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.
That is of course if we ever get off our butts and start greatly expanding our nuclear energy capabilities.
Then we can generate electricity to produce hydrogen from water and still have a portable energy source such as gas is today.
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.
And then we will never run out of oil because the last barrel will be so expensive no one can afford it.
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.
Cars would have to require a storage medium to hold this power.
Nuclear power plants require millions / billions in government subsidies.
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.
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.
Uranium prices have went up quite a bit, I wonder why.
So, lets see a 747 take off using an alternate energy source such as eletricity.
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 it can actually be many different gases.
There are logistical problems and problems with environmentalist opposing the tapping of new sources. Nothing that can't be overcome.
Depends on whether the electricity is used directly are to produce an alternate portable fuel.
Less and less the more they come online.
Are you opposing hydrogen being a part of the big picture?
We do a pretty good job of it now.
wiki said: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..............
We probably will not see a 300 mile range but 200 is not an obsticle.
There will be cars with batteries.
It's a commodity.
nes said:I doubt you ever will, they will burn hydrogen or other synthetics.
I doubt you ever will, they will burn hydrogen or other synthetics.
The main geological source is from oil wells.
It can be many different gases, but its mainly natural gas.
Show me any news that environmentalist are to blame for the natural gas shortage in Ukraine.
So how can a car run on electricity without a storage medium? (no batteries or hydrogen)
Show me proof of that.
Yes, for reasons.
I used balloons as an example of gas leakage.
show me proof
You can predict the future?
Oil is also a commodity, your point?
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 said:We still have huge supplies of natural gas
Stinger said:and the peak oil date will move outward as we increase efficiencies and move to other technologies.
Stinger said:That is of course if we ever get off our butts and start greatly expanding our nuclear energy capabilities.
Stinger said:Then we can generate electricity to produce hydrogen from water and still have a portable energy source such as gas is today.
Stinger said: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.
Stinger said:And then we will never run out of oil because the last barrel will be so expensive no one can afford it.
Stinger said:EVery energy source has it's good and bad, every one has some energy loss.
Stinger said: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?
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.
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.
Stinger said:It is quite apparent you are not aware of the situation with energy supplies
Stinger said:relying on some obscure dissertation
Stinger said:and you do like to post specious numbers.
Stinger said: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.
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 .
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?