PDA

View Full Version : Peak oil update



Pages : [1] 2

Lionmane
07-16-2006, 02:55 PM
http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/

Cheeze-It
07-16-2006, 04:55 PM
The Road Warrior was awesome. I would love to live in a
post apocalyptic Australia.

joeprogrammer
07-16-2006, 05:00 PM
http://store.solarlivingstore.com/tr10howtorun.html :D

divineleft
07-16-2006, 05:50 PM
And this is why I am moving to a farm in canada next year.

Good video.

indigo0086
07-17-2006, 11:47 AM
Cooooorn!

MadCow257
07-17-2006, 11:58 AM
You can drink gasohol right?

I still don't think any of this matters since peak discovery was 40 years ago

divineleft
07-17-2006, 12:35 PM
I still don't think any of this matters since peak discovery was 40 years ago
Peak discovery, that doesn't mean production peaked. Right now discovery is sloping down and we're pretty much at a production peak. Basicly, we're ........ed.

indigo0086
07-17-2006, 01:27 PM
this sucks indeed. Hurry up ethanol.

MadCow257
07-17-2006, 02:15 PM
Peak discovery, that doesn't mean production peaked.

Understood, but why if the concern is a lack of supply are we looking at a statistic that is driven, at least for now, by demand? What matters is the total amount of known petrol that can be relatively cheaply removed from the ground. In 1981 demand outstripped new supply for the first time. The effects weren't felt because of reserves, but that's significant nonetheless. Adding to that that the stuff at the bottom is hardest to get out, I don't see why it matters if "peak oil" was 2000 or is 2010, 2030 or even '50.

E85 is probably the solution, but if we aren't careful we'll run out of the G15 before people get he message.

mrafcho001
07-17-2006, 02:46 PM
Great resource to learn something about today's oil.

Either way, once all the oil's been burned out, well start using other resources and when they are done well just keep consuming everything until we start growing humans and use their energy (-- The Matrix)?

divineleft
07-17-2006, 02:47 PM
Understood, but why if the concern is a lack of supply are we looking at a statistic that is driven, at least for now, by demand? What matters is the total amount of known petrol that can be relatively cheaply removed from the ground. In 1981 demand outstripped new supply for the first time. The effects weren't felt because of reserves, but that's significant nonetheless. Adding to that that the stuff at the bottom is hardest to get out, I don't see why it matters if "peak oil" was 2000 or is 2010, 2030 or even '50.
It doesn't matter really, it just gives a general time frame of when our economy will start to crash IF we don't do anything about it.

E85 is probably the solution, but if we aren't careful we'll run out of the G15 before people get he message.
It's not the solution but will certainly delay whatever is to come.

kermit
07-17-2006, 03:56 PM
You know, some scientists figure that oil reserves are actually increasing.

MadCow257
07-17-2006, 04:14 PM
They are.

7smurfs
07-17-2006, 04:31 PM
You know, some scientists figure that oil reserves are actually increasing.
And some think global warming is a hoax. It doesn't really matter though - getting off of oil is a Good Thing(TM). It's safer using ethanol :)

kermit
07-17-2006, 04:34 PM
Well from a cost perspective, I definitely agree that getting off oil is a very good thing. It some cases, it costs too much to drive anymore. The irony is that when a decent, plentiful alternative goes mainstream, the bigwigs at the oil companies will probably have their fingers in it.

Mario F.
07-17-2006, 04:40 PM
Shell Sugar Cane, Mobil Ethanol, ChevronSunPower and TexacoScrewThemChevron.

Govtcheez
07-18-2006, 07:24 AM
> Since energy is never destroyed but takes on different form, there is still an unlimited supply; so we are mainly technologically challenged.

This is a really stupid statement. True, the energy from burning gasoline isn't technically "lost", but it's converted into forms that will never be recoverable. Sure, if you can figure out a way to make an engine that runs off excess heat and exhaust you'll get some of it back, but there'll still be a net loss in the system, because there's energy being transferred from the car to the road, so it can, y'know, move.

indigo0086
07-18-2006, 07:40 AM
I'm wondering, let's say ethanol takes off sometime in the future, will there be a way to convert current cars that aren't able to use it so that they can?

Govtcheez
07-18-2006, 07:41 AM
The experts can figure that out Govtcheez, but by that time I'll have my pocket loaded with oil revenue.
OK, well when the experts figure out a way to make a car move without energy, give me a call.

edit: I suppose they could hook a huge energy sucking device up to the roads.

Cheeze-It
07-18-2006, 07:47 AM
OK, well when the experts figure out a way to make a car move without energy, give me a call.

edit: I suppose they could hook a huge energy sucking device up to the roads.

*Somebody* hasn't seen that episode of The Simpsons where
Lisa builds a perpetual motion machine for her science fair.

indigo0086
07-18-2006, 07:58 AM
OK, well when the experts figure out a way to make a car move without energy, give me a call.

edit: I suppose they could hook a huge energy sucking device up to the roads.

magnets dude, line the roads with magnets, + magnets...

the wheels will be made with +magnets as well.

get it?

Govtcheez
07-18-2006, 08:02 AM
magnets dude, line the roads with magnets, + magnets...

the wheels will be made with +magnets as well.

get it?
And the (I'm assuming) electromagnets are powered how? No matter how you look at it, if something is moving, there's a loss of energy to your supply system. I don't care how minute it is, you don't have "inifinte" energy to use.

indigo0086
07-18-2006, 08:03 AM
I was joking.

Govtcheez
07-18-2006, 08:14 AM
I was joking.
well you know what

NOTHING that's what

indigo0086
07-18-2006, 08:27 AM
The earths center is a magnet?

That's communist talk.

Brian
07-18-2006, 01:50 PM
*Somebody* hasn't seen that episode of The Simpsons where
Lisa builds a perpetual motion machine for her science fair.

they mustn't have a tv because that damn episode is on all the time

Lionmane
07-18-2006, 02:32 PM
Ethanol is not enough by itself:
http://www.physorg.com/news71833070.html

Important questions to prevent ethanol abuse:
1) What about the possibility of another Dust Bowl from planting the same crop over and over and over...? Remember that we don't have dust bowls because of (petrolium based) fertilizers.
2) What are *we* going to eat? Vehicles "eat" more food than humans (especially SUVs that inspire the phrase "stupid Americans")

If you want a national model for ethanol, check out Brazil:
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050517-brazil_offers_model_for_ethanol_success/index.html

But keep in mind that America is much bigger than Brazil and has a much larger number of vehicles. Also, Brazil has been working on this for THIRTY YEARS.

If you want an alternative fuel for vehicles, try electric:
http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/main.htm

But this is only one problem of Peak Oil. The least important one I should say. Instead of idiotic discussions about alternative fuels, why aren't you people discussing SURVIVAL.

Because petroleum touches EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our lives:

Food:
1) farming equipment
2) petroleum-based fertilizers
3) petroleum-based pesticides
4) food processing plants

Water:
1) distribution machinery
2) purification machinery

Pharmaceuticals:
1) petroleum-based poisons... uh, I mean *medications*

Everything else:
1) one word: plastic

This simple list doesn't even begin to cover everything.

mw

Lionmane
07-19-2006, 12:43 AM
Cool! We're currently studying some semi-exotic electricity generation. If we get results, I'll inevitably post them.

We're also interested in water extraction (from air, ground, etc). "Air" extraction still seems pretty far-fetched, but it's the 21st century so we're allowed to consider it. Electricity will make things easier.

I think electricity can also be used as a fertilizer, but I have no information on that yet.

I'm not too interested in sustainable transportation at this point. To be honest, I really hate cars. They cost too d*** much.

mw

Lionmane
07-19-2006, 12:57 AM
But they're still driving instead of walking.

mw

SlyMaelstrom
07-19-2006, 03:42 AM
Most people that live in major cities take public transportation to work. When I live in New York City, I don't have a car. I take the subway everywhere. Generally, all the cars in the city are from the surrounding area. From where I am in New Jersey, it takes me over an hour to drive into the city. That's going at a good speed, as well, around 60mph(96kph). Walking it would take all day.

SlyMaelstrom
07-19-2006, 04:25 AM
That's cause the US protects the land in which their oil reserves lay.

Most Americans also don't know that Canada is their biggest hockey puck supplier.

indigo0086
07-19-2006, 06:34 AM
I can take the bus to work here in miami, but really miami sucks for any sort of long distance mass transportation like in new york or england or japan. If you need to get on the other side of 1-95 It'll take a while.

MadCow257
07-19-2006, 07:30 AM
But keep in mind that America is much bigger than Brazil and has a much larger number of vehicles. Also, Brazil has been working on this for THIRTY YEARS.

The US makes more ethanol than Brazil



2) petroleum-based fertilizers
3) petroleum-based pesticides

It would be great if we ran out of petrol just to get rid of those two idiotic inventions

indigo0086
07-19-2006, 07:55 AM
If I can't have some form of petroleum on my fresh fruits and veggies, I'm not eating.

Give me petrol or give me constipation.

Lionmane
07-19-2006, 10:36 AM
The US makes more ethanol than Brazil


You obviously haven't done your research, because it's not that simple:

1) There are different grades of ethanol being produced, and these grades are different for US/Brazil. So to start off with, comparing ethanol production like that is apples vs oranges.

2) There are different ways to create ethanol. I'm sure we probably beat them in corn ethanol production. But I saw a figure of them making over 3 times the sugar cane ethanol that we do.

3) Ethanol sucks. Electric rules.

4) None of this matters. Brazil will take care of themselves.


It would be great if we ran out of petrol just to get rid of those two idiotic inventions

A noble statement. But what are you going to do when they *do* run out? Starve? This is not something that's happening 20 years from now (see the very first link I posted in this thread).

mw

MadCow257
07-19-2006, 12:39 PM
You obviously haven't done your research, because it's not that simple:

3) Ethanol sucks. Electric rules.

Riiighttt :rolleyes:



4) None of this matters. Brazil will take care of themselves.

Didn't say they wouldn't. I was making the point that having Brazil as a model for the US is dumb because it's not apples to apples.



2) There are different ways to create ethanol. I'm sure we probably beat them in corn ethanol production. But I saw a figure of them making over 3 times the sugar cane ethanol that we do.
I'm not sure, but I think it was total production

I got really interested in ethanol distillation a couple months ago when I tried to make some. It didn't end up working out because the switch grass I planted didn't grow

divineleft
07-19-2006, 12:54 PM
3) Ethanol sucks. Electric rules.
where do you think electricity comes from?

Lionmane
07-19-2006, 04:35 PM
Electricity in the US mainly comes from burning coal. There's a couple of other sources: nuclear, hydro (water power), solar, wind and biomass (trash, etc). Ethanol is not used in power generation because it's too expensive.


3) Ethanol sucks. Electric rules.

Riiighttt :rolleyes:

No facts? Just rolling your eyes? Electricity costs less as a fuel and the electric car requires less maintenance. Also, there are no emmissions of any kind. The only drawback is the initial conversion cost.


I got really interested in ethanol distillation a couple months ago when I tried to make some. It didn't end up working out because the switch grass I planted didn't grow

It's great to see you're doing something. Did you try again? What else are you doing?

mw

Mario F.
07-19-2006, 04:41 PM
I've decided to do something about the diminishing oil natural reserves too.
I stopped being able to pay my car loan.

MadCow257
07-19-2006, 04:52 PM
Electricity in the US mainly comes from burning coal.



Also, there are no emmissions of any kind.

http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.html

Unless there is some major solar innovation, US power will probably go to mainly nucleur sometime in the future (just my speculation, I don't have facts). Hydro and wind both are area specific, and the way the power grid works that makes wide scale use prohibitive.

divineleft
07-19-2006, 05:03 PM
Hydroelectricy is the way to go. It is extremely effecient and does not need any supplies (coal, uranium). Unfortunatly it may not be as accessible to land that is not right on a huge body of water.

Nuclear will not work, mostly because of the lack of uranium and its cost. Only First world countries will be able to afford it and the amount of uranium we have right now will only last us about 30 years at that burning rate.

MadCow257
07-19-2006, 05:41 PM
Nuclear will not work, mostly because of the lack of uranium and its cost. Only First world countries will be able to afford it and the amount of uranium we have right now will only last us about 30 years at that burning rate.

Uranium is not like petrol, very little is used. The cost and expertise needed to make a reactor are quite high, but people seem pretty willing to share knowledge if it means less pollution and gas demand. There will also be multinational cooperation to mitigate the cost. As far as running costs, they're quite a bit lower then typical coal plants. Uranium itself costs less per kilo than a barrel of crude. It is also very elastic to price changes that would throw other fuel types to chaos. We really don't know how much uranium there is in the crust, but it seems limitless (I know people said that about petrol too, but it really isn't the same). I think the holdup now is reluctance to spend the cash on new plants, and no agreement over what to do with the waste...

divineleft
07-19-2006, 05:48 PM
Uranium is not like petrol, very little is used. The cost and expertise needed to make a reactor are quite high, but people seem pretty willing to share knowledge if it means less pollution and gas demand. There will also be multinational cooperation to mitigate the cost. As far as running costs, they're quite a bit lower then typical coal plants. Uranium itself costs less per kilo than a barrel of crude. It is also very elastic to price changes that would throw other fuel types to chaos. We really don't know how much uranium there is in the crust, but it seems limitless (I know people said that about petrol too, but it really isn't the same). I think the holdup now is reluctance to spend the cash on new plants, and no agreement over what to do with the waste...
Actually, yes we have very limited uranium. I can pull up some studies if you want, the only one i remember of the top of my head is http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

7smurfs
07-19-2006, 05:52 PM
Nuclear Fusion Plants will solve everything.


(Except how to make a Nuclear Fusion Plant)

MadCow257
07-19-2006, 06:06 PM
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

divineleft
07-19-2006, 06:23 PM
"These facts come from a 1983 article by Bernard Cohen."

1983.

whiteflags
07-19-2006, 06:31 PM
Are you actually suggesting that a person much smarter than you who says essentially, "Nuclear energy, assuming breeder reactors, will last for several billion years, i.e. as long as the sun is in a state to support life on earth," is simply wrong now because he wrote it in 1983, a mere 23 years ago?

twomers
07-19-2006, 06:44 PM
Ok, does anyone here read the mag 'Focus'? It's a kinda science/tech mag which I read in my breaks in work (I work in a Tesco's). Either way, I read in it today that ... I'll just do a direct quote:


64,000 man-years of work will be spent building the UK's new fleet of 10 nuclear reactors. But the Nuclear industries Inspectorate admits it is finding it hard recruiting a workforce to meet the demand

Not too sure if this is relevant, but I saw someone complaining about Nuclear somethings, and I though that article, or snippet was interesting, so i thought I'd post.

Mario F.
07-19-2006, 06:53 PM
If (when) the world ends its natural oil reserves, I don't expect it to come peacefully. However, the answer is not on this or that solution. But will be in fact on the combination of several alternate energies that are a reality already today.

Solar energy will not "save the world", as much as nuclear plants, or ethanol, or electricity... What will guarantee the sustainability of our lifestyle is most probably a combination of them all and a few more that will certainly be researched in the meantime.

So I find it a little mute to be discussing here what will replace oil in the future. Although... this is just my opinion.

MadCow257
07-19-2006, 06:54 PM
I just did some research on Cohen, he's my hero!
From Wikipedia:
"When Ralph Nader described Plutonium as "the most toxic substance known to mankind", Cohen, then a tenured professor, offered to consume on camera as much Plutonium oxide as Nader could consume of caffeine, the stimulant found in coffee and other beverages, which in its pure form has an estimated LD50 of 13-19 grams for an adult human. Professor Cohen maintained that the radioactive substance would pass through his intestinal tract unabsorbed."

Interesting, twomers. Here's a web article http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=1295, it's wierd that there would be a shortage. People aren't scared of radioactivity are they?