. Take a look then say how far fetched it is since its already a production vechicle not a concept car.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Exactly. Hydrogen is not only practical but it actually works and is already being utilized. Solar powered cars are inefficient, poorly designed, and lack power. Electric cars are the same but also contribute vast amounts of industrial waste in the form of spent batteries.

Not only has Honda built a hydrogen powered car, but also BMW, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. hSCbWZajX7AlAX+tJMrqQKjkf13yYbb5Nzb+kkoDdNIe29r9Ql JQLw==

and GM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

and Ford To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The best part? These aren't just concepts or prototypes, but full road tested and ready models that could go into production tomorrow.

[blueback]

Which is also inefficient because batteries do not hold a charge indefinitely and electricity dissipates over power lines the further it goes from its source.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for electricity was 4,000 miles"

The US is roughly 2500 miles across. So, 30 years ago you could transmit electricity to the other side of the country and almost all the way back efficiently.

Nothing holds a charge indefinitely. Anything which has energy in it will lost that energy over time. Volatile liquids (gasoline, ethanol, etc) will boil off or their chemical structure will degrade over time. However, batteries are still safer than flammable liquids.


Sounds like a highly pressurized tank was being used and or the hydrogen is being cooled to the point where it is more like a solid rocket fuel and less like a gas.


Hydrogen doesn't form solids.
The only way to store hydrogen efficiently is to use a high pressure tank and/or a cryogenic freezing system.


Current cars in production that utilize hydrogen as a fuel source do not utilize high pressure canisters. That and it is fairly simple to modify an existing car to create and use hydrogen as a fuel. The greatest thing about it? There is no loss of power like in electric motors and you don't need to replace the batteries (which in some electrics / hybrids can run over $10,000 USD) and create massive amounts of industrial waste.


Right. Have you actually done any research on that? The only way of storing pure hydrogen without a tank is in a metallic sponge and those are all experimental at the moment.

That's true. The first internal combustion engine ran on hydrogen. Of course, none of the rest of them did.

The bolded statement is pretty impressive. Did you make that "fact" up all on your own or did someone help you? "Electric motors often achieve 90% energy conversion efficiency" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"A typical [fuel] cell running at 0.7 V has an efficiency of about 50%" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._cell_efficiency
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Liquid hydrogen has worse energy density by volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four. This highlights the density problem for pure hydrogen: there is actually about 64% more hydrogen in a liter of gasoline (116 grams hydrogen) than there is in a liter of pure liquid hydrogen (71 grams hydrogen). Additionally, the carbon in the gasoline contributes to the energy of combustion"


Until electricity can be stored more efficiently and electric motors are improved I do not see electricity as a viable alternative to oil or hydrogen, especially in large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, and buses.


Dude, well-to-wheel efficiency of electric vehicles is already around 85% while hydrogen powered vehicles are around 25%. Have you actually researched any of this?


And I would like to see these stills.


Okay, I found the pdf online. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You have to scroll down to the bottom to see the video stills.


So it sounds like we will need to create a system of distributing and storing electricity just like we would need to create one for hydrogen.


Where do you think the electricity to run your computer comes from? Does your power company drop off batteries in the morning with the milk? All we have to do is expand the capacity of the power lines that already exist. If we switched to hydrogen we would have to lay down thousands of miles of new, untested pipeline with the associated storage facilities.


So instead of growing corn to make ethanol, we should grow algae to make hydrogen. It makes more sense, because we do not have to go into the costly conversion process of turning corn into ethanol because the algae does it for us.


Or we could just skip the chemical steps and use electricity. But then the oil companies wouldn't make massive (800 billion dollar) profits.


I am a battery systems engineer. The places I am familiar with import the vehicle chassis without the engine, and install the electric motors and the batteries along with the charger equipment. I have seen several of the prototypes.


Where are you working? The only places I've heard of that are doing vehicle conversions on a large scale are Israel and Mexio City, and the guys in Mexico aren't starting with empty cars.


As far as recharging the vehicles as one would refuel one with an ICE, there would be large battery racks at the “gas station” with several megawatts of storage energy ready to recharge the much smaller vehicle batteries. I am part of a several megawatt project at this time, and it is not hard to do.


Maybe you could post some more information or link to it? I think your real-world experience might help to convince some of the skeptics.


Perhaps the power companies will displace the automobile companies since an EV is simple and the power companies probably have a stronger case for a core competency in a lot of areas of EV design than a traditional auto company like GM and Ford.


That is a great idea. The power companies already have the capital! If I understand the project in Israel properly they are treating the cars like cell phones and the grid to recharge them like service plans.


Hydrogen is not only practical but it actually works and is already being utilized. Solar powered cars are inefficient, poorly designed, and lack power. Electric cars are the same but also contribute vast amounts of industrial waste in the form of spent batteries.


Hydrogen hasn't been utilized in vehicles as much as electricity has.
No one said anything about solar-powered cars, but your assertion that they are inefficient is kind of funny since they are the most efficient vehicles ever made.
Actually, batteries are recyclable. Lead-acid batteries are 100% recyclable. Besides, even if the batter pack was completely scrapped and sent to a land fill the car would still produce much less net waste than an ICE vehicle because it has fewer moving parts and less maintenance over its life time.

[Theodoric]

Nothing holds a charge indefinitely. Anything which has energy in it will lost that energy over time. Volatile liquids (gasoline, ethanol, etc) will boil off or their chemical structure will degrade over time. However, batteries are still safer than flammable liquids.

Except that Hydrogen is a stable, naturally occurring gas. Meaning that it does not loose its energy potential over time. Batteries however, go bad.


Hydrogen doesn't form solids.
The only way to store hydrogen efficiently is to use a high pressure tank and/or a cryogenic freezing system.

Right. Have you actually done any research on that? The only way of storing pure hydrogen without a tank is in a metallic sponge and those are all experimental at the moment.

The way I'm most familiar with is the hydrogen kits that are basically a coil placed inside of a canister. The canister is filled with water and the coil is charged with electricity supplied by the battery and alternator. This creates hydrogen through the process of electrolysis. So in reality you need to fill up your car, but only with water, and you aren't storing any hydrogen at all.

The other use is to have hydrogen fuel cells, which in turn produce electricity to power the engine rather than burning the hydrogen gas directly.

After doing more research there are a few vehicles that run on a hydrogen powered ICE with pressurized gas, the only ones being a few modded cars in CA and a BMW prototype.


That's true. The first internal combustion engine ran on hydrogen. Of course, none of the rest of them did.

Yet the first mass produced car, the model T, ran on Ethanol, which Henry Ford claimed to be the the fuel of the future. We all know how well that worked out.

Edison also built electric motor driven cars and most vehicles were powered by electricity and at one point outsold gasoline powered vehicles. We would probably be all driving electrics right now if Standard Oil and GM didn't decide to get in on gasoline production.


The bolded statement is pretty impressive. Did you make that "fact" up all on your own or did someone help you? "Electric motors often achieve 90% energy conversion efficiency" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"A typical [fuel] cell running at 0.7 V has an efficiency of about 50%" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._cell_efficiency
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Liquid hydrogen has worse energy density by volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four. This highlights the density problem for pure hydrogen: there is actually about 64% more hydrogen in a liter of gasoline (116 grams hydrogen) than there is in a liter of pure liquid hydrogen (71 grams hydrogen). Additionally, the carbon in the gasoline contributes to the energy of combustion"


Gasoline has a BTU/lb of 18,000 while Hydrogen has a BTU/lb of 60,000.

I'd like to know why all of the electric or hybrid / electric vehicles are still being constantly plagued by being slow (compared to gas powered) but hydrogen cars are exceptionally fast and powerful?


Okay, I found the pdf online. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You have to scroll down to the bottom to see the video stills.


Those are pretty neat stills. Makes me wish I was in the hydrogen car actually. All the stills show a large jet of flame coming from the car, quickly burning out after 1:30 minutes, and very superficial damage done to the car, whereas the gasoline powered car looks like a burnt out wreck engulfed in flames and smoke.

Seems like you just proved hydrogen is safer than gasoline, even if it is in a highly pressurized tank. :p


Where do you think the electricity to run your computer comes from? Does your power company drop off batteries in the morning with the milk? All we have to do is expand the capacity of the power lines that already exist. If we switched to hydrogen we would have to lay down thousands of miles of new, untested pipeline with the associated storage facilities.


You assume that all hydrogen production will be centralized rather than regional. If we go the regional route there will be no need for continent spanning pipelines OR high power lines.

And my computer plugs into a wall socket, so thats where the electricity comes from. However, I can't do that with my car, since the electric bill will be higher than what I currently pay for gas and I don't have miles of extension cables.


Hydrogen hasn't been utilized in vehicles as much as electricity has.
No one said anything about solar-powered cars, but your assertion that they are inefficient is kind of funny since they are the most efficient vehicles ever made.

Wiki:
Solar vehicles are not practical day-to-day transportation devices at present, but are primarily demonstration vehicles and engineering exercises. Battery electric vehicles fitted with solar cells would extend their range and allow recharging while parked anywhere in the sun. However, with present and near-term engineering considerations, it seems that the more likely place for solar cells will generally be on the roofs of buildings, where they are always exposed to the sky and weight is largely irrelevant, rather than on vehicle roofs, where size is limited.

There have been attempts at making solar powered cars for decades. They have all ran into the same engineering problems and also have had issues of being underpowered and not commercially viable. This is different from hydrogen burning vehicles that can be utilized.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

theres also this weird thing from GM.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Actually, batteries are recyclable. Lead-acid batteries are 100% recyclable. Besides, even if the batter pack was completely scrapped and sent to a land fill the car would still produce much less net waste than an ICE vehicle because it has fewer moving parts and less maintenance over its life time.

Lead-Acid batteries are incredibly heavy. I would suspect that the number of these needed to operate a vehicle would nearly double the weight of the car. Not sure how viable an option these would be. A more practical solution would be to use Li-Ion type batteries. However, this type of battery has many disadvantages

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not sure if they can be recycled though...

[blueback]

You're keeping me from playing Bioshock. . .damn my interest in this subject!


Except that Hydrogen is a stable, naturally occurring gas. Meaning that it does not loose its energy potential over time. Batteries however, go bad.


Congratulations on missing the entire point. You didn't even graze it, I'm actually kind of impressed.

Yes, each atom of hydrogen is stable. Yes, hydrogen does occur naturally. No, hydrogen actually does lose its energy potential over time. Being the smallest element hydrogen has a dirty habit of passing through solid objects. It is very very very difficult to store at 0% loss. Any pressurized container of hydrogen (IE all of them) loses some percent of its hyrogen every day. The average is 1% per day. Therefore, you can't leave a container of hydrogen sitting around for too long before most of the hydrogen has escaped into the atmosphere.

Could you please be more specific than "batteries go bad." It sounds like you watched something on the Discovery Channel and can't quite remember what they said.


The way I'm most familiar with is the hydrogen kits that are basically a coil placed inside of a canister. The canister is filled with water and the coil is charged with electricity supplied by the battery and alternator. This creates hydrogen through the process of electrolysis.


Please provide a link to a production vehicle that electrolysis's water on-board. I would love to see that.


So in reality you need to fill up your car, but only with water, and you aren't storing any hydrogen at all.


Oh no? How does the engine get started? There would have to be some hydrogen on tap, ready to go to give the electolysis tank time to pump out enough hydrogen.


The other use is to have hydrogen fuel cells, which in turn produce electricity to power the engine rather than burning the hydrogen gas directly.


Right. What gave you the impression I didn't know what fuel cells were? There are a few cars that use those. . .and they all use high pressure storage tanks to hold the hydrogen.


Gasoline has a BTU/lb of 18,000 while Hydrogen has a BTU/lb of 60,000.


huh. . .I wonder why I quoted energy per volume and not energy per weight. . .maybe it's because I understand the difference and that's what the people who work with the stuff use when they report their data. There really isn't that much to learn, just do the research.


I'd like to know why all of the electric or hybrid / electric vehicles are still being constantly plagued by being slow (compared to gas powered) but hydrogen cars are exceptionally fast and powerful?


I'm not going to even justify this with a response *cough* tesla motors *cough*


All the stills show a large jet of flame coming from the car, quickly burning out after 1:30 minutes, and very superficial damage done to the car, whereas the gasoline powered car looks like a burnt out wreck engulfed in flames and smoke.


Congratulations on being the victim of propaganda.

I know it's hard to imagine, but try to keep up with me. You see that jet of flame that is shooting out of the top of the car? Try to imagine (I know it's hard) it rotated 90 degrees and shooting into the interior of the car. Actually, try to imagine it pointing anywhere except straight up. Keep in mind that hydrogen flames are hotter than gasoline flames because all of the radiation is in the infra-red range (the only reason you can see the flame is chemical contamination). So, basically, what you have is a giant cutting torch which is only safe if the leak in the tank happens to be pointing directly up.


You assume that all hydrogen production will be centralized rather than regional. If we go the regional route there will be no need for continent spanning pipelines OR high power lines.


So you take an inherently inefficient form of energy transfer like hydrogen and make it less efficient by decentralizing its production? There's a reason you don't see mini-power stations on every block. I'll be here when you figure out why.


And my computer plugs into a wall socket, so thats where the electricity comes from. However, I can't do that with my car, since the electric bill will be higher than what I currently pay for gas and I don't have miles of extension cables.


You must have been on the track team in high school, maybe even college. The way you jump to conclusions like that it's obvious you have a natural talent for it.

"If you can travel 25 miles on 5kWh of electric power, that means it cost you something like 40 cents to cover the same distance (@ 8 cents/kWh) it takes a gallon of gasoline at $2 and $3 a gallon at current (2006) prices" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Lead-Acid batteries are incredibly heavy. I would suspect that the number of these needed to operate a vehicle would nearly double the weight of the car. Not sure how viable an option these would be. A more practical solution would be to use Li-Ion type batteries. However, this type of battery has many disadvantages


Keep in mind that part of the weight of the traction pack is offset by the removal of the engine and its associated hardware. At any rate, there are thousands of examples of ICE->BEV (Pb-acid batteries) conversion vehicles on the road. You can do the conversion with a kit ordered off the internet and a little mechanical know-how.

Oh yeah, feel like listing some of those disadvantages? Or are you too busy making up facts?

[INTJayW]

Holly Sh..uger!

Would you two give it up already. "Hydrogen is not pratical" Direct quote from German auto engineer! via- Discovery channel.

The most pratical use of hydrogen I have seen yet is the pilot project that Wal-Mart is now engaging in to use Lift trucks in their warehouse that run on fuel cells.

They say, although, it is untested that these things can be driven up to 7000-16000 hours before the fuel cell must be scraped or reconditioned.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

However, no where in this promotional article does it mention where the hydrogen comes from, and I will bet hands down that if you did some looking it would be Praxair! Who derive all of their hydrogen production from ... Ahhh ... you guessed it Natural Gas!

Thus the supposed cost effectiveness of Hydrogen relies on the cheap avalibility of Natural Gas.

Here are two important links: Please read them before continuing.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

However, Ballard Power Systems, a leading developer of hydrogen vehicle technology pulled out of the Hydrogen vehicle business in late 2007. Research Capital analyst Jon Hykawy concluded that Ballard saw the industry going nowhere and said: "In my view, the hydrogen car was never alive. The problem was never could you build a fuel cell that would consume hydrogen, produce electricity, and fit in a car. The problem was always, can you make hydrogen fuel at a price point that makes any sense to anybody. And the answer to that to date has been no."

The above sight also clearly shows that an EV has 85% grid-to-motor efficiency and a hydrogen vehicle has a 26% grid-to-motor efficiency.

Why the auto industry insists on wasting so much money on hydrogen research, I'll never know. Because, EV's are the answer and that is all that needs to be said about the matter.:rolleyes:

[Cistercian]

Supposedly, new ultra capacitors will come on line within the next several years.They have many advantages over batteries if the energy density is high enough.If you cover your roof with photovoltaics and set up some modest wind driven generators this could stick it to big oil big time!I like Germany's approach to encouraging solar cell installations.I wish we had that here in the US!

[blueback]

Yep! Ultracapacitors have a lot of real potential. They are like a bucket for electricity.

However, I don't think that distributed power generation is going to be able to make up more than a fraction of the energy the world uses. It's just too inefficient to manufacture, distribute, and maintain all that stuff. You use up the extra power just driving around.

I think the future is in space based solar power. Possibly fusion if someone can get it working.

[thod]

I think the future is in space based solar power

Why? Putting photovoltaic cells up there is so expensive and all those cosmic rays realy do damage. How will you get it back to Earth? Huge microwave transmitters? That would be expensive and fun for the people below. I am sure it would be regarded as a weapons system.

[INTJayW]

Supposedly, new ultra capacitors will come on line within the next several years.They have many advantages over batteries if the energy density is high enough.If you cover your roof with photovoltaics and set up some modest wind driven generators this could stick it to big oil big time!I like Germany's approach to encouraging solar cell installations.I wish we had that here in the US!


That's exactly why the oil companies are sticking it to us through their control of the major auto manufacturers, by killing the EV. GM did it at the turn of the century by killing electric light rail, and they have teamed up with Toyota to do it to us again today!

If EV's were to become popular, wealth would shift from the oil companies to the Utilities, and well, if you controlled one of the worlds 5th largest companies, would allow those pesky consumers to shop elsewhere?

[Aronnax]

Why the auto industry insists on wasting so much money on hydrogen research, I'll never know. Because, EV's are the answer and that is all that needs to be said about the matter.:rolleyes:

If I had to venture a guess it's because of refuel time, existing refueling infrastructure and luxury vehicles could use hydrogen combustion rather than a fuel cell to produce far more power. The margin on luxury vehicles is huge, that's where the automakers make their money. A Cadillac doesn't cost much more to build than a Chevy but you can sell them for 2-3 times as much.

[md21017md]

INTJayW, the real reason is to sell more fuel. Right now, the most viable way to get commercial hydrogen is to use propane. The process yields 1/2 the BTU in the form of hydrogen. In otherwords, the gas companies get to sell twice as much hydrogen. EV's are a good answer, but not as they are now made. A diesel VW gets 40-50 MPG, and the best EV's from the show room only get 40ish in the real world.

We have the technology right now to get over 100 MPG. There is a guy profiled in popular science I think who modified an civic hybrid and got 80-100 mpg. What would a diesel (getting 40-50) modified into a hybrid get?

The major oil companies have to be in bed with auto makers. Oil companies want to sell oil, as much as they can. Auto makers want to sell cars, as many as they can and at as high a profit margin as they can. Making a car more fuel efficeint means adding more technology which reduces the profit margin. Think it is ant coincidece when the US raises the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) the auto makers all the sudden meet it? Why didn't they the year before? Because they didn't have to.

Hydrogen is a feel good answer, and something that makes the automakers and the oil companies a lot of money.





md21017md added to this post, 10 minutes and 41 seconds later...

Actually, Hubbard has been proven to be wrong. He reportedly never provided the formula for his curve, and made numerous adjustments from the 50's to 1970. His followers have been predicting the end of oil for 30 years, and keep moving the target. One day the will be right - there is a finite ammount of oil to be pumped. That said, I think it's a crime that we are not doing more to preserve this limited resource.

I think a lot of people see the record prices for oil ($115 US yesterday) as the end of oil. What is not taken in consideration is that the dollar is so weak right now that 1/3 of the price is the devaluation of the dollar. The rest of the increase is speculators playing with the price based on any possibly excuse to make a profit. We probably will never see $20 per barrel oil, and maybe that is a good thing, but hopefully when George is out of office and the Gulf war crap is over things will settle down a bit.

Will we run out? Sure, but I don't think in the next 50 years. The iron curtain countries are just being probed, and fields are being discovered there all the time. There is plenty to be found, and still plenty, but I personally think we should still do all we can to preserve what the world has. Not just the US, but the world as a whole should be on the same conservation plan.

[blueback]

INTJayW, the real reason is to sell more fuel. Right now, the most viable way to get commercial hydrogen is to use propane. The process yields 1/2 the BTU in the form of hydrogen. In otherwords, the gas companies get to sell twice as much hydrogen.

Technically, I don't think you should be calling hydrogen a fuel. That's kind of like calling a waterfall fuel. It just transports energy, it doesn't store any.

You're right on track about it being inefficient. You can stor a dozen times more hydrogen atoms in a hydrocarbon chain than in H2 for the same volume. I think the big players are pushing it so hard because it is the closest thing to a direct replacement for the current energy infrastructure they can come up with. Ethanol has to be grown, and they don't know anything about farming. Hydrogen can be produced directly in centralized manufacturing plants, which is pretty much what they do with oil. It's the same structure anyway.

EV's are a good answer, but not as they are now made. A diesel VW gets 40-50 MPG, and the best EV's from the show room only get 40ish in the real world.

It sounds like when you say "EV" what you really mean is hybrid. Is that correct?

We have the technology right now to get over 100 MPG. There is a guy profiled in popular science I think who modified an civic hybrid and got 80-100 mpg. What would a diesel (getting 40-50) modified into a hybrid get?

Yeah, more efficient technology has been around for a long time. The low cost of fuel has kept all that stuff off the market, though.

I think the market for high-efficiency transportation is just beginning to expand and will grow rapidly in the next decade.

The major oil companies have to be in bed with auto makers. Oil companies want to sell oil, as much as they can. Auto makers want to sell cars, as many as they can and at as high a profit margin as they can.

Well. . .yeah.
They are companies, they have stockholders. Of course they want to sell their product and make a profit.

Making a car more fuel efficeint means adding more technology which reduces the profit margin. Think it is ant coincidece when the US raises the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) the auto makers all the sudden meet it? Why didn't they the year before? Because they didn't have to.

Well, not quite. They haven't done it on their own because the market hasn't rewarded it.

Hydrogen is a feel good answer, and something that makes the automakers and the oil companies a lot of money.

It only feels good because no one's tried to make it work yet. All the hype is coming from the marketing departments, not from the R&D departments. The guys who are actually researching and building hydrogen technology are pessimistic about it being useful anytime soon, and about it ever being useful on a large scale.

Actually, Hubbard has been proven to be wrong. He reportedly never provided the formula for his curve, and made numerous adjustments from the 50's to 1970.

I've been researching Peak Oil for a while now and I've never heard anyone else mention anything about Hubbard being proved wrong. What's your source?

His curve is just a natural curve, the formula isn't a secret. Other researchers have plotted the same thing themselves and reached similar results. You can even look at a graph of just about any oil well's actual production and see the curve.

Just because a good idea is surrounded by people who don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not still a good idea. You should argue the idea on its own merits (that proves you understand it) and avoid aruging it based on the merits of the individuals who tried to apply it.

I think a lot of people see the record prices for oil ($115 US yesterday) as the end of oil. What is not taken in consideration is....

Only fools see it as the "end of oil." Those who actually understand what's going on see it as, at best, market speculation like you do, and at worst, a result of decreasing supply and increasing demand. We will still have oil after the Peak, it will just get more and more expensive.
Will we run out? Sure, but I don't think in the next 50 years.

What are you basing that conclusion on?

The iron curtain countries are just being probed, and fields are being discovered there all the time. There is plenty to be found,


And what are you basing that on?

[md21017md]

I've read a lot on this as well. And I am still on the fence, not quite in the "we're out of oil camp", but definately not in the "we have 300 years of oil left" camp either.

I stumbled on a site called To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I was interested in the reading from the over population angle. In the process stumbled on a lot of interesting info. On one of the links they mentions an oil analyst by name (which I am sorry to say I can't remember). I looked him up and sent an email asking for his take. He sent me a bunch of info disputing thier claims. You can also google Hubert was wrong, and get a lot of interesting counter info.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The thing never discussed was that Hubert only intended his curve to represent the lower 48 states, and was never intended to apply world wide, too many variables.

As to not running out in the next 50 years, simply on the fact that we have proven reserves, and new ones being found.

The iron curtain finds? Google it, we have only really been exploring there for a short time, as well as the soviets are discovering new fields all the time and are considered 2nd to the Saudi's in reserves.

EV, my bad, yes I meant hybrid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
Making a car more fuel efficeint means adding more technology which reduces the profit margin. Think it is ant coincidece when the US raises the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) the auto makers all the sudden meet it? Why didn't they the year before? Because they didn't have to.

Well, not quite. They haven't done it on their own because the market hasn't rewarded it.

That is the big problem with capitalisim and publicly held companies. They can't see past the next quarter. They can't do something for the good of society.

[blueback]

That is the big problem with capitalisim and publicly held companies. They can't see past the next quarter. They can't do something for the good of society.

I can't disagree with that. The market doesn't automatically factor in externalities.

That is what government is for, to do the things that don't turn an obvious profit. That is why you can't seperate capitalism and democracy, you need both.

[INTJayW]

INTJayW, the real reason is to sell more fuel. Right now, the most viable way to get commercial hydrogen is to use propane. The process yields 1/2 the BTU in the form of hydrogen. In otherwords, the gas companies get to sell twice as much hydrogen. EV's are a good answer, but not as they are now made. A diesel VW gets 40-50 MPG, and the best EV's from the show room only get 40ish in the real world.

We have the technology right now to get over 100 MPG. There is a guy profiled in popular science I think who modified an civic hybrid and got 80-100 mpg. What would a diesel (getting 40-50) modified into a hybrid get?

The major oil companies have to be in bed with auto makers. Oil companies want to sell oil, as much as they can. Auto makers want to sell cars, as many as they can and at as high a profit margin as they can. Making a car more fuel efficeint means adding more technology which reduces the profit margin. Think it is ant coincidece when the US raises the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) the auto makers all the sudden meet it? Why didn't they the year before? Because they didn't have to.

Hydrogen is a feel good answer, and something that makes the automakers and the oil companies a lot of money.


Some interesting points: let me clarify a few points that you mentioned. Regarding the extraction of hydrogen from a fossil fuel 'Propane' according to your numbers still yields 50% of the original source of energy. So, Burn the propane directly, don't extract the hydrogen and burn it.

Regarding EV's (Electric Vehicles)

The best EV's from the show room are able to travel 100-120 on a charge using an NiMH Batt, The best EV's from the show room (Tesla) are able to travel 220 miles on a single charge using Li-Ion Batts.

The best experimental EV's (AC Propulsion Tzero, Solectra etc..) are able to travel 300-330 miles on a single charge, as of 1998 records.

What is the cost Tesla ($100,000) low volume of production?

Hydrogen power Vehicles: (Oil industry Bait & Switch)

I just watched the doc who killed the EV. (Great Doc, I recommend it.) I never really understood why the auto industry has chosen to push hydrogen until I watched this Doc as they fully explain why.

And here is the why: EV's are, in fact, the answer to the oil question! And the oil companies know it! In the Doc there is discussion about Hydrogen and they put forth the argument that the Car companies killed the EV in California and then pushed Hydrogen as a real solution to the oil problem. But the car companies say that the viability of Hydrogen is 15 years off. This allows the oil companies to continue to sell oil as the status quo, (Without regulations) while car companies continue to make money on Trucks & SUV's (Without regulations) all the while appearing to the naive public to be searching for a real solution to the oil problem, when in fact hydrogen will never. Let me repeat that. HYDROGEN WILL NEVER BE A VIABLE SOLUTION!!
So, the general public can continue to pump gas into their SUV, thinking to themselves that, gas is going up, but soon I won't have to worry about that because the Car companies are working on this Hydrogen solution that will save me! (No one really bothers to question the science.)

In the Doc they sight the five miracles that need to happen before hydrogen becomes viable:

1) Current fuel cell cars cost $1,000,000 (Compare that to the 100,000 tesla)
2) No material known to man is dense enough to be able to store hydrogen for any material amount of time.
3) Hydrogen fuel in expensive to produce even using the current method of extracting it from fossil fuels.
4) No fueling infrastructure
5) Competing technologies must not improve (ie EV's) or become more cost effective in the near term.

So, as I said before EV's are the answer and that is all that needs to be said about the matter!

As for the other stuff about Hubbert and peak oil not happening for another 50 years, well that's just bunk! Read the posts leading up to this one for the reasons why. The peak happened in late 05 and as of to date there has been no evidence (ie rising world oil production) to prove otherwise. It’s already causing problems world wide. (Recent food inflation/food riots) basic grain price increases of 75-130% in one year.

[blueback]

Actually, the grain price thing probably has more to do with a shortage of fresh water. A lot of countries are shifting water supplies away from farms and into urban and industrial activities which generate more revenue.

[md21017md]

Interesting read

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

I won't argue that it's complicated. However, the price something sells at is, in a rational market, the discounted value of all future cash flows. The part that keeps that from being 100% true is that people can't always know exactly what the future cash flows will be. If everyone things the price is low they will buy it. A bubble is produced when everyone bases their valuation on speculation that other people will want to buy it and drive the price up, rather than on the inherent value in the thing itself.

There is a possibility that the current price is just a castle in the air, but there is also the possibility that all those traders think that oil will increase in price in the future, that the price hasn't peaked yet. They have a lot more information than we do.

[thod]

Its not correct to price it in terms of future cash flows like an equity. Nor is the production cost that important. Oil has found a new use and that is driving up the price. It is money now.

Take gold as an example. Few real uses, jewelery, high end electronics etc. But there is another use and that is as money and that whats sets it price. Oil and other commodities are money too. Look at US inflation, CPI is 4.5%, but CPI excludes food and energy and housing. All the things people need. Better measures of inflation, such as M3 or producer prices tell a different story with US inflation at 15-20%. They even stopped publishing official M3 data last year, nice way to hide things. So you can keep your cash in the bank and its worth 20% less next year, or you buy something that doesn't lose value. The equity market is going down, bond yields are pathetic. The only way to preserve value is commodities. Every commodity is sky high as people flee inflation, not just oil. They can print more dollars and are doing, but they cant print more gold. Double the number of dollars, the price of gold doubles.

They are raping the nations cash savings to save the banking sector. Debt holders are happy because their debt is inflated away and they don't pay interest at the true rate of inflation. Nice for the indebted government and mortgage holders. Anyone that has savings is stuffed, and that includes the fundd managers you hand your savings to invest.

You can either keep cash, and watch it be inflated, by equities and watch them fall, or by commodities and hope you are not holding them when prices fall. Prices will fall when the money managers see stability in the usual financial system and transfer money to it from commodities.

The biggest fool in all this is the US citizen. Most of them don't understand economics and don't know their savings are being raped and are happy to see their mortgage inflated away. Foreigners are pulling out into the Euro. The Euro central bank has only one priority, to fight inflation. Its likely to raise interest rates soon to achieve that.

The US dollar is a terrible store of value, thanks to the printing press. If you have to, buy something that is going to be worth as much next year as it is this. 10% profit in a 15% inflation environment means a 5% loss. You need to preserve value. I am sure you have heard about mortgage lending drying up and the credit crunch etc. That BS, nobody is going to lend at 5% interest when inflation is at 15%. Thats why the banks wont lend in the US. The fed needs to come clean about inflation and do its job. That is maintaining the dollar as a store of value.

Since they gave it the mandate to maximize employment too it has gone wild on that side. You pump money into the economy to maximize jobs and growth. Lots of money for start ups and to fund new plants that hire folk. But you have to print ever more money to keep it going. With a stable dollar acting as store of value you get a stable economy but more unemployment. Not surprising that after Greenspans printing frenzy the whole thing is now collapsing and nobody wants dollars except those Americans too ignorant to know. The smart Americans want to get rich and wont make unprofitable loans just because it patriotic to buy into a scam.

Not realy about peak oil, but when we talk about oil prices we have to consider economics.

[INTJayW]

Interesting read

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is an interesting article, I will deffinately read further.

Although, I believe that speculation is grounded upon fundimentals. I also know that true world oil production and shipment stats are known only by the world oil companies and the CIA,MI6,MOSSAD, etc...

Reuters, geologists, speculators can only speculate... and the more the news speculates the more you rouse public interest, the more hording happens, and then inevitably you have a bubble of sorts.

I guesstimate that the current oil price is about 60% inflated (Assuming the US is already in a recession) by speculators who are speculating that oil is going to run short sooner rather than later.

Whether the price of oil is 10% inflated or 110% inflated depends entirely on how right or wrong the speculators are! (They know this because the more off the mark they are the more money they will loose.)

Commodity price movements don't happen because of supply and demand today! They happen because of peoples estimates of supply and demand at some point in the future, usually 3-6 months out.

Besides, seeing growing gas inventories does not demonstrate an incorrect long term commodity trend, nor does it come as a surprise in the least, considering the worlds largest gas consumer has been dipping into recession for more than 6 months now, and a massive amount of consumers are switching to small more efficient cars.

Right now the world is speculating that we have reached the Peak!

What happens to the price of oil, when the world knows that we have reached the peak and that it has passed!:thumbsup:

[blueback]

The price skyrockets and then the industrialized nations take steps to "stabilize" the global economy.

[INTJayW]

The price skyrockets and then the industrialized nations take steps to "stabilize" the global economy.

I would not be so sure that a stable economy, at least in the short term, is the desire of all those who seek to profit from the future.

Remeber, peaking resources will be about a wealth transfer, not a wealth loss. The world is a closed system and when it comes to wealth and resources we are playing a zero sum game.

[Aronnax]

Actually, the grain price thing probably has more to do with a shortage of fresh water. A lot of countries are shifting water supplies away from farms and into urban and industrial activities which generate more revenue.

It has a bit to do with water supplies but a lot more to do with US policy changes coupled with poor wheat harvests in the Ukraine and Oz.

The old farm subsidy system was changed recently to allow farmers more options in what they want to grow. The subsidies became flat rather than crop specific so a lot of US farmers moved away from wheat to more lucrative soybeans (High Chinese demand) and corn to double dip on farm subsidies + biofuel subsidies. The world has gotten used to cheap surplus US wheat so grain stockpiles haven't been seen as necessary for a long time. Without large grain surpluses the world had no cushion for a bad harvest.

This last year there were poor wheat harvests in the Ukraine and Australia. That really put heavy demand on the US wheat market except the US stockpile wasn't as large because lots of US farmers switched to corn and soybeans. This created a run on wheat where mills were buying huge amounts of grain to insure that they'd have a supply. This demand spike put the price per until on the commodities market through the roof and the poor nations of the world are really suffering because of it.

[INTJayW]

It has a bit to do with water supplies but a lot more to do with US policy changes coupled with poor wheat harvests in the Ukraine and Oz.

The old farm subsidy system was changed recently to allow farmers more options in what they want to grow. The subsidies became flat rather than crop specific so a lot of US farmers moved away from wheat to more lucrative soybeans (High Chinese demand) and corn to double dip on farm subsidies + biofuel subsidies. The world has gotten used to cheap surplus US wheat so grain stockpiles haven't been seen as necessary for a long time. Without large grain surpluses the world had no cushion for a bad harvest.

This last year there were poor wheat harvests in the Ukraine and Australia. That really put heavy demand on the US wheat market except the US stockpile wasn't as large because lots of US farmers switched to corn and soybeans. This created a run on wheat where mills were buying huge amounts of grain to insure that they'd have a supply. This demand spike put the price per until on the commodities market through the roof and the poor nations of the world are really suffering because of it.


Good analysis!

So, next year we should see a glut of basic grains on the market. As people cut back and the land under cultivation increases drematically this year given the rich prices farmers are seeing around planting season right?

[Aronnax]

Good analysis!

So, next year we should see a glut of basic grains on the market. As people cut back and the land under cultivation increases drematically this year given the rich prices farmers are seeing around planting season right?

There's preserve land to contend with, farmers sign contracts with the Government to not farm a certain number of acres for so many years and receive an annual payment for it. It's for migrating birds and wilderness easements. It's also a carryover from old great depression economics to keep the bottom in the grains/legumes market. The prices got really low back then so farmers would plant every single field to try and keep their farm, driving the price down further ect...

With the change to the price of crops a lot of farmers are thinking about opting out of the contract and putting their less productive fields under cultivation so it sounds like there's be more acres total farmed next season.

We'll probably see more wheat next year given this year's prices. How much depends on demand for soybeans and biofuel subsides. There's probably more than a few nations considering expanding their grain surplus as well.

[INTJayW]

We'll probably see more wheat next year given this year's prices. How much depends on demand for soybeans and biofuel subsides. There's probably more than a few nations considering expanding their grain surplus as well.


Right,

I think we all now see the link between peak oil and food production and prices. (This does not even factor in rising food transport prices. rising land prices due to rising cash crop prices.)

Peak Oil is about oil supply running short of demand. (If demand is expanding at 7-8% per year in some countries (China / India) and supply is actually falling off at 3-8% per year. It affects everything:

All food (corn cultivation is displacing other crops reducing the supply of all other agricultural products increasing their price) -> which affects meat prices because Cows, Chickens etc.. are fed grain!

I work for one of the world’s largest food companies and I can tell you for a fact that basic grain prices are now accelerating out of control because the producers are hording their grain stocks (Pulling them out of the world’s food supplies) and waiting for yet higher prices to sell at in the fall. Also, countries are placing high tariffs on basic grains for strategic reasons (Feed their own people rather than export).

A bubble of sorts is developing. We will have to wait until this years harvest to find out if basic grain stocks will increase enough to cause a drop in prices. However, if prices subside a little late this year it will be short lived as China / India’s caloric consumption per person is rising faster than their economic development putting huge pressure on world food stocks.

I believe that the price of food will rise in sink with the price of oil.

This will drain the world consumer and affect all other consumer goods and shrink discretionary income:

Which will then affect all of our jobs! -> Tax revenues to governments at all levels, shrinking social assistance -> putting further pressure on the society.

In the mean time, Oil exporters will be getting fatter, and more powerful! And Britain, Europe, the US and China will not accept this.

There will be conflict! (And not just wars!)

There will be Union activity, there will be budget related conflict, (Cuts in spending) at all levels private (Corporations) & public (government), and there will be conflict in the home, as people lose their jobs money becomes tight and money trouble is the biggest cause of relationship troubles (Divorce). I think you can track the health of the economy by looking at the trend in domestic violence statistics. Many still don't know that the divorce rate was highest in the 1930's depression.

(a little off topic): Now factor in an aging population with fixed incomes and skyrocketing healthcare costs. (Shakes head... We are in trouble.)

People will ware darker colors and become meaner!

There's an old quote that sums up our future: Eat first, morals later.
-Unknown

[Ool]

Within the context of an oil shortage raising food prices I find it interesting to note, though, that I’ve read quite a few articles and listened to TED internet lectures pointing out how agriculture in places like Africa and Mexico are hopelessly underdeveloped. That is because the cheap food from industrialized countries and relief aid, consisting of food rather than means to produce their own food, basically kept markets from ever developing there.

Rising food prices could change that. Sometimes we overlook in our extrapolations of the present that there is untapped potential elsewhere that might make up for loss of productivity from traditional sources. Let’s not forget that overproduction in America and Europe, combined with affordable global transportation, while feeding the world many times over, also had the negative side effect of destroying agricultural development in many of the more challenging climates…

[thod]

In the mean time, Oil exporters will be getting fatter, and more powerful! And Britain, Europe, the US and China will not accept this.

I would say Britain doesn't have the same interests. Last I saw we had a slight surplus of oil production over consumption and so were an exporter. The north sea gas fields provide us with lots of cheap and plentiful gas and the half the island is made of coal. It should be a rich land, but is badly governed and wasteful.

[Ool]

I would say Britain doesn't have the same interests. Last I saw we had a slight surplus of oil production over consumption and so were an exporter. The north sea gas fields provide us with lots of cheap and plentiful gas and the half the island is made of coal. It should be a rich land, but is badly governed and wasteful.

Whatever is under the North Sea will be long used up when Iraq’s oil wells are still gushing…

[Radamisto]

Anyone interested in the Peak Oil theory should read the following excellent article from Ludwig von Mises Institute:

Charles Feathestone
The Myth of "Peak Oil"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Read and becom enlightened!

[Aronnax]

Anyone interested in the Peak Oil theory should read the following excellent article from Ludwig von Mises Institute:

Charles Feathestone
The Myth of "Peak Oil"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Read and becom enlightened!

That article was written when oil was ~$45 a barrel and attributes cost almost entirely to processing and transportation issues. Since it doesn't do a very good job acknowledging the scarcity issues we face due to a finite supply and escalating demand I can't really agree with it. It's only concession can be summed up as "market forces will replace oil with other tech" and although that's true to some extent it doesn't really address the planning necessary for the transition.

[blueback]

"I don't necessarily trust technology, but I do trust human ingenuity. Civilization as we know it will grind to a halt without the energy we derive today from crude oil, and that's in and of itself is motivation enough to make sure that future energy is widely available at prices people can afford"

So, basically, he claimed to not know anything about geology and at the end he said that running out of oil will royally screw us. . .all I got out of that was that he knows a lot about how to speculate on the price of oil but nothing about how long the oil will last.

He's not worth listening too. The article was a very long way of saying "the price of oil depends on a lot of things. Oh, and I have no idea how long it will last."

He can't even conceive of a world that isn't run on chemical fuel. He thinks that "that fuel" which replaces gasoline will be invented by someone, somewhere, sometime. Basically, he just wants to keep his job. If a new chemical replaces oil then he can keep on speculating on the price, just like he's doing now. If the world switches to a fuel source he doesn't understand then he'll be out of the job.

[INTJayW]

Anyone interested in the Peak Oil theory should read the following excellent article from Ludwig von Mises Institute:

Charles Feathestone
The Myth of "Peak Oil"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Read and becom enlightened!

Long atricle: but I learned a thing or too about Sulpher content and the amount of gasoline that can be extracted from a Sour/Sweet barrel.

And I liked these quotes:

For the last year at least, virtually every nation that can produce crude oil has been producing flat out. Which left markets very uneasy.

In the event of another significant crisis – say, a US attack on Iran or collapse of the Saudi government – the price of crude oil would skyrocket.


In fact, 2004 could very be remembered as the year that American consumption no longer drove the global crude market, while Chinese consumption did.

So the question is not "when will the crude oil run out?" but "how can we best use the petroleum we have until other economically viable alternatives present themselves?" (I'm not holding my breath for fuel cells any time soon.) That becomes what folks here in Washington call a "policy question," which leads to think tankery, publication of "papers" and funny little books called monographs, conferences, government initiatives, and all manner of other sundry evils.

We should really be starting a new thread called: "How to deal with Peak oil"