Peak Oil. Now. What'cha gonna do?
- Thread starter niky
- 60 comments
- 4,433 views
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Oh you, so smug. "Familiar with the process"? Where would you get such false intel?
Also, it seems like you're not only perfectly okay with electric cars, but you want them to come as quickly as possible.
A post I once made in another thread, inquiring after ways to make more oil. The use of the term "fossil fuel" was what gave me the idea: fossils are, if I'm not mistaken, the result of organic matter being subjected to immense pressure. Diamonds are the result of carbon being subjected to immense pressure. We already have the technology to create that level of pressure. Would it not be possible, then, to accelerate the process of oil formation by constructing a machine to apply intense pressure to dead organic matter?
No idea if it would be viable on a large scale, but it's worth a thought.
- 4,687
- Golden State
- xViLLaiNx12
Not efficiently.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Hmmmmmm... this is a big problem.
- 17,865
- 509
I want people to realize they are the only realistic option sooner than later, as it will take time for everything to transition over smoothly.
I find it amusing that you seem to think I, by arguing for electric vehicles, have no passion for driving. The many cars I've owned and what I own right now would indicate otherwise. It is these kind of things that lead me to think you just choose to ignore reality.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
OK, explain that to me. How can you say you have a passion for driving when you're perfectly OK with cars that 1. are completely silent, 2. have extremely limited range and long recharge times, and 3. not only have no need for multi-speed gearboxes but actually tend to break them?
Even if they are inevitable, you don't have to like 'em.
Even if they are inevitable, you don't have to like 'em.
- 4,687
- Golden State
- xViLLaiNx12
Just because electric cars are largely boring and unreliable today, it doesn't mean that there won't be a day when electric cars are much better and much more fun to drive. Electric motors have the potential much more torque, by the way (hence no need for multispeed gearboxes).
Driving is not just about making noise and shifting gears.
Jubby
Premium
- 1,532
- Maine
- jubbyboi617
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
- 4,687
- Golden State
- xViLLaiNx12
The same reason why it will still exist once the electric car because more abundant in the future. Hobbyists and so-called purists. But that's not what this thread is about.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Sadly, nobody thought to file a "Save the Choke Lever" petition (I would have signed. Useful thing) or "Save the Crank Starter" petition (I would have signed that, too... everything needs a kick or crank starter) or even a "save the manual steering rack" petition... which I would have signed, because electric, and, to a lesser extent, hydraulic, really suck compared to a good manual rack. But the clutch pedal? Dump the third wheel and learn how to rev-match, you lazy bum! 
---
RE: Fusion: When they've finally cracked the fusion issue, there will still be the problem of where to get the fuel.
As far as I know (in my limited way), they're working on D-T fusion, not D-D fusion... and tritium is not exactly common. In fact, looking it up (shame on me... wiki'd), commercial tritium is at $30,000 per gram.
After ITER, we'd still have to crack D-D fusion, a much tougher nut.
Either way, practical Fusion may come fifty to a hundred years too late to cushion us from the exhaustion of both oil and coal resources, so it's not (as has been said) a medium term answer.
That's borderline racist!
But oh so true...
The problem is not that they will become an only option... in fact... the cost of batteries of the proper chemistry will always be prohibitive, even with a glut of supply thanks to the post-2008 craze, suppliers can not lower their prices enough to make batteries a more attractive option to more people... In the end, products like the Volt may be unsustainable, and those who need cars will end up driving the equivalent of long-range golf-carts.
No, the problem is that we may have no choice but to stop driving altogether.
Not unless you're comfortable with buying $20-$50 per gallon gasoline.
Biofuels right now cost about twice as much as regular fuel... it's merely government subsidy and heavier taxation on petroleum products that keeps them price-competitive. But again, referring to the original post, once you start producing biofuels on a massive scale, a huge part of that production will go to fuelling itself.
Food prices suffer under such conditions not because we run out of land to produce it, but because farmers will gravitate towards higher-paying crops. It's an unsustainable practice.
In the future, we may still see boutique biofuels for consumer use, but we may revert to an earlier stage in society, when only the very wealthy could actually afford to drive or fly.
At that point, manuals will well and truly be safe, because with such rarefied production and use, enthusiasts who want to drive will not be bothered by the lack of automatic anything. They'll be driving their old jalopies on private racetracks instead of mixing it up with the millions of cyclists on the road.
Millions which would probably include you and me.
-
Not that I'm such a bleak person. It's perfectly possible to make your own fuels with a backyard digester and a waste oil processor. But the kind of engines that work with those fuel stocks will have to, by necessity, be very simple and robust compared to the incredibly complex EURO-IV and V machines we use today.
Fascinating ideas, but probably as unfeasible as tapping the oceanic thermocline for the same reason... the relatively low amount of power you can extract for the given size of the facilities needed to pull this off.
---
RE: Fusion: When they've finally cracked the fusion issue, there will still be the problem of where to get the fuel.
As far as I know (in my limited way), they're working on D-T fusion, not D-D fusion... and tritium is not exactly common. In fact, looking it up (shame on me... wiki'd), commercial tritium is at $30,000 per gram.
After ITER, we'd still have to crack D-D fusion, a much tougher nut.
Either way, practical Fusion may come fifty to a hundred years too late to cushion us from the exhaustion of both oil and coal resources, so it's not (as has been said) a medium term answer.
Italy: The next big oil producer.
That's borderline racist!
But oh so true...
The problem is not that they will become an only option... in fact... the cost of batteries of the proper chemistry will always be prohibitive, even with a glut of supply thanks to the post-2008 craze, suppliers can not lower their prices enough to make batteries a more attractive option to more people... In the end, products like the Volt may be unsustainable, and those who need cars will end up driving the equivalent of long-range golf-carts.
No, the problem is that we may have no choice but to stop driving altogether.
Not unless you're comfortable with buying $20-$50 per gallon gasoline.
Biofuels right now cost about twice as much as regular fuel... it's merely government subsidy and heavier taxation on petroleum products that keeps them price-competitive. But again, referring to the original post, once you start producing biofuels on a massive scale, a huge part of that production will go to fuelling itself.
Food prices suffer under such conditions not because we run out of land to produce it, but because farmers will gravitate towards higher-paying crops. It's an unsustainable practice.
In the future, we may still see boutique biofuels for consumer use, but we may revert to an earlier stage in society, when only the very wealthy could actually afford to drive or fly.
At that point, manuals will well and truly be safe, because with such rarefied production and use, enthusiasts who want to drive will not be bothered by the lack of automatic anything. They'll be driving their old jalopies on private racetracks instead of mixing it up with the millions of cyclists on the road.
Millions which would probably include you and me.
-
Not that I'm such a bleak person. It's perfectly possible to make your own fuels with a backyard digester and a waste oil processor. But the kind of engines that work with those fuel stocks will have to, by necessity, be very simple and robust compared to the incredibly complex EURO-IV and V machines we use today.
Fascinating ideas, but probably as unfeasible as tapping the oceanic thermocline for the same reason... the relatively low amount of power you can extract for the given size of the facilities needed to pull this off.
- 1,214
I think the point has been made before here that using math and past figures if we discovered 3 brand new Earths full of resources, with Stargates for easy travel between the planets, it would only buy us 70-100 years at most until we be in the same energy situation. More energy only increases the real problem which is growth. Everything that increases growth we see as good and anything that stop or reverse growth is seen as bad.
When you end up with more people with less resources then war (& often some form of slavery) will follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIENCyqiJsw&feature=player_embedded
When you end up with more people with less resources then war (& often some form of slavery) will follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIENCyqiJsw&feature=player_embedded
Last edited:
- 23,800
- Philippines
Actually, going by the idea of continuous growth, if energy demand increases by merely two percent a year, we'll need all solar energy hitting the Earth in that time. And within two or three millenia, we will need all the radiant energy available in the Galaxy.
By this alone, the idea of non-stop continuous economic growth, however much oil you actually think is left in the ground, is shown to be fallacious.
By this alone, the idea of non-stop continuous economic growth, however much oil you actually think is left in the ground, is shown to be fallacious.
Last edited:
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
So clearly many here are saying the next huge stock market crash is the energy bubble?
Growth and cash generation will depend on need for and access to energy sources to realise the growth projected. Now since the 1970´ies we have these crisis's.
1) Here is the graph (wikipedia) of the reported reserves by OPEC:
As you see the reserves have not gone down, so they discover more then they produce, or have no clue! It would be crazy to assume it will continue, but it also seems to refute that the issue is imminent.
The (notified) discoveries are decreasing:
2) We have the alternative sources that are coming up, are they sufficient.
I believe that is all that we are discussing in peak oil, do we believe the oil reserves stated and do we believe we can grow with the total energy available?
The discussion if the growth model is justified, is something else.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I, for one, am skeptical of the possibility of anything like linear, sustainable growth in the economy or the population.
I am totally convinced of the the utility, safety, convenience and value of liquid fuel. But to use precious petroleum oil just to burn for mere heat is probably a crime - a crime against ourselves and future generations.
Take a look at the graph Vince posted above. Notice the big increases OPEC countries recorded around 1988 in their oil reserves? That's a little hard to believe.
Random thoughts respectfully submitted by an old oilman,
Steve
- 23,800
- Philippines
It's generally thought that Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries are overstating reserves.
The increase in "reserve" size doesn't seem to match known discoveries. In fact, going by the graph on the first page:
The uptick in reserve size doesn't match the discoveries of that period very well. The jump in the 1980's was after the oil crisis, as OPEC members were trying to find ways to justify higher export quotas.... probably... who knows... but still... many fear these reserve sizes are overstated, and the flatness of production even through the 2008 peak show that it's likely these countries are producing at full rates, already.
As for generation... we are still relatively safe until Peak Coal, which is another decade or two away.
But these alternatives still don't answer the big question: What about our cars? You can't power a car (easily) with coal, hydro-power or nuclear power. You can use natural gas, but natural gas is harder to transport... until natural gas prices reach gasoline prices, it's still uneconomical to transport it for use in automobiles.
The increase in "reserve" size doesn't seem to match known discoveries. In fact, going by the graph on the first page:
The uptick in reserve size doesn't match the discoveries of that period very well. The jump in the 1980's was after the oil crisis, as OPEC members were trying to find ways to justify higher export quotas.... probably... who knows... but still... many fear these reserve sizes are overstated, and the flatness of production even through the 2008 peak show that it's likely these countries are producing at full rates, already.
As for generation... we are still relatively safe until Peak Coal, which is another decade or two away.
But these alternatives still don't answer the big question: What about our cars? You can't power a car (easily) with coal, hydro-power or nuclear power. You can use natural gas, but natural gas is harder to transport... until natural gas prices reach gasoline prices, it's still uneconomical to transport it for use in automobiles.
Probably a really stupid question, but is solar power out of the question for cars? I mean, can't you at least have batteries on reserve at your residence that you charge by way of solar energy, then use solar panels on the cars to supplement the energy required of the battery?
- 23,800
- Philippines
From what I recall in discussions with someone who's had the experience, solar panels on top of a golf cart take one or two days to top off your typical 6 pack of 6v deep-cycles on these short range vehicles. Looking online, they claim about 30% range extension (7 miles) for a 48v vehicle, plus longer battery life. Not bad, but probably not applicable to road-going cars, unless you're willing to wait a week between trips!
Some EV owners actually top-off their cars from home-installed solar panels. This is the ultimate solution... these guys pay absolutely nothing to drive on the road beyond tires and regular EV maintenance.
Needless to say, you've got to have lots of money. Around $25k+ in solar installation on top of the cost of the EV.
You can go cheap EV with a conversion... about $15k on top of the cost of a "glider"... typically an old compact car with no intrinsic value left... say... $2k for a runner with no rust and no suspension problems... sell off the motor for a few hundred bucks.
Still a big up-front cost, and operational range will suck, but you can ROI it down the road pretty quickly if oil goes above $140 a barrel again.
-
Hell, if I had the extra cash, that's the route I'd like to take. In my line of work at the school and in auto-journalism, as well as talking to people for Rotary Club livelihood projects, I've met suppliers who bring in and install this stuff. If I was willing to part with $20-30k, I could install a medium-output solar panel array at home and convert an old compact to battery-power. All I'd have to worry about after that would be battery replacement every two or three years, but it'd be less trouble than buying gasoline every week!
Some EV owners actually top-off their cars from home-installed solar panels. This is the ultimate solution... these guys pay absolutely nothing to drive on the road beyond tires and regular EV maintenance.
Needless to say, you've got to have lots of money. Around $25k+ in solar installation on top of the cost of the EV.
You can go cheap EV with a conversion... about $15k on top of the cost of a "glider"... typically an old compact car with no intrinsic value left... say... $2k for a runner with no rust and no suspension problems... sell off the motor for a few hundred bucks.
Still a big up-front cost, and operational range will suck, but you can ROI it down the road pretty quickly if oil goes above $140 a barrel again.
-
Hell, if I had the extra cash, that's the route I'd like to take. In my line of work at the school and in auto-journalism, as well as talking to people for Rotary Club livelihood projects, I've met suppliers who bring in and install this stuff. If I was willing to part with $20-30k, I could install a medium-output solar panel array at home and convert an old compact to battery-power. All I'd have to worry about after that would be battery replacement every two or three years, but it'd be less trouble than buying gasoline every week!
Last edited:
- 23,800
- Philippines
A glut in panel suppliers is making prices go down. As well as competition from really cheap Chinese suppliers. This is part of what made Solyndra go bye-bye.
The bottleneck is not technology. Obviously, we could make much more effective panels in the future, but 30% efficiency from 0 sq.m. installed is still less than just 10% efficiency from x sq.m. installed. What we need are lots of solar panels. Lots of cheap ones.
Affordability is now assured for your typical upper middle class American. The only question is when he will break even in terms of cost versus benefit. For the poorer of us, it's still not quite there yet... not until or unless Chinese production kicks into higher gear.
The bottleneck is not technology. Obviously, we could make much more effective panels in the future, but 30% efficiency from 0 sq.m. installed is still less than just 10% efficiency from x sq.m. installed. What we need are lots of solar panels. Lots of cheap ones.
Affordability is now assured for your typical upper middle class American. The only question is when he will break even in terms of cost versus benefit. For the poorer of us, it's still not quite there yet... not until or unless Chinese production kicks into higher gear.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
When I was exploring for oil and gas leases in Texas in the late 70's and early 80's, I noticed any number of compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled pickups on the rural farm-to-market roads. These were easily distinguished by the big white tank mounted transversely at the front of the bed. Today, as then, it is common for industrial vehicles servicing limited areas to use CNG. It is old, efficient, proven and safe technology. The "problem", if any, is deploying infrastructure to refuel millions of private automobiles on a standardized and national basis. This is only a matter of will and time. It will happen when the need is great enough.
It may well be asked if safety does not become an issue for CNG fuel in small vehicles. With CFRP tanks placed amidships, much as in state-of-the-art racing vehicles, explosions and fires should be exceedingly rare events.
Respectfully submitted
Steve
Keef
Premium
- 25,161
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
No. Much of the reason we enjoy so many decent, cheap products is because they're not made in the US. There are many factors that make US industry uncompetitive with foreign industry, especially Asian, despite sometimes profound quality improvements. All these hillbillies over here are preaching "Buy American" this and buy American that and we need to bring our industry back to our own country...great idea, except that it would cost everybody an arm and a leg and all our companies would go broke unless we fix our retarded regulatory and tax systems.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Eventually, if trans-ocean shipping costs get high enough, industry will move back to its home markets again. Maybe.
CNG should be relatively safe... but when those tanks go... boy do they go. For bigger vehicles, CNG is a good alternative.
Still the problem, transporting it for long distances... it's a shame that so many oil industries just burn it off without using it for something useful... like power generation.
CNG should be relatively safe... but when those tanks go... boy do they go. For bigger vehicles, CNG is a good alternative.
Still the problem, transporting it for long distances... it's a shame that so many oil industries just burn it off without using it for something useful... like power generation.
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
On the one hand the above shows the issue, there are politics/markets involved, so manipulation of the data is clear. On the other hand there seems to be oil and oil, not clear if all oil also can be used, not clear if they can distinguish the usable oil in the reserves underground from the rest.
I would also not increase my production in a market where my reserves are raising in value and I'm already stinking rich and in an almost monopoly position.
What about changeable batteries? You go in a service station and the put a new battery in, you go faster then tanking now.
What about public transport? You go long distances public (electric trains in Europe) and rent locally or take a cab for the last part.
More of a worry for me is aircraft then cars, I imagine the world without aircraft. I see no issue. I' love to see big sail boats and steam trains coming back.
- 23,800
- Philippines
If you don't ease supply concerns, what happens is demand collapses at the point where markets can no longer afford supply. So you will have periods where you will be forced to sell $30-40 per barrel oil (as happened in the 08 crash). You want to balance supply and demand so that it's expensive but not so expensive as to drive customers away.
There are some really interesting graphs showing the amount of water in the oil pumped out of the ground in Saudi Arabia... and how it has been increasing over the years (water is pumped into the wells to force the oil out). It's not a pretty sight.
Everyone would have to agree on a battery size standard. That's a long ways away yet. It would help, but then each station would have to carry a whole load of expensive batteries. The set-up cost would be enormous if you were to serve the general public. If there's a fleet-lease agreement, where you wouldn't need more than two or three packs per vehicle, it'd be more workable.
-
Air travel is a conundrum. Sea travel is actually very, very expensive. But hey, if steam boats and trains come back, the resulting particulate pollution might actually reverse global warming...
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Sea travel is actually very, very expensive. But hey, if steam boats and trains come back, the resulting particulate pollution might actually reverse global warming...
Every once in while, in our dystopia of unsustainable technologies and lifeways, a pleasant thought is remembered and articulated...
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
- 1,214
Reserves just shows what a country has drilled over the demand. Reverses are not on the market and would have very little effect on it. IIRC USA oil reverses would last just over a month.
The oil crisis is when the demand becomes greater that what can be produced/drilled. Reverses could make up for this gap but only for a short period of time.
Batteries also has it's problems and is very expensive. Have you bought a battery for your car lately? One of the problems with solar energy (panels) is finding a cost effective way of storing the energy.
Last edited:
