The Source of Oil

[jmotivator]

You want a proper response then explain your case, as you've now done, instead of quoting the party line.

My response was 7 words shorter than your claim... care to point out to me which 7 words in your statement hold your deeper explanation of your point? If you are going to make gratuitous assertions do everyone the favor of not getting pissy when you get gratuitous responses in return. I at least did your the service of not responding with something as brainless as "typical party line..."

If done in small increments? No, it isn't. The 50 years I suggested was to replace all oil as fuel, not just a large portion of it. Most people now are just pushing to switch a large part, not all.Does even California demand 100% by a certain year? Of course not. And even then, that's new car sales, not existing vehicles. The current plan probably would take close to 50 years - maybe more - to get most people switched to electric (although I personally think we'll need methane for awhile longer for commercial trucks, if nothing else).

You make a pretty basic mistake in your accounting here. If we were running only on shale oil, and we replaced 50% of our oil usage in 50 years then in 2063 our shale oil reserve would be... 100 years, because we'd be using half as much oil as the original 100 year accounting expected. The 100 years expectation I proposed is only if nothing is done to move away from oil... which really means no viable alternative is discovered in that 100 years. But then we also have a huge natural gas reserve that has already begun to make headway in the market because it meets almost all of the requirements of a true oil replacement, losing out only on the energy density (having about 60% that of gasoline).

I don't expect all electrical plants to use renewables for over a century. Coal could be used if we clean the garbage out of the exhaust. Methane is fairly clean so I see no reason to switch those out. Nuclear could be made relatively safe with few long-term wastes. There are a LOT of options besides oil for fuel.

Nuclear is my preference for electricity production, as well, especially if the MSRs can be proven as a functional, reliable reactor. But if MSR lives up to expectations I would guess the conversion would be much faster than you seem to think, bigger/cheaper/better tends to drive rapid change. But MSR still has a long way to go before they are ready for wide use. But if they ever do reach the ready stage, the power/efficiency/safety of the various MSR designs could be unbeatable.

Are you quoting proved reserves? If not then rewind and try again. And you're not taking many things into account like 2+ billion people in China and India. Do you think their economies are going to sit still? All our oil for fuel comes from overseas and is subject to world market forces, which includes the demands of China and India. Why would you want to rely so much on other countries to control something so vital to us? That's an insane policy and should be changed. We obviously didn't learn a damn thing from the 70's Oil Wars.

Natural Gas

Shale Oil - This report shows 2 trillion barrels in the US.

As for the other countries, if the US pulled out of the crude oil market then the oil supply of the rest of the world goes up since we consume about 25% of the world oil currently.

Burning oil for fuel is stupid when there are many other uses for it that don't have good alternatives. The quicker we quit letting it go up in smoke the longer our reserves, proved or not, will last.

For the production of electricity I would agree with you, but gasoline and diesel still kicks the crap out of other fuel sources for transportation, and heating oil is still the most economical solution for a large number of homes.

 

[MoSurveyor]

My response was 7 words shorter than your claim... care to point out to me which 7 words in your statement hold your deeper explanation of your point? If you are going to make gratuitous assertions do everyone the favor of not getting pissy when you get gratuitous responses in return. I at least did your the service of not responding with something as brainless as "typical party line..."

It wouldn't have done any good to use that on me since it isn't. Your line, on the other hand, was pretty typical.

You make a pretty basic mistake in your accounting here. If we were running only on shale oil, and we replaced 50% of our oil usage in 50 years then in 2063 our shale oil reserve would be... 100 years, because we'd be using half as much oil as the original 100 year accounting expected. The 100 years expectation I proposed is only if nothing is done to move away from oil... which really means no viable alternative is discovered in that 100 years. But then we also have a huge natural gas reserve that has already begun to make headway in the market because it meets almost all of the requirements of a true oil replacement, losing out only on the energy density (having about 60% that of gasoline).

I have no clue what "accounting" you're talking about and apparently you haven't been paying attention. I think oil for fuel is a complete waste so I have spoken nothing about when it will "run out". All I've been talking about is how long it will take to switch off oil for fuel without a major economic disruption. That doesn't mean stop using oil entirely. In fact, one of the main reasons for switching off of it for fuel is to leave more for it's other uses, which are also very important to our economy and society.

Nuclear is my preference for electricity production, as well, especially if the MSRs can be proven as a functional, reliable reactor. But if MSR lives up to expectations I would guess the conversion would be much faster than you seem to think, bigger/cheaper/better tends to drive rapid change. But MSR still has a long way to go before they are ready for wide use. But if they ever do reach the ready stage, the power/efficiency/safety of the various MSR designs could be unbeatable.

Much faster than I seem to think? Again, I have no clue what you're talking about here. It's not just a matter of adding more power plants. The grid is old and needed rebuilding a decade ago. It isn't going to rebuild itself overnight. Even if we doubled our electrical output and demand tomorrow you couldn't get it to the homes and businesses that would need it. Rebuilding the grid will take time and a lot of money in addition to adding more plants. A good chunk of that money should have already been spent for upgrades and modernization.

Natural Gas

Shale Oil - This report shows 2 trillion barrels in the US.

As for the other countries, if the US pulled out of the crude oil market then the oil supply of the rest of the world goes up since we consume about 25% of the world oil currently.

So that quote was total reserves, not proved.

And about half of that 25% comes from overseas, so ~12% surplus for the rest of the world - not that OPEC would keep it that way for long and assuming China isn't using that much more by the time we're off someone else's oil teat.

For the production of electricity I would agree with you, but gasoline and diesel still kicks the crap out of other fuel sources for transportation, and heating oil is still the most economical solution for a large number of homes.

I am aware of the "efficiency" of oil for fuel but, unlike methane, oil isn't easy /cheap to synthesize. Methane is a much better alternative for those applications that need a large amount of power storage like commercial trucks and trains. If needed, we can even convert electricity to methane using the air itself.

 

[jmotivator]

It wouldn't have done any good to use that on me since it isn't. Your line, on the other hand, was pretty typical.

It wouldn't have done any good because it's a stupid and shallow thing to say that contributes nothing to the conversation. Again, what about your 40 words were fresh new ideas? Anything?

I have no clue what "accounting" you're talking about and apparently you haven't been paying attention. I think oil for fuel is a complete waste so I have spoken nothing about when it will "run out". All I've been talking about is how long it will take to switch off oil for fuel without a major economic disruption. That doesn't mean stop using oil entirely. In fact, one of the main reasons for switching off of it for fuel is to leave more for it's other uses, which are also very important to our economy and society.

You said we'd have 50 years to convert if we had a 100 year supply, I pointed out that that is an incorrect assessment. How long that reserve lasts is affected by the simple fact that you are reducing usage over time even with a modest process. And while you keep saying that oil is needed for more important things, you don't actually fully form that thought. What do you consider the most important uses of oil and how much oil do we need to accomplish it?


Much faster than I seem to think? Again, I have no clue what you're talking about here. It's not just a matter of adding more power plants. The grid is old and needed rebuilding a decade ago. It isn't going to rebuild itself overnight. Even if we doubled our electrical output and demand tomorrow you couldn't get it to the homes and businesses that would need it. Rebuilding the grid will take time and a lot of money in addition to adding more plants. A good chunk of that money should have already been spent for upgrades and modernization.

So that quote was total reserves, not proved.

Yes, what's your point. Do you have a problem with total reserves?

And about half of that 25% comes from overseas, so ~12% surplus for the rest of the world -

Yes, that's how math works.

not that OPEC would keep it that way for long and assuming China isn't using that much more by the time we're off someone else's oil teat.

Well, no, because once the US has oil production in high gear they can always threaten to start exporting to keep OPEC in line, and how much China is or isn't using is immaterial to the argument as they would likely be using that much regardless of how much world oil we use.

I am aware of the "efficiency" of oil for fuel but, unlike methane, oil isn't easy /cheap to synthesize. Methane is a much better alternative for those applications that need a large amount of power storage like commercial trucks and trains. If needed, we can even convert electricity to methane using the air itself.

Methane isn't easy to synthesize. But while synthetic methane is possible, the real question is why bother? You are simply losing energy in the conversion to make something that is already abundant in nature.

 

[MoSurveyor]

You said we'd have 50 years to convert if we had a 100 year supply, I pointed out that that is an incorrect assessment. How long that reserve lasts is affected by the simple fact that you are reducing usage over time even with a modest process.

You postulated the reserve was 100 years and I said it would take half that time to switch. I did not say it would take half our reserve time to switch and in further posts I kept using 50 years. Outside of the first post I never referred to "half of our reserve" and only used it then because of your estimate of 100 years. I'm sorry you think the time to get off oil for fuel has anything to do with our "reserve time". It doesn't.

And while you keep saying that oil is needed for more important things, you don't actually fully form that thought. What do you consider the most important uses of oil and how much oil do we need to accomplish it?

You want a list?

What are the products and uses of petroleum? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Most importantly, aircraft fuel - I haven't seen any good alternatives for aircraft as yet - but almost everything on that list is important and there are very few to no alternatives. Gasoline for commuters has an alternative - electricity. Diesel has an alternative, LNG, which has been used by many companies for years, now.

Yes, what's your point. Do you have a problem with total reserves?

Yes. It's a fake number because we don't really know if we can access all the reserves. In fact, it's likely we can't access all of it for one reason or another.

Well, no, because once the US has oil production in high gear they can always threaten to start exporting to keep OPEC in line, and how much China is or isn't using is immaterial to the argument as they would likely be using that much regardless of how much world oil we use.

Like they're, what, twiddling their thumbs now?

You think China and India aren't the biggest drivers of oil prices and will be even more so in the future?

Methane isn't easy to synthesize. But while synthetic methane is possible, the real question is why bother? You are simply losing energy in the conversion to make something that is already abundant in nature.

I noted that because methane will always be there, whether we use all our proven reserves or not, it doesn't matter. As such, any infrastructure we develop to transport and dispense it will always be useful. Any designs we have for methane will always apply. Any science connected to it won't ever be wasted. If we do start coming up short for some reason we can build a power plant near an existing pipeline with a methane synthesizer right next door. We can't do that with oil and if we do figure a way at some point in the far future it's bound to be less efficient than methane because methane chemistry is very simple, oil chemistry is complex.

 

[jmotivator]

You postulated the reserve was 100 years and I said it would take half that time to switch. I did not say it would take half our reserve time to switch and in further posts I kept using 50 years. Outside of the first post I never referred to "half of our reserve" and only used it then because of your estimate of 100 years. I'm sorry you think the time to get off oil for fuel has anything to do with our "reserve time". It doesn't.

I never said you did. I said that your assumption that we would have 50 years to covert if we had a 100 year supply was just bad math. It's like saying that you have enough food to last a week, and that time doesn't change even if you start reducing rations. A 100 years supply assumes no change in oil use, and a steady growth, but a focus on alternatives will invariably cut into that growth rate.

You want a list?

What are the products and uses of petroleum? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Most importantly, aircraft fuel - I haven't seen any good alternatives for aircraft as yet - but almost everything on that list is important and there are very few to no alternatives. Gasoline for commuters has an alternative - electricity. Diesel has an alternative, LNG, which has been used by many companies for years, now.

I know the list, I was wondering what products you found the most pressing. I assume your short list also assumes there will be no alternatives found for those petroleum products in the next 50 years as well?

The ironic thing is that there are alternative jet fuels out there, but they have all the same limitations that other alternative fuels have. They aren't easily mass produced, and can't compete economically with standard fuel. The government pushing deployment of alternatives to gasoline is as negligent as if they began to mandate alternative jet fuel before it was ready for mass production.

Yes. It's a fake number because we don't really know if we can access all the reserves. In fact, it's likely we can't access all of it for one reason or another.

False. We don't know how much of the reserve can be accessed. But in the last few decades new recovery technology has been making recovery more viable. On average 50% of a probable reserve is recoverable, so when calculating total reserve only 50% of the probable is counted, and 10% (if I recall) of "possible" is recovered. To go simply on proved reserve is more inaccurate to the eventual total recovery because it ignores a huge amount of reserve at that point in time that will be recovered... it's why the industry planning relies on total rather than proved reserve.

Like they're, what, twiddling their thumbs now?

You think China and India aren't the biggest drivers of oil prices and will be even more so in the future?

Well which is it that's more responsible for Oil price, OPEC or China/India? Get your hand waving arguments straight, please. As I said, china will use as much petroleum as China uses. They will not change their consumption based on us, so your argument that the US exiting the world market will be made up by China is just plain silly. This discussion was about how long the oil would last in the rest of the world, and I have simply pointed out that if the US is no longer in the world oil market then the world oil supply would last longer. Really not understanding where you find a problem with this.

I noted that because methane will always be there, whether we use all our proven reserves or not, it doesn't matter. As such, any infrastructure we develop to transport and dispense it will always be useful. Any designs we have for methane will always apply. Any science connected to it won't ever be wasted. If we do start coming up short for some reason we can build a power plant near an existing pipeline with a methane synthesizer right next door. We can't do that with oil and if we do figure a way at some point in the far future it's bound to be less efficient than methane because methane chemistry is very simple, oil chemistry is complex.

But this is false. Synthesizing methane is really not all that different in it's hurdles than making shale oil. For shale oil the raw material is shale, and in Methane synthesis the raw material is hydrogen. Contrary to popular opinion, hydrogen is not an easily accessed raw material as it takes a lot of energy to harvest hydrogen and pure hydrogen doesn't really exist in great abundance in the environment because of it's propensity to oxidize. So your theory of how we can replace methane in a pinch is based on technologies and feats of engineering that have not been invented yet.

If we are going down the road of make believe we might as well make no changes to gasoline right now on the assumption that down the road we can just plug in a synthetic gasoline factory next to existing refineries and all is well.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I never said you did. I said that your assumption that we would have 50 years to covert if we had a 100 year supply was just bad math. It's like saying that you have enough food to last a week, and that time doesn't change even if you start reducing rations. A 100 years supply assumes no change in oil use, and a steady growth, but a focus on alternatives will invariably cut into that growth rate.

I held and still hold it will take 50 years to convert regardless of our reserves. You seem to be missing that point. It's not a matter of how soon we will run out, it's a matter of how fast it can happen at all without major economic consequences. I don't know why this concept is so difficult to understand. As one part of this equation, a car's average time on the road is ten years, but even at 15 years you've only included something like 80% of them. Obviously, unless we take drastic steps to eliminate older cars, it will take more than 15 years just to cycle through most of the cars assuming all cars sold are 100% non-oil. It doesn't matter if there is another 10, 100, or 200 years of proved reserves left, it'll still take 15 just to switch ~80% of the cars. And who knows how long to get the other 18% or so? We were still buying leaded gas for our old truck in 1993, almost 20 years after unleaded hit the market.

I know the list, I was wondering what products you found the most pressing. I assume your short list also assumes there will be no alternatives found for those petroleum products in the next 50 years as well?

The ironic thing is that there are alternative jet fuels out there, but they have all the same limitations that other alternative fuels have. They aren't easily mass produced, and can't compete economically with standard fuel. The government pushing deployment of alternatives to gasoline is as negligent as if they began to mandate alternative jet fuel before it was ready for mass production.

I'd rather not count on biofuels as a replacement. If you want to then I guess we're at an impasse. Using ethanol as a replacement for MTBE's is good but it should stop there.

And while jet fuel was om top of my list there were a slew of other uses that have no alternates of which I'm aware. The chemical engineers would go ape-**** if you cut off their oil supply.

False. We don't know how much of the reserve can be accessed. But in the last few decades new recovery technology has been making recovery more viable. On average 50% of a probable reserve is recoverable, so when calculating total reserve only 50% of the probable is counted, and 10% (if I recall) of "possible" is recovered. To go simply on proved reserve is more inaccurate to the eventual total recovery because it ignores a huge amount of reserve at that point in time that will be recovered... it's why the industry planning relies on total rather than proved reserve.

That's exactly the point, we don't know and chances are it will never be 100% because the lower the reserve gets the harder it is to extract.

Well which is it that's more responsible for Oil price, OPEC or China/India? Get your hand waving arguments straight, please. As I said, china will use as much petroleum as China uses. They will not change their consumption based on us, so your argument that the US exiting the world market will be made up by China is just plain silly. This discussion was about how long the oil would last in the rest of the world, and I have simply pointed out that if the US is no longer in the world oil market then the world oil supply would last longer. Really not understanding where you find a problem with this.

All three - and Europe and US, too. It's all supply and demand, right? Of course, China will base it's consumption on market prices, just as we do. Raise the price of gas and consumption drops. This is simple economics. Or course, the problem here is that OPEC can band together to drop supply, unlike US corps who are outlawed from doing that. OPEC will do what's best for OPEC and China will do the same. But China's and India's power demand gets bigger every year - to the tune of 7-9%/year for China over the past few years.

If you think sucking on OPEC's teat is OK then I guess we're at another impasse. I think it's damn poor national policy to put our transportation needs into someone else's hands.

But this is false. Synthesizing methane is really not all that different in it's hurdles than making shale oil. For shale oil the raw material is shale, and in Methane synthesis the raw material is hydrogen. Contrary to popular opinion, hydrogen is not an easily accessed raw material as it takes a lot of energy to harvest hydrogen and pure hydrogen doesn't really exist in great abundance in the environment because of it's propensity to oxidize. So your theory of how we can replace methane in a pinch is based on technologies and feats of engineering that have not been invented yet.

If we are going down the road of make believe we might as well make no changes to gasoline right now on the assumption that down the road we can just plug in a synthetic gasoline factory next to existing refineries and all is well.

I guess you can say methane synthesis requires hydrogen but the plants that do it in Germany just use CO2 and water as input. I'm sure hydrogen is one step in that process but ... :shrug:

Methane Made with Solar Power Will Power Audi Vehicles | MIT Technology Review


Still in development:
Scientists use microbes to make 'clean' methane

 

[longview]

There is a lot of research underway to make hydrocarbon fuels from scratch so to speak.
Not from other hydrocarbons, but from the constituent elements.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
The unit pictured in the article is about 5' X 5' X 3', and runs at a 60 % efficiency.
Maybe it is about time we stop looking at hydrocarbons as an energy source,
and start looking at them as natures nearly perfect battery.
A method of energy storage and transport.

 

[MoSurveyor]

There is a lot of research underway to make hydrocarbon fuels from scratch so to speak.
Not from other hydrocarbons, but from the constituent elements.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
The unit pictured in the article is about 5' X 5' X 3', and runs at a 60 % efficiency.
Maybe it is about time we stop looking at hydrocarbons as an energy source,
and start looking at them as natures nearly perfect battery.
A method of energy storage and transport.

I couldn't get your link to work but found it on another site.

Obviously not as far along as the actual plants turning out methane but cool none-the-less!

 

[longview]

I couldn't get your link to work but found it on another site.

Obviously not as far along as the actual plants turning out methane but cool none-the-less!

I like to think of something like this from a duty cycle perspective.
Imagine say 10 Kw of PV panels on a farm generating liquid fuel whenever the sun shines.
So 10 Kw of panels could generate about 60 KWH per day * 60% conversion efficiency= 36KWH of fuel.
A gallon of diesel is about 37 KWH of heat, so a 10 KW setup could make about a 3/4 gallons per day.
But it stores well!
got to go, revisit this idea later!

 

[jmotivator]

I held and still hold it will take 50 years to convert regardless of our reserves. You seem to be missing that point. It's not a matter of how soon we will run out, it's a matter of how fast it can happen at all without major economic consequences.

I fully understand the economic consequences, but you don't seem to. We are EXPERIENCING THEM RIGHT NOW. The problem is we are force feeding change via costly subsidies and sin taxes and trying to push through carbon trading WHEN NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE CURRENTLY EXISTS. Criminey, look around you and everywhere you will see something adversely affected by our current idiotic energy policy.

I don't know why this concept is so difficult to understand. As one part of this equation, a car's average time on the road is ten years, but even at 15 years you've only included something like 80% of them. Obviously, unless we take drastic steps to eliminate older cars, it will take more than 15 years just to cycle through most of the cars assuming all cars sold are 100% non-oil. It doesn't matter if there is another 10, 100, or 200 years of proved reserves left, it'll still take 15 just to switch ~80% of the cars. And who knows how long to get the other 18% or so? We were still buying leaded gas for our old truck in 1993, almost 20 years after unleaded hit the market.

I never argued that we can switch fast, and argued that current policy is causing major economic disruption. When the time comes and the viable alternative exists the market will change on its own, but subsidizing technologies that can't otherwise compete is slowing down the process rather than promoting it. Call this a "typical party line" if you want, but you have not yet offered a valid counter argument to this. Energy policy today and around the world is designed to reduce the availability of petroleum fuels. That is the whole point behind carbon trading.

I'd rather not count on biofuels as a replacement. If you want to then I guess we're at an impasse. Using ethanol as a replacement for MTBE's is good but it should stop there.

Aircraft fuels are actually the best market for bio fuels because it is comparatively small and therefor easier to scale production to need.

And while jet fuel was om top of my list there were a slew of other uses that have no alternates of which I'm aware. The chemical engineers would go ape-**** if you cut off their oil supply.

So does the average commuter, what's your point? And that accounts for, what, 2%? And aren't you still talking about the economic disruption when the oil runs out? Are we predicting that chemical engineers will have a dire need for petroleum in 100 years?

That's exactly the point, we don't know and chances are it will never be 100% because the lower the reserve gets the harder it is to extract.

You don't have a point. The total reserve MAKES NO CLAIM OF 100% EXCTRACTION RATE. They are base don real world observed expectations of discovery-vs-actual extraction. The inability to extract all probable and possible reserves is baked into the statistic.

All three - and Europe and US, too. It's all supply and demand, right? Of course, China will base it's consumption on market prices, just as we do. Raise the price of gas and consumption drops. This is simple economics. Or course, the problem here is that OPEC can band together to drop supply, unlike US corps who are outlawed from doing that. OPEC will do what's best for OPEC and China will do the same. But China's and India's power demand gets bigger every year - to the tune of 7-9%/year for China over the past few years.

No, China doesn't base consumption on market price necessarily. They are in crazy build mode in China with little consideration of cost. They build whole cities the size of New York that almost nobody can afford to live in, after all. When they stop doing that it will not be because of the price of gasoline.

In fact, unlike the western world, Chinese oil consumption growth has continued unabated even as oil prices skyrocket:

If you think sucking on OPEC's teat is OK then I guess we're at another impasse. I think it's damn poor national policy to put our transportation needs into someone else's hands.

I am talking about converting the entire US economy to natural gas, shale oil and nuclear... that straw man doesn't even look like me.

I guess you can say methane synthesis requires hydrogen but the plants that do it in Germany just use CO2 and water as input. I'm sure hydrogen is one step in that process but ... :shrug:

Methane Made with Solar Power Will Power Audi Vehicles | MIT Technology Review

If you read that article you would have seen that the two step process first harvests the hydrogen from water via electrolysis, and admits that the process is inefficient. The only reason they can run that little lab experiment is because they claim their is an over supply of solar energy. But this system is snake oil at it's finest. It can't actually escape the laws of thermodynamics. They are in fact WASTING large amounts of electrical energy to produce a small amount of methane. They would be better off charging electric cars with the surplus.

Also note they never say how far each of those 1500 Audis will drive on the produced methane, or how long it will take to produce the methane. The devil is in the details.

In other words, it's a stunt to sell their methane fueled cars.

Still in development:
Scientists use microbes to make 'clean' methane

Sorry, if you insist on only counting proved reserves of fossil fuels you can only talk about proved technologies, nothing "in development".

 

[Northern Light]

The theory is interesting but it's not going to pro-long this fossil fuel paradigm. Oil is already becoming more scarce and we are having to probe increasingly precarious regions to look for it. In Canada, they use 2 barrels of oil to extract 5 barrels of crude. It's an incredibly inefficient process that wouldn't even be considered 20 years ago, but now that world supply is less (and so profitable), the Alberta tar sands have become a scar on the earth.

We may not be able to completely eliminate the fossil fuel economy yet, but there is no excuse for not engaging in major supplementation with green sources, and nuclear.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I fully understand the economic consequences, but you don't seem to. We are EXPERIENCING THEM RIGHT NOW. The problem is we are force feeding change via costly subsidies and sin taxes and trying to push through carbon trading WHEN NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE CURRENTLY EXISTS. Criminey, look around you and everywhere you will see something adversely affected by our current idiotic energy policy.

If you think our current economy is "adversely affected" then you must live somewhere besides America.

As for carbon trading, I think that's stupid. I have nothing against fossil fuels but I happen to believe burning oil is dumb.

I never argued that we can switch fast, and argued that current policy is causing major economic disruption. When the time comes and the viable alternative exists the market will change on its own, but subsidizing technologies that can't otherwise compete is slowing down the process rather than promoting it. Call this a "typical party line" if you want, but you have not yet offered a valid counter argument to this. Energy policy today and around the world is designed to reduce the availability of petroleum fuels. That is the whole point behind carbon trading.

Not unless you live somewhere other than America.

Aircraft fuels are actually the best market for bio fuels because it is comparatively small and therefor easier to scale production to need.

My state has gained by pushing biofuels but I don't think it's a viable, long-term plan. Eventually, food is going to be more important, assuming we're not there, now.

So does the average commuter, what's your point? And that accounts for, what, 2%? And aren't you still talking about the economic disruption when the oil runs out? Are we predicting that chemical engineers will have a dire need for petroleum in 100 years?

Other uses for oil besides fuel account for about a third of our demand, ~40% or so with aircraft fuel included. Do I think we'll still have that demand in 100 years? Most likely since no one is working on alternatives --- oh, except for those from the "disruptive" energy policies.

You don't have a point. The total reserve MAKES NO CLAIM OF 100% EXCTRACTION RATE. They are base don real world observed expectations of discovery-vs-actual extraction. The inability to extract all probable and possible reserves is baked into the statistic.

From your own link:

The amount of shale oil that can be recovered from a given deposit depends upon many factors. As alluded to above, geothermal heating, or other factors, may have degraded some or all of a deposit, so that the amount of recoverable energy may be significantly decreased. Some deposits or portions thereof, such as large areas of the Devonian black shales in the eastern United States, may be too deeply buried to mine economically in the foreseeable future. Surface land uses may greatly restrict the availability of some oil shale deposits for development, especially those in the industrial western countries. The obvious need today is new and improved methods for the economic recovery of energy and by-products from oil shale. The bottom line in developing a large oil shale industry will be governed by the price of petroleum-based crude oil.

An example given:

The estimated total resource of Green River oil shale in the three-state area amounts to about 1.5 trillion barrels of in-place shale oil. Although recoverable shale oil resources have been estimated to be as high as 800 billion barrels, no definitive study has yet been made to substantiate this figure.

Apparently not as "baked in" as you seem to think. But, hey, I could be misreading this. :shrug:

No, China doesn't base consumption on market price necessarily. They are in crazy build mode in China with little consideration of cost. They build whole cities the size of New York that almost nobody can afford to live in, after all. When they stop doing that it will not be because of the price of gasoline.

In fact, unlike the western world, Chinese oil consumption growth has continued unabated even as oil prices skyrocket:

No, they base their energy strategies on what they see as future market prices, though. Why do you think they spend so much $$$ to build the Three Gorges dam? Why do they invest as much as they do in solar and wind? What are they seeing that we're apparently missing - because they sure as hell aren't going to run low on coal in the near future.

I am talking about converting the entire US economy to natural gas, shale oil and nuclear... that straw man doesn't even look like me.

It's not a straw man, it's a reasonable strategic concern. But I'm glad we agree dependency is not a good thing.

If you read that article you would have seen that the two step process first harvests the hydrogen from water via electrolysis, and admits that the process is inefficient. The only reason they can run that little lab experiment is because they claim their is an over supply of solar energy. But this system is snake oil at it's finest. It can't actually escape the laws of thermodynamics. They are in fact WASTING large amounts of electrical energy to produce a small amount of methane. They would be better off charging electric cars with the surplus.

Also note they never say how far each of those 1500 Audis will drive on the produced methane, or how long it will take to produce the methane. The devil is in the details.

In other words, it's a stunt to sell their methane fueled cars.

I even said as much - that separating hydrogen was one step in the process.

I agree, they would be better off charging electric cars!

Audi doesn't own SolarFuel, the company that converts power to methane. They're just backing the expansion.

Sorry, if you insist on only counting proved reserves of fossil fuels you can only talk about proved technologies, nothing "in development".

Does that mean you agree the total reserves are not the same as proved?

Proved reserves include technologies of the "foreseeable future" (see quote above). I'd say this technology falls into that category. It's not like they're predicting we'll find a microbe or that the process hasn't been shown to work. The microbe is real, the process is real - it's not just a guess that things will get better.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Everyone knows how petroleum was first created. It arose from the biomass left by plants and animals in ages past, right? There is plenty of evidence to support that idea, including fossels in oil shale and so on.

Actually, I often wonder at the knowledge of people, and no insult is intended.

No, petroleum is not made from dead plants and animals. Or at least, not in the way most people think of it.

Oil is a mix of hydrocarbons, made by heat and pressure. However, it is not from plant and animal remains. That is how you get the fossil fuel known as coal. Layer after layer of plant material, dumped into swamps then covered before it can decay. Add a fast climate change or geological disaster, a few dozen million years of heat and pressure, and you get coal.

Oil on the other hand is primarily made out at sea. If you notice most oil fields are either in the oceans, or where at the time of their formation a few hundred million years ago you had oceans. Primarily their source was actually plankton and algae. And most scientists do believe that the process is ongoing to this day, although the deposits being left now will not be "ripe" for another 100 million years or so.

Of course, there are alternate theories of it's creation. It really is a rich soup of complex hydrocarbons, come of which are still not fully understood (and are unexplained in the traditional concept of it's creation). We do know however that "hydrocarbons" does not necessarily mean that the fuel even came from living things at all. We know that comets have plentiful hydrocarbons, as do many other planetary bodies that are not Earth. And I have never heard anybody in the last century suggest that animals wander around the surface or inside of comets. Many scientists now believe that at least some of the oil is either naturally created by geological processes deep in the Earth, or a leftover product from it's creation.

And it is well known that oil (and other "fossil fuels") can be made in the lab. All you need are the right combination of raw ingredients, enough pressure and heat.

And if you are trying to use methane as proof of oil being made from "plants and animals", then consider this: Every planet in the solar system (including our moon) has methane in it's atmosphere. Saturn's moon Titan is thick with methane, and is constantly bleeding it and other complex hydrocarbons into space.

 

[GPS_Flex]

So with subduction happening at the same speed your fingernails grow, how many barrels a year will that be?

Good grief! Do you know how massive subduction zones are? Do a little research on the relationship between volcanoes and subduction zones and then rethink your question. Seriously!

 

[GPS_Flex]

If the earth produced oil as fast as we consumed it, it wouldn't be getting harder and harder to extract.

The only thing making oil harder to extract is government limitations. There isn't a shortage of oil, there is a shortage of exploration.

 

[GPS_Flex]

There's no reason to expect our energy demands are going to stop rising.

Yes, liberals like you are doing your best to destroy the US economy by eliminating the supply of reliable energy. You're currently winning that battle and the world economy is grinding to a halt as a result.

 

[jmotivator]

If you think our current economy is "adversely affected" then you must live somewhere besides America.

Nope, I'm right here, filling my car on $4 a gallon gasoline and dreaming of all the other things I'd rather be spending that money on. CPI has been on the rise almost solely on the back of skyrocketing energy costs, and market disruption from the ethanol market.

As for carbon trading, I think that's stupid. I have nothing against fossil fuels but I happen to believe burning oil is dumb.

No argument on the first part, but I still can't get behind the second half of that statement. The relatively cheap, easily accessed and plentiful fossil fuels are responsible for the advancement of western civilization. With the knowledge that I may end up sounding like this guy, most of what we take for granted today would be impossible without fossil fuels.

Not unless you live somewhere other than America.

You'd have to elaborate as I can't see how that i a valid response to that quote.

My state has gained by pushing biofuels but I don't think it's a viable, long-term plan. Eventually, food is going to be more important, assuming we're not there, now.

I think we are there now on a global scale, though the US has always produced far more than it needs, those exports dried up and food cost increased because of the push for ethanol fuel. I think we agree here as well, so moving on...

Other uses for oil besides fuel account for about a third of our demand, ~40% or so with aircraft fuel included. Do I think we'll still have that demand in 100 years? Most likely since no one is working on alternatives --- oh, except for those from the "disruptive" energy policies.

Those alternative fuels are only disruptive because stupid energy policy is trying to force them into the market before they are ready to actually compete. We can touch base in another decade and discuss the aftermath of this poor fiscal planning, but I've seen this happen before. This is almost a carbon copy (pun!) of the solution to the energy crisis in the 1970s, and back then the government was subsidizing solar power panels for houses to help ween us off of foreign oil, and when the crisis abated, the subsidies stopped, and those who believed most and invested most were left feeling stupid. My old neighborhood where I grew up is pock marked by old houses with old 70s era solar panels on the roof, all non-functioning. It set back that line of research for decades as investors saw it as a dead end.

Wind mills are even worse, as they are so unreliable and require so much maintenance that when the subsidies dry up we'll have huge wind farms filled with dead windmills looking for a scrap company willing to recover the materials.

From your own link:

That is the difference between probably, possible and total reserves. The probably and possible will always require new techniques to extract, so with current technology it's 800, and another 700 expected long term.

Apparently not as "baked in" as you seem to think. But, hey, I could be misreading this. :shrug:

It's baked into the 1.5 trillion but not counted in the 800 billion that is proved today.

No, they base their energy strategies on what they see as future market prices, though. Why do you think they spend so much $$$ to build the Three Gorges dam? Why do they invest as much as they do in solar and wind? What are they seeing that we're apparently missing - because they sure as hell aren't going to run low on coal in the near future.

Well, no, as far as the dam goes it was certainly done as a more economical and home grown energy source, but PV and wind power has been primarily driven by the huge wads of cash they make selling such equipment to the rest of the world. They have already started giving hints that their domestic growth of such energy sources will be curtailed. This isn't a good sign when they are still so far from their 10% Renewables goal.

And my point is that China will decide for China how much energy it needs and will acquire what it needs to accomplish it's goals. They don't operate on the same kind of market pressures as other countries as I already pointed out. They build cities the size of New York when there is no demand for them. When they want to build something they will pay the money to build it. The only thing that would break that cycle is not the cost of oil, but the lack of demand finally catching up with them. Moreover, when the foreign demand for PV and windmills dies, don't expect the Chinese to keep propping up those industries for domestic use. I see their PV and Windmill use to be something like a Fiat dealer driving a Fiat... they kind of have to to keep up appearances.

It's not a straw man, it's a reasonable strategic concern. But I'm glad we agree dependency is not a good thing.

It is a straw man because you are countering an argument I never made. But yeah, I am all for getting out of the international energy market.

I even said as much - that separating hydrogen was one step in the process.

And it's that step that makes the system untenable on a large scale. It works great as a marketing ploy, though.

I agree, they would be better off charging electric cars!

Well, yeah, if we assume that they have to use solar power at all. But save the money on the manufacture of the panels to begin with and fuel the cars with the methane that is already in abundance.

Audi doesn't own SolarFuel, the company that converts power to methane. They're just backing the expansion.

It's a marketing ploy to push their line of methane cars under the "renewable" moniker rather than another fossil fuel car. But their solution to renewable methane won't pan out.

Does that mean you agree the total reserves are not the same as proved?

I never said they were the same. I said that the total is what is expected to be extracted from known reserves. Probably and possible are added in in fractions of the known deposits based on historical ability to actually extract from known deposits.

Proved reserves include technologies of the "foreseeable future" (see quote above). I'd say this technology falls into that category. It's not like they're predicting we'll find a microbe or that the process hasn't been shown to work. The microbe is real, the process is real - it's not just a guess that things will get better.

The world is littered with failed technologies that have some fatal flaw that makes them unworkable on a large scale even though they work in a lab. Be it fiinancial, technical, or simple physics reasons most of these kinds of discoveries never make it out of the lab.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, liberals like you are doing your best to destroy the US economy by eliminating the supply of reliable energy. You're currently winning that battle and the world economy is grinding to a halt as a result.

Our oil production has never been higher, and I was speaking about demand, not supply. But I guess you just had to interject your little useless jab. Don't let the facts get in the way though! Liberals are just all supervillains bent on worldwide devastation because why the **** not? We love paying higher gas prices for no good reason at all, right? It's not like we base our opinion on what so-called "experts" say or anything, right? :roll:

 

[American]

abiotic oil is made by the abiotic oil fairy. luckily for us, abiotic oil is non-fungible, and the gasoline produced from it is only sold within the United States.

also, there's a lake of stew, and whiskey, too.

Frankly I've always suspected that the Keebler factory is hidden in the depths of the Mantle, where cookies and oil are made by little elves. :lol:

 

[gslack]

Petroleum as a renewable resource?

Everyone knows how petroleum was first created. It arose from the biomass left by plants and animals in ages past, right? There is plenty of evidence to support that idea, including fossels in oil shale and so on.

But Freemon Dyson in a recent talk to Boston U talked about an alternative hypothesis, which is that petroleum might arise spontaneously without biology being involved. In short, when elements containing iron, calcium, carbon (carbonates) and water are heated at high pressures then hydrocarbons are produced. Such conditions exist where techtonic plates are being subducted into the earth's mantle. Petroleum and gas generated this way would tend to rise up in the crust and collect in various places as petroleum is known to do.

What this may mean is that hydrocarbons are constantly being created in the earth's crust, and there will always be new deposits of it to find.

Dyson mentioned some recent work that supports this alternative hypothesis using a diamond anvil cell, which creates the temperatures and pressures found hundreds of km down in the earth.

I've read about this somewhere before,a few years ago. Interesting concept, but I don't really believe it will matter at the rate we are using oil and the populations are expanding and societies advancing, I don't see how we can get enough of it quickly. If it is constantly being made, it's obviously a very slow process meaning we will eventually reach a point our demand exceeds the earths rate of production. Which leaves us right where we are anyway... We will still need an alternative fuel source soon.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Nope, I'm right here, filling my car on $4 a gallon gasoline and dreaming of all the other things I'd rather be spending that money on. CPI has been on the rise almost solely on the back of skyrocketing energy costs, and market disruption from the ethanol market.

No argument on the first part, but I still can't get behind the second half of that statement. The relatively cheap, easily accessed and plentiful fossil fuels are responsible for the advancement of western civilization. With the knowledge that I may end up sounding like this guy, most of what we take for granted today would be impossible without fossil fuels.

You'd have to elaborate as I can't see how that i a valid response to that quote.

I think we are there now on a global scale, though the US has always produced far more than it needs, those exports dried up and food cost increased because of the push for ethanol fuel. I think we agree here as well, so moving on...

I'm not using fossil fuels in general, I'm focusing on oil, specifically burning oil for fuel, which brings with it the problem of additives as well as the other things I've been talking about. Ethanol is a safe additive but almost everything else isn't safe at all and pure gasoline, from what I understand, isn't the best thing to use, either. Methane, on the other hand, has a relatively clean burn without additives. Eventually, even methane will have to be replaced, though.

Those alternative fuels are only disruptive because stupid energy policy is trying to force them into the market before they are ready to actually compete. We can touch base in another decade and discuss the aftermath of this poor fiscal planning, but I've seen this happen before. This is almost a carbon copy (pun!) of the solution to the energy crisis in the 1970s, and back then the government was subsidizing solar power panels for houses to help ween us off of foreign oil, and when the crisis abated, the subsidies stopped, and those who believed most and invested most were left feeling stupid. My old neighborhood where I grew up is pock marked by old houses with old 70s era solar panels on the roof, all non-functioning. It set back that line of research for decades as investors saw it as a dead end.

Ethanol is the only good additive for gasoline. You want to go back to MTBE? Or maybe lead?

I've also seen solar hot water heaters from the 70's that are still functioning to this day. :shrug: Solar panels have a life of about 20 years right now. Whether the new ones will live longer we don't know. They haven't scaled up or tested the nano-fiber units, yet.

Wind mills are even worse, as they are so unreliable and require so much maintenance that when the subsidies dry up we'll have huge wind farms filled with dead windmills looking for a scrap company willing to recover the materials.

Funny, the two windmills I've been watching for 15 years seem to work just fine. Again, *shrug*.

That is the difference between probably, possible and total reserves. The probably and possible will always require new techniques to extract, so with current technology it's 800, and another 700 expected long term.

It's baked into the 1.5 trillion but not counted in the 800 billion that is proved today.

It sure didn't seem that way when I read it, but oil technology isn't my thing. If we're going on supposition, though, solar will be more efficient by the time we can extract that "reserve".

Well, no, as far as the dam goes it was certainly done as a more economical and home grown energy source, but PV and wind power has been primarily driven by the huge wads of cash they make selling such equipment to the rest of the world. They have already started giving hints that their domestic growth of such energy sources will be curtailed. This isn't a good sign when they are still so far from their 10% Renewables goal.

And my point is that China will decide for China how much energy it needs and will acquire what it needs to accomplish it's goals. They don't operate on the same kind of market pressures as other countries as I already pointed out. They build cities the size of New York when there is no demand for them. When they want to build something they will pay the money to build it. The only thing that would break that cycle is not the cost of oil, but the lack of demand finally catching up with them. Moreover, when the foreign demand for PV and windmills dies, don't expect the Chinese to keep propping up those industries for domestic use. I see their PV and Windmill use to be something like a Fiat dealer driving a Fiat... they kind of have to to keep up appearances.

I don't believe the Chinese have to keep up appearances for anyone except for their military. They're doing what they think is the most efficient use of their resources at this time. We'll see how they hold up in the coming years with their pollution problems. In the mean time, every barrel of oil they buy drives the price up that much more.

And it's that step that makes the system untenable on a large scale. It works great as a marketing ploy, though.

It's a way to store energy almost indefinitely.

Well, yeah, if we assume that they have to use solar power at all. But save the money on the manufacture of the panels to begin with and fuel the cars with the methane that is already in abundance.

Better off making the cars electric so we never have to change the system again. If we switch to methane then we've got the same problems to go through at some point in the future when we decide methane isn't the best choice anymore. When we do finally manage to get fusion power I suspect we'll all be running on electrics. Why switch, then switch again in a century or so? I still think methane will be required for some transportation applications in the short term but long-term electric is a better option, IMO.

The world is littered with failed technologies that have some fatal flaw that makes them unworkable on a large scale even though they work in a lab. Be it fiinancial, technical, or simple physics reasons most of these kinds of discoveries never make it out of the lab.

On the other hand, many are game changers, but unless we actually do the research we'll never even get those. Science and technology doesn't pop up from nowhere - it's all built on it's predecessors. Keep batteries confined to cell phones and starting cars and we'll never improve the technology. Keep solar cells a niche market as they've been since the 70's and we'll never improve that technology, either.

I have watched The Play for a long time and from what I've seen very little moves the giants of industry off their perch except government and money. Why have cars gotten more efficient in the past 40 years? Because the Oil Wars shocked everyone with a huge price jump and screwed up our economy big time. What we have had in the past decade of gasoline prices is nothing compared to the 70's and Japanese cars couldn't get more than a small foothold until the Oil Wars. Then, the government pushed to keep making cars more fuel efficient. Do you honestly think we would have 40-45 MPG cars otherwise? Why are cars so low in pollution compared to their 1971 counter-parts? Again, because government forced them to make changes. Without economic upheaval and government we'd still be driving 12/20 cars spewing out tons of crap from our tailpipes and killing ourselves slowly but surely.

 

[gslack]

At our current technology levels we do not have much choice in the matter. We have to use fossil fuels, nothing else can meet demands.

Solar it's at best 20% efficient in perfect conditions right now. And relies on sunlight and clear skies to function, Not to mention any serious application of it makes portability impossible. Just won't be a viable replacement any time soon.

Windmills, are an ecological nightmare and the costs to build and maintain large ones is insane. Also not portable, and again requires wind. Not to mention a high and large windmill in a bad storm is a potential large projectile. Again an unrealistic replacement.

Hydroelectric is limited by location and in the case of dams destroys an existing ecosystem, and replaces it with another. Tidal forms of hydroelectric are only viable for coastal areas, and again is harmful to the ecosystem.

Geo-thermal is too limited in application. Can't just go digging extremely deep holes everywhere, large scale applications could prove harmful later on.

For my money the best option for the future is Hydrogen fuel cell technology. It will fit into our existing lifestyle of fossil fuels well enough,you will be able to go to a gas station and fill up, and go on your way. It is the most abundant element we have,and the fuel cell tech doesn't burn the hydrogen. The H2 hydrogen is stored under extreme pressure and when power is required the Hydrogen gas molecules are released or forced through a charged membrane, which breaks the molecular bonds between the two molecules, which discharges electricity. This electricity is sent to a electric motor to power the vehicle or other machine. ANd the best part is the exhaust is water.

Right now H2 or similar H gases are to costly to mass produce, and the current methods of extracting it from other elements isn't very economical on a mass scale. However just as aluminum production was too costly before, technology made it much more economical quickly enough. this will be the same way I feel.. I think its the best choice for the future, and as I said it won't effect our lifestyle that much.

 

[longview]

At our current technology levels we do not have much choice in the matter. We have to use fossil fuels, nothing else can meet demands.

For my money the best option for the future is Hydrogen fuel cell technology. It will fit into our existing lifestyle of fossil fuels well enough,you will be able to go to a gas station and fill up, and go on your way. It is the most abundant element we have,and the fuel cell tech doesn't burn the hydrogen. The H2 hydrogen is stored under extreme pressure and when power is required the Hydrogen gas molecules are released or forced through a charged membrane, which breaks the molecular bonds between the two molecules, which discharges electricity. This electricity is sent to a electric motor to power the vehicle or other machine. ANd the best part is the exhaust is water.

Right now H2 or similar H gases are to costly to mass produce, and the current methods of extracting it from other elements isn't very economical on a mass scale. However just as aluminum production was too costly before, technology made it much more economical quickly enough. this will be the same way I feel.. I think its the best choice for the future, and as I said it won't effect our lifestyle that much.

I not sure where all of the energy to make the hydrogen is going to come from.
If We have the Hydrogen, we can make and store liquid Hydrocarbons, our current infrastructure
is already set up to handle liquid hydrocarbons.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

 

[gslack]

I not sure where all of the energy to make the hydrogen is going to come from.
If We have the Hydrogen, we can make and store liquid Hydrocarbons, our current infrastructure
is already set up to handle liquid hydrocarbons.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

Hopefully in the near future we can find a way to extract H2 from other matter more cheaply or more efficiently. Wasn't all that long ago the production of Aluminum was limited to very small amounts and only under lab conditions. Then they discovered a way to do it in mass and in the existing metal/steel plants. Hopefully H2 will be the same way..We really should start pooling alternative fuel research and funding into this, after all it's the most abundant, and least harmful to the environment, is portable, and fits into existing infrastructures.. Right now I don't see more viable alternative.

BTW, we have a large steel mill here, I used to contract for. They produce a great deal of aluminum. Pretty interesting method they use. A huge pot filled ore, much like any other similar pots used in a steel mill but has a large lid they place on top with 5 holes. A crane hold a another cap with long rods similar in appearance to welding rods screwed onto the ends. These rods and cap are lifted and placed over the pot and rods inserted into the holes. Large amounts of electricity is sent through the rods while the crane presses them down. Not sure on the entire process, I was a contractor and only saw that part of it but pretty quickly they have pure aluminum. Amazing to watch really...

 

[MoSurveyor]

Electric arc furnaces have been around for quite awhile. The steel mill near where I grew up switched over their furnaces in the 50's and early 60's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace