Peak Oil and what it means for our way of life

[nes]

We still have huge supplies of natural gas and the peak oil date will move outward as we increase efficiencies and move to other technologies.

How could you not be more wrong. Natural gas comes usually from the top of oil fields and is hard to transport. Did you know the fire you see from oil wells is actually natural gas being burnt off?

Russia-Ukraine gas dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is already natural gas shortages, what are you talking about?!
Ukraine is unable to produce enough of its own natural gas.

That is of course if we ever get off our butts and start greatly expanding our nuclear energy capabilities.

Cars would have to require a storage medium to hold this power. Nuclear power plants require millions / billions in government subsidies.

Then we can generate electricity to produce hydrogen from water and still have a portable energy source such as gas is today.

Your proposing a hydrogen economy? There are many many problems with that. One of the problems is that since hydrogen is the lightest substance on earth, it is very hard to contain. The reason why balloons deflate is because helium, which has 4 times the mass of hydrogen actually leaks out from the balloon casing. Hydrogen would have to be stored at hundreds / thousands of psi. Ballons have less than 5 psi? There is a 2.5% leakage rate daily if hydrogen is in a think metal pipe.

Another problem is that the storage tank that hydrogen would have to go in cars wouldn't hold enough fuel. Another problem is the cost of such a hydrogen engine upwards of $10,000. You might as well run cars on batteries.

With increase battery life at less weight electic cars, again getting the electricity from nuclear, will gain more ground as short range vehicles and nuclear plants can produce at night and with no wind.

Uranium prices have went up quite a bit, I wonder why.

UxC: Historical Price Graphs

Hey look, the uranium prices went up as oil prices went up...
Looks like the decommissioning bombs for nuclear fuel is ending.
Even if we produced enough eletricity, we would have to put batteries in to cars. While the rest of the world uses oil, because most of the people on earth don't own a car or motorbike. A lot more are everyday.

And then we will never run out of oil because the last barrel will be so expensive no one can afford it.

We'll run out of oil that replenishes consumption.


So, lets see a 747 take off using an alternate energy source such as eletricity.

 

[Stinger]

How could you not be more wrong. Natural gas comes usually from the top of oil fields and is hard to transport.

It comes from a variety of geological sources, it flows through piplines quite well and LNG technology is making that more and more economical and safe.

Did you know the fire you see from oil wells is actually natural gas being burnt off?

Did you know it can actually be many different gases.

Russia-Ukraine gas dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is already natural gas shortages, what are you talking about?!
Ukraine is unable to produce enough of its own natural gas.

There are logistical problems and problems with environmentalist opposing the tapping of new sources. Nothing that can't be overcome.

Cars would have to require a storage medium to hold this power.

Depends on whether the electricity is used directly are to produce an alternate portable fuel.

Nuclear power plants require millions / billions in government subsidies.

Less and less the more they come online.

Your proposing a hydrogen economy?

Are you opposing hydrogen being a part of the big picture?

There are many many problems with that.

OK so what?

One of the problems is that since hydrogen is the lightest substance on earth, it is very hard to contain.

We do a pretty good job of it now.

The reason why balloons deflate is because helium, which has 4 times the mass of hydrogen actually leaks out from the balloon casing.

Since no one is proposing using ballons for storage..............

Hydrogen would have to be stored at hundreds / thousands of psi.

thousands and tens of thousands which is not inconceivable.

Another problem is that the storage tank that hydrogen would have to go in cars wouldn't hold enough fuel.

We probably will not see a 300 mile range but 200 is not an obsticle.

Another problem is the cost of such a hydrogen engine upwards of $10,000.

Now.

You might as well run cars on batteries.

There will be cars with batteries.

Uranium prices have went up quite a bit, I wonder why.

It's a commodity.

So, lets see a 747 take off using an alternate energy source such as eletricity.

I doubt you ever will, they will burn hydrogen or other synthetics.

 

[nes]

It comes from a variety of geological sources, it flows through piplines quite well and LNG technology is making that more and more economical and safe.

The main geological source is from oil wells.

Did you know it can actually be many different gases.

It can be many different gases, but its mainly natural gas.

There are logistical problems and problems with environmentalist opposing the tapping of new sources. Nothing that can't be overcome.

Show me any news that environmentalist are to blame for the natural gas shortage in Ukraine.

Depends on whether the electricity is used directly are to produce an alternate portable fuel.

So how can a car run on electricity without a storage medium? (no batteries or hydrogen)

Less and less the more they come online.

Show me proof of that.

Are you opposing hydrogen being a part of the big picture?

Yes, for reasons.

We do a pretty good job of it now.

Hydrogen storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compressing a gas will require energy to power the compressor. Higher compression will mean more energy lost to the compression step. Alternatively, higher volumetric energy density liquid hydrogen may be used (like the Space Shuttle). However liquid hydrogen is cryogenic and boils around 20.268 K (–252.882 °C or -423.188 °F). Hence, its liquefaction imposes a large energy loss, used to cool it down to that temperature. The tanks must also be well insulated to prevent boil off. Ice may form around the tank and help corrode it further if the insulation fails. Insulation for liquid hydrogen tanks is usually expensive and delicate. Assuming all of that is solvable, the density problem remains. Even liquid hydrogen has worse energy density per volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four.

Since no one is proposing using ballons for storage..............

I used balloons as an example of gas leakage.

We probably will not see a 300 mile range but 200 is not an obsticle.

show me proof

There will be cars with batteries.

You can predict the future?

It's a commodity.

Oil is also a commodity, your point?

I doubt you ever will, they will burn hydrogen or other synthetics.

I doubt you ever will, they will burn hydrogen or other synthetics.

You can predict the future? What if they do not create 747's and create much smaller airplanes to lower costs? Ohh I remember, you supposedly can predict the future.

 

[Stinger]

The main geological source is from oil wells.

Define main, sometimes it's the oil that's in the gas well.

It can be many different gases, but its mainly natural gas.

And others. So what?

Show me any news that environmentalist are to blame for the natural gas shortage in Ukraine.

Didn't speak of Ukraine in particular, what is stopping more natural gas exploration and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, coast of Florida and California?

Quote:
Depends on whether the electricity is used directly are to produce an alternate portable fuel.

So how can a car run on electricity without a storage medium? (no batteries or hydrogen)

Who claimed it was necessary to do so?


Quote:
Less and less the more they come online.

Show me proof of that.

Nuclear plants that is. As with all technologies and production, the more we do of it the less it cost.


Quote:
Are you opposing hydrogen being a part of the big picture?

Yes, for reasons.

Quite shortsighted on your part.

What DO you support, you oppose nuclear and hydrogen.

I used balloons as an example of gas leakage.

And a sorry one at that.

Quote:
We probably will not see a 300 mile range but 200 is not an obsticle.

show me proof

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/vd3_carlson.pdf
GM - GMability Advanced Technology: Hydrogen Storage Breakthrough Extends Fuel Cell Vehicle Range
Hydrogen Forecast: Sequel raises the bar - GM transforms hydrogen vehicle concepts into a practical design

You can predict the future?

No more or less than you but then I actually believed we would land on the moon too.

Oil is also a commodity, your point?

It's price and supply is driven by the market and speculation. What was your point?

You can predict the future?

No more or less than you but then I actually believed we would see an artificial heart in my lifetime.

What if they do not create 747's and create much smaller airplanes to lower costs?

OK, so what? What if they produce jet engines that can operate on synthetic fuels?

Ohh I remember, you supposedly can predict the future.

Never made that claim, you did, I do have foresight, know what that is?

So what is your plan? If you don't want to use hydrogen, don't want to use nuclear, what is your plan?

 

[ashurbanipal]

We still have huge supplies of natural gas

Huge only if you leave off the demand side of the equation.

and the peak oil date will move outward as we increase efficiencies and move to other technologies.

That seems unlikely. It's looking more and more like Kenneth Deffeyes was correct to call peak in 2005. We've never since then produced more oil than we did in may 2005. I hope that's not correct, but I'm losing confidence that he was wrong as the numbers pile up. That said, I think we will be on a plateau, more or less, until about 2012, and by 2015 we'll be falling off a very steep cliff.

That is of course if we ever get off our butts and start greatly expanding our nuclear energy capabilities.

It's really our only option, and it's something we should have done long ago. But there are several problems that may end up making the cure worse than the disease.

1) There are still very real environmental risks associated with nuclear energy. Yes, the claim is that nuclear energy is much safer than it used to be, and in general I think this is correct. But the potential for a catastrophic mistake will always be there; we'd be naieve to think that another Chernobyl--or worse--won't eventually happen.

2) The proliferation of nuclear energy means the proliferation of fissile material...which means that we'll either have to live with an increased risk of nuclear terrorism or suspend certain liberties we're used to enjoying. I'm not sure that being able to play my X-box is worth that.

3) Nuclear energy does not resolve the issue of how we're going to keep our systems of agriculture going--they rely on inputs of both Oil and natural gas, and are likely to encounter serious disruptions unless we find other solutions fast.

Then we can generate electricity to produce hydrogen from water and still have a portable energy source such as gas is today.

Currently, that would be a net energy loser. It might be something we would do once we get our infrastructure stabilized, but we wouldn't do this initially.

With increase battery life at less weight electic cars, again getting the electricity from nuclear, will gain more ground as short range vehicles and nuclear plants can produce at night and with no wind.

I did an analysis earlier in this thread on the Lithium used to run electric cars. I think that the idea of electric cars is thereby thoroughly debunked, but feel free to argue the point.

And then we will never run out of oil because the last barrel will be so expensive no one can afford it.

This is correct.

 

[Stinger]

EVery energy source has it's good and bad, every one has some energy loss.

What is YOUR solution? If not nuclear, if not hydrogen and synthetics that can be produced using those and our coal resourses what are your solutions?

 

[ashurbanipal]

EVery energy source has it's good and bad, every one has some energy loss.

This is true, but that's different from being a net energy loser. A net energy loser takes more energy to process than what you get out of it. This isn't to say that it doesn't sometimes make sense to use a net energy loser as energies come in different forms. I would imagine that, assuming it were possible, we would still extract oil even if it were a net energy loser because of its versatility. But the economic conditions necessary for such a thing to work would be very different than what we have now.

Anyway, I'm not against nuclear per se, but I fear that if we get too happy with it, we will increase our chances of a really terrible catastrophe happening. We cannot build reactors on a crash program; we've got to take care. But the human enterprise has always involved some risk, so if we want to advance we will have to go that route. Nor am I against most of the other alternatives that have been proposed. I think we ought to stay away from ethanol, though, as our agricultural systems will be terribly strained.

What is YOUR solution? If not nuclear, if not hydrogen and synthetics that can be produced using those and our coal resourses what are your solutions?

I think you, and most people who come to even be aware that there is such a thing as a peak in oil production, misunderstand. I remember reading a transcript of when Kenneth Deffeyes and Colin Campbell went to speak to some members of congress (this was about 2 years ago). They talked about the geology and some of the economics involved, and finally one of the congresspeople present, who obviously had no idea what was happening, got angry and demanded to start hearing solutions, not problems. I can imagine the look on Deffeyes' not so pretty face, but he basically said "You don't get it. There is no solution. We're headed for a crash."

And that is what I say to you. There is no solution that will in any way preserve the way of life we know now. There is no solution that will prevent some 4 billion people (at least), many of them on this continent, from dying what we would think of as an untimely death by mid-century. Our agricultural systems will not support them without inputs of oil and natural gas.

Some numbers to show the magnitude of the problem:

The planet consumes about 85 million barrels per day of oil.

Each barrel of oil contains the same amount of energy as is used by 12 men working for a year. This seems fantastic, but if you figure that there are 18 gallons of gasoline extracted from a barrel of oil (along with other products), and the average SUV gets maybe 20 miles to the gallon, a barrel of oil will push that SUV 360 miles. How long would it take 12 men to push that same SUV 360 miles? Could you and 11 others make a mile a day hauling 1500 pounds of iron behind you? I bet not much more than a mile. So that means that oil provides the equivalent of 372 billion people working for free per year, considering only the gasoline we get out of it. The real number, considering Kerosine, heating oil, and other products is probably closer to half a trillion.

The average energy consumption per home in the United States is about the equivalent of having 33,000 slaves working for you. I can get as much work out of an electric motor for 25 cents worth of electricity than I could out of a man working all day. There just isn't any way we can keep that up--not even a fraction of it. Past a certain point, as oil supplies contract, our way of life will simply vanish. Gone will be corner offices, x-boxes, cadillac escalades, and IT supervisors. There just won't be a way to sustain the system; and if to much of it fails, the whole thing will fail.

As for solutions--most people will simply choose to ignore the problem and not look at what's happening. There's nothing that we as a society can do. There are things that some individuals can do for themselves and their families. Learn to grow as much food as possible, be prepared to defend it, and be as self sufficient as you can. Form networks with other people of like mind. Get used to the fact that life is about to become a lot more uncomfortable. There are no solutions beyond that.

 

[128shot]

This is true, but that's different from being a net energy loser. A net energy loser takes more energy to process than what you get out of it. This isn't to say that it doesn't sometimes make sense to use a net energy loser as energies come in different forms. I would imagine that, assuming it were possible, we would still extract oil even if it were a net energy loser because of its versatility. But the economic conditions necessary for such a thing to work would be very different than what we have now.

Anyway, I'm not against nuclear per se, but I fear that if we get too happy with it, we will increase our chances of a really terrible catastrophe happening. We cannot build reactors on a crash program; we've got to take care. But the human enterprise has always involved some risk, so if we want to advance we will have to go that route. Nor am I against most of the other alternatives that have been proposed. I think we ought to stay away from ethanol, though, as our agricultural systems will be terribly strained.



I think you, and most people who come to even be aware that there is such a thing as a peak in oil production, misunderstand. I remember reading a transcript of when Kenneth Deffeyes and Colin Campbell went to speak to some members of congress (this was about 2 years ago). They talked about the geology and some of the economics involved, and finally one of the congresspeople present, who obviously had no idea what was happening, got angry and demanded to start hearing solutions, not problems. I can imagine the look on Deffeyes' not so pretty face, but he basically said "You don't get it. There is no solution. We're headed for a crash."

And that is what I say to you. There is no solution that will in any way preserve the way of life we know now. There is no solution that will prevent some 4 billion people (at least), many of them on this continent, from dying what we would think of as an untimely death by mid-century. Our agricultural systems will not support them without inputs of oil and natural gas.

Some numbers to show the magnitude of the problem:

The planet consumes about 85 million barrels per day of oil.

Each barrel of oil contains the same amount of energy as is used by 12 men working for a year. This seems fantastic, but if you figure that there are 18 gallons of gasoline extracted from a barrel of oil (along with other products), and the average SUV gets maybe 20 miles to the gallon, a barrel of oil will push that SUV 360 miles. How long would it take 12 men to push that same SUV 360 miles? Could you and 11 others make a mile a day hauling 1500 pounds of iron behind you? I bet not much more than a mile. So that means that oil provides the equivalent of 372 billion people working for free per year, considering only the gasoline we get out of it. The real number, considering Kerosine, heating oil, and other products is probably closer to half a trillion.

The average energy consumption per home in the United States is about the equivalent of having 33,000 slaves working for you. I can get as much work out of an electric motor for 25 cents worth of electricity than I could out of a man working all day. There just isn't any way we can keep that up--not even a fraction of it. Past a certain point, as oil supplies contract, our way of life will simply vanish. Gone will be corner offices, x-boxes, cadillac escalades, and IT supervisors. There just won't be a way to sustain the system; and if to much of it fails, the whole thing will fail.

As for solutions--most people will simply choose to ignore the problem and not look at what's happening. There's nothing that we as a society can do. There are things that some individuals can do for themselves and their families. Learn to grow as much food as possible, be prepared to defend it, and be as self sufficient as you can. Form networks with other people of like mind. Get used to the fact that life is about to become a lot more uncomfortable. There are no solutions beyond that.

Pessimists have a long track record of not doing anything to at least try and solve the problem. If you don't try, then you don't know.

 

[Stinger]

As for solutions--most people will simply choose to ignore the problem and not look at what's happening. There's nothing that we as a society can do. There are things that some individuals can do for themselves and their families. Learn to grow as much food as possible, be prepared to defend it, and be as self sufficient as you can. Form networks with other people of like mind. Get used to the fact that life is about to become a lot more uncomfortable. There are no solutions beyond that.

It is quite apparent you are not aware of the situation with energy supplies relying on some obscure dissertation and you do like to post specious numbers. That all being said your last paragraph tells it all. So how about just getting out of the way while the rest of us continue on with what is known as progress. I suggest you start looking for your cave to live in.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It is quite apparent you are not aware of the situation with energy supplies

If that were the case, then you ought to be able to point out something that I've posted that's factually incorrect. Can you do that?

relying on some obscure dissertation

What? I rely on the consensus of geological opinion regarding the continued availability of oil. No obscure disertations.

and you do like to post specious numbers.

Specious how? I think they are all demonstrably correct.

That all being said your last paragraph tells it all. So how about just getting out of the way while the rest of us continue on with what is known as progress. I suggest you start looking for your cave to live in.

There will be little progress beyond what we make by about 2015 for the remainder of the century. After that, I expect progress will continue.

 

[Devils.High]

Guys I know the answer Harry Brauns idea.

Harry Braun for President - The Vision

I think that would work pretty good, I dont know about when and if it would be put into effect. But i think this guy has the right mindset. Too bad he didnt win.

The only problem is that no ethonol, wind power, solar power can compare to the amount of gas that people use. So I think that you guys should all get a bike .

 

[nes]

Guys I know the answer Harry Brauns idea.

Harry Braun for President - The Vision

I think that would work pretty good, I dont know about when and if it would be put into effect. But i think this guy has the right mindset. Too bad he didnt win.

The only problem is that no ethonol, wind power, solar power can compare to the amount of gas that people use. So I think that you guys should all get a bike .

I think that engine transportation would not be impossible, people simply would have to change to more fuel efficient transportation such as a hybrid motorcycle.

Bikes (Motorcycles) in the Fast Lane - Daily Motorcycle News

180 mpg, instead of riding a bicycle...

 

[ashurbanipal]

I'd be all for that, but it's not going to happen. It's simply too late to get enough political will behind this kind of change.

 

[Devils.High]

Yea my friend and i already had this conversation, its too late to really do anything. We have to use the oil to the full and show how people **** up and show them that we had a plan that would work better then being a greedy fruit.

 

[ashurbanipal]

This is a very interesting article about some stuff that's likely to be coming up this summer....

Evidence is mounting that oil prices will soon climb to new, perhaps unaffordable for many, highs. Some think “soon” is three, four, or five years away. Others think “soon” may be as close as three, four, five, or six months. It is this latter scenario in which oil and gasoline prices reach new highs before the year is out that we look at today.

....

There are, however, on-going situations which alone or in combinations could push oil prices to new highs in an easily observable and anticipatable manner.

Falls Church News-Press - The Peak Oil Crisis: Situations To Watch