Peak Oil Thread (1 Viewer)

[ChristopherDAC]

Sure I read SF, but the things I mentioned aren't it. Sodium-sulphur batteries, with energy density comparable to gasoline, were used by Ford in the 1940s, & are in large-scale production in Japan in units the size of a standard shipping container, storing megawatt-hours. France & Japan have already closed the nuclear fuel cycle & are burning plutonium in power reactors (although they haven't gone over to breeder reactors, partly because of U.S. opposition). 200 mph trains are operating in Western Europe & Japan, & 100 mph service on the Acela Express in the U.S. Northeast Corridor is a daily reality. Dr. Myrabo has hours of footage he can show you of laser-powered "pusher" & "tractor" ramjets & turbine engines, built in the U.S., Russia, India, & other places by various researchers. Clipper ships only went completely out of service in the 1950s on the Australia-South America run ; although they commonly made better time than steamers, it was difficult for them to run to schedule for lack of accurate global wind-speed maps, which we now have. In other words, most of this is "off the shelf", & what isn't is mostly a matter of implementation, except perhaps the Myrabo lightcraft (he has another version using high-density microwave beams, which might be easier to steer with phased-array antennae). Even the liquid-hydrogen suborbital rocket is nothing new — the Space Shuttle has a switch for "Abort Trans Atlantic", which would take it to a landing in Spain in about 15 minutes from launch, while the state of Virginia is sponsoring the "V-Prize" for anyone who wants to launch from Wallops Island & land in Europe. The Reagan administration's Orient Express was something similar.

 

[KevinGress]

Have we underestimated total oil reserves? - earth - 11 June 2008 - New Scientist Environment

I'm not sure that I buy that oil is a static, and not a renewable resource. But I'll set that argument aside for a moment. Everytime I hear about 'peak oil' and how we need to convert over to other energy sources, I have these questions, but hardly hear the answers. So, my questions to those who subscribe to the 'peak oil' theory:

1. How soon will oil run out? Years, decades, centuries? What timeframe are we looking at?

2. What is/are our alternatives? Planes running on lasers sounds cool, but how likely is something like that going to happen soon? We talk about how a new oil rig takes 5 - 10 years to get put into place, I doubt running planes on lasers or microwaves are even that close to fruition.

2b. Who's sacred cow are you willing to sacrifice? Are you willing to tell environmentalists, "Tough; we're putting up this nuclear plant!" Or, "Suck it up Sen. Kennedy! Those windmills are going up in your bay! After awhile they'll look pretty!"

3. How would you get other countries, ie. China and India, to convert, as well. They are also consuming a lot of oil; shouldn't they convert, as well?

4. Are you for/against government mandates on the people to accomplish this? ie: CFLs being the only type of bulbs people can buy after a certain date.

4b. Are you for/against government deregulation meant to allow individuals/small groups the freedom to tailor solutions to their needs? ie: outdoor wood furnaces, creating biodiesal, etc?

5. What have you done, specifically, to ease our need for oil, and are you willing to pay the currently exorbitant costs related to alternative sources: ie. solar/wind for personal home?

 

[RobertR]

Good questions, Kevin.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I get this itchy feeling that it is being presumed (as with global climate change, evolution, & so many other forced controversies) that a particular political agenda is lurking somewhere in the background. To an extent, that is to be expected, since so many of the pressing issues of our day arise from science & technology, but the implication that there is no objective truth involved is offensive to anyone with a scientific perspective, & the weaker implication that I personally am pushing some agenda the poster already knows savours of insult. Nevertheless, the questions ought to be addressed. 1. "Running out" is not the question, any more than "subscribing to the peak-oil theory" is the question. In theory, new petroleum is being produced by geological processes even now, although at a rate roughly one-ten-millionth of the consumption rate. Just as individual wells go from gushers to needing pumps, & then gas or water injection to raise the pressure, & eventually to producing a trickle which isn't worth the effort of collecting, & just as entire fields peter out in a similar manner, world production will gradually decline & the cost of extraction will increase. Anyone in the oil industry understands this intimately. I would not be at all surprise if world production fell by half in the coming 50 years, although much of that depends on the rate of extraction. Pump more now, & it will taper off faster. 2. Good current-technology alternatives for baseload electrical generation — which is not a direct substitute for petroleum fuels, but frees up coal & natural gas for synthetic petroleum if necessary — include nuclear fission with breeder reactors, on both uranium-plutonium & uranium-thorium cycles (could be ready within 10-15 years, would be available by now except the programmes were killed decades ago), and solar power satellites (also 10-15 years ; first examined in the late 1960s, & feasible by the middle 1970s, but would require massive capital investment). New fission plants of current design, of course, could be operation in 3 to 5 years. There is significant untapped hydroelectric power in Congo and New Zealand, although this is located distant from major population centers ; orbital microwave relays would allow sending this to where it was needed, & could be ready within 3-5 years, about the time needed to build the hydro plants. In the 15-20 year range, we can also mention Oceanic Thermal Electric plants, using the temperature difference between the ocean's surface & its depths (like hydro, wind, or biomass, a form of indirect solar power), which could significantly increase the productivity of world fisheries by bringing cold nutrient-rich water up from the depths, as happens naturally near San Francisco. And, of course, an expansion of baseload electricity can directly displace petroleum use, as by electric cars (fully feasible now for users needing less than about 100 miles per day). Production of synthetic liquid fuels (kerosene) from coal & natural gas is a well-known process, as is extraction of petroleum analogues from oil shale & tar sands. Minor sources include the enormous tonnages of old tires which have accumulated since the end of the Second World War (rendering them also yields up steel, which is rising in price) & ordinary landfill garbage. Some biological fuels, particularly secondary biofuels such as used grease & furfural alcohol from oat chaff, should also be figured into the mix. Primary biofuels crowd out either biodiversity or food crops, & so should be avoided. Conservation & cogeneration are the other important tools. Mass transit, & particularly high-speed long distance services, will help to reduce the demand for petroleum as motor fuel. In many places, there is not much in the way of mass transit options for people, but intermodal freight is a big assist there. Conversion, for example, to nuclear power can remove millions of tonnes of coal monthly from the rail system, freeing it up to carry goods & getting more big trucks off the highways, incidentally reducing traffic congestion, leading to shorter trip times & better fuel economy for drivers. Wind & (Earth-surface) solar are not very appropriate for baseload power requirements, but used locally on a small scale — backyard wind turbines, solar water heaters, & the like — can make a significant dent in the overall energy picture, again substitution for petroleum. 2a. Are you aware that Berkeley Environmental Defence is now admitting that nuclear fission needs to be part of America's future energy picture? Apparently they've realized that people aren't willing to starve in the dark. Likewise, if the Danes can stand having windmills all up & down their shorelines (the seacoast being an exception to the usual rule that wind isn't strong & constant enough for baseload generation), so can the inhabitants of Nantucket. Of course, the big "sacred cow" here is the automobile, so don't ask others to sacrifice if you're not willing to make a tradeoff there yourself. 3. India & China should certainly be helped to limit their petroleum consumption. Both governments are investing heavily in nuclear power, & India has even started a thorium breeder cycle, although both so far have been greatly impeded by international restrictions, maintained mostly at the behest of the USA, on trade related to nuclear energy. This is especially crucial because China is burning crude oil in power plants in its coastal cities, for lack of any more easily accessible resource. There is no way to supply the cities of South China with North Chinese coal more cheaply than oil can be brought from Indonesia, even at today's prices. What the Chinese need more than anything is technology transfer. All throughout South & East Asia, there is an increasing use of self-propelled vehicles, mostly ill-maintained & using two-stroke engines which burn far more gasoline (& lubricating oil) than there is any call for. Probably a 10% savings could be effected at a fairly low cost by sending out "Peace Corps"-style auto mechanics to give everybody a tune-up. In the slightly longer term, electric vehicles are a strong possibility, given that the average daily trip is fairly short there. If the capital could be freed up, decent mass transit systems would also be very effective. 4. I am certainly against the business with compact fluorescent bulbs, because they make my eyes hurt. Government mandates in general tend not to be particularly effective. Government can, in some cases, encourage things by directing investment, either with tax incentives or public-private partnership corporations. The tax incentive approach does have the problem that people will find ways (often with the active cooperation of IRS) to collect the tax break without doing whatever it was supposed to promote — see the synthetic fuels tax credit for an egregious example. In some cases, as with transfer of civilian nuclear technology, or space-launch & satellite systems, what is mostly needed is a relaxation of restrictions to let the market work. Since the private investment climate today is averse to physical plant, what may be needed is significant changes in the securities markets to move money out of derivatives & other monstrosities of investment banking & into capital improvements. 4b. I am not sure "deregulation" is very relevant here. Changing the EPA regulations to allow bottoming cycles on power plants, recycling food packaging, garbage conversion, &c. may be useful, but in many cases it is government regulation which allows these "alternatives" to exist in the first place, since they would otherwise be choked out of the market. An example is the rule allowing individuals to sell excess electricity (usually generated by solar or wind) to the electrical utilities, which had to be rammed down the power companies' throats. Of course, once they become established, they may be better able to hold their own. 5. I take mass transit to the extent I am able, which is not a great deal, since I live in an area where it is not readily available. I have tried to improve the insulation of my house. I recycle plastic (a direct user of petrochemicals), glass, steel, & aluminum (thus saving energy indirectly). My home air-conditioner is not set to cool nearly as deeply as most. We have trees planted around the house to reduce our need for summer cooling. I regularly get 30 mpg by careful driving on a manual transmission, & I combine car trips whenever I can. You have to understand, I was brought up on energy efficiency. My grandfather was a petroleum engineer, & even before the oil shocks he insisted on conserving energy, because he understood that supplies were limited, so we've been doing the recommended things all along. At the moment, solar or wind power isn't in the home-improvement budget (the house faces south, so a solar water heater is not in the cards unless the neighbourhood association changes its mind radically), although they may show up after some of the more pressing work is taken care of. A skylight is definitely going in, though, & we just got a new refrigerator, & we had a new air conditioner put in last year, both of which are good for efficiency. In fact, however, I am concentrating my efforts on working actively for space development, including solar power satellites (which were endorsed by the Pentagon last year).

 

[RobertR]

I'm having trouble being optimistic that the opposition to nuclear power in this country (often bordering on the fanatical) is going to fade. Some have been sensible enough to change their position, but others have essential the same attitude they did 30 years ago.

 

[KurtEP]

It has been suggested (and I don't remember where, or I'd happily attribute it), that death is one of the greatest enhancers of progress, in that the old generation, with their set in ways, will ultimately die off and let the new generation take over. That said, I think $4 gasoline will move all but the die hards, and the die hards probably don't have the political muscle to make a real difference.

 

[Don Solosan]

1. I'm with Christopher in that we'll never run out, simply because a lot of oil will not be economically feasible to extract. By most estimates I've seen, our present fields are declining by 4-8% per year. At 7%, the amount of oil we're pumping will be halved every ten years. So new fields have to take up a lot of slack.

2. Presently, there is nothing that compares to oil for ease to acquire, transport, process. Everything else is a compromise.

2b. I think to replace all the energy we get from petroleum with nuclear-generated electricity, we'd have to build over a thousand new nuke plants in the US alone. And then, of course, if we still wanted the economy to grow, we'd have to start building another thousand. Problem: peak uranium. We need to think about sustainability.

3. I imagine the market forces will work on them as well, and eventually they'll change their ways.

4. Some solid leadership from the government would be nice. An option other than resource wars would be nice.

4b. Is this the "what else have we got to burn?" option?

5. I haven't owned a car for ten years, and yet I manage to get around Los Angeles as needed with mass transit/walking/biking. I haven't flown anywhere in several years. I've switched over to CFLs. I don't have AC. Other than the refrigerator, my appliances are on power strips than can be turned off so they're not drawing power in standby mode/whatever. My average daily electricity usage is about 2.5 kWh. I recycle plastic, aluminum, glass, etc. I also try to limit my water usage. SoCal Edison has an option where you can pay a bit more and the money goes to electricity from alternative sources; I presently don't subscribe because my finances are fairly tight. But if they start charging more to build some solar condensing plants in the desert, I wouldn't write angry letter to the Times.

I am what they call a "doomer" over at peakoil.com. I think we are in for some tremendous changes and they are going to be painful because people like to hang on to the familiar.

 

[Brian Perry]

Not only would the lack of oil require big change, but it is scary to think of what the world's oil producers will do when there's no oil to sell. How do you run your country when 90%+ of your GDP was from oil and it's gone? I would think that this is why new energy technologies would likely come from those regions, as they have the most to lose.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Market prices on NG and Coal electricity and global warming fears will have a positive effect. Most credible environmental organizations are getting behind nuclear energy, one by one, these days.

 

[Shane D]

i've never figured out why oil is even on the stock market. unless you can make fuel oil is useless to you. It should be something between the refineries and the oil pumpers.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Solar really isn't expensive if you consider lifespan. I'm seriously considering it for my house. As a matter of fact, as energy costs continue to go up, Solar becomes more and more attractive. Don't know about wind. I switched to all CFLs long ago, I carpool or ride my motorcycle to work, I keep my thermostat cold in the winter and hot in the summer, my house is designed with some smart features (lots of south facing windows with desiduous trees - means I get sunlight/heat in the winter and shade in the summer), I live in a New Urbanist neighborhood, which means I can walk instead of driving to schools, shopping, parks.

The good news about Peak Oil is that by definition when it peaks and the peak is identified, we'll still have a CRAPLOAD of it being produced, by necessity, since it is near the peak. Also, the run-off will be slow because of the negative impact that low prices has had on exploration for the last 20 years. There's a lot of oil out there that wasn't worth even looking for when oil was $20/barrel. Also, more good news is that nuclear fission is now a mature proven technology. Yes, there have been two large scale disasters, one of which was catastrophic, but the technology has progressed so much since then, and learned so much from those incidents. Read about the Gen-4 project here. The fact is, with known technology, nuclear can last literally thousands of years. All we need is the will to do it.

The one wildcard is that in order to make electricity with nuclear energy, you coincedentally have the ability to make really scary really big bombs. Can the human race, always in conflict throughout our history, deal with this? That's what we'll find out. Chapter 1: Iran.

 

[Don Solosan]

"In which of these two areas do you see high mileage vehicles and efficient scooters/motorcycles and high usage of public transportation?"

Uhm, the new CAFE standards haven't even kicked in yet, so it's a little premature to say they aren't working! But in general I agree with you.

 

[Philip Hamm]

The old CAFE standards have proven to be generally meaningless. The new ones will also be meaningless for the same reason the first ones were.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Oil companies such as Exxon are on the stock market.

Oil is a commodity and is traded (like pork bellies) by buying at one price and selling at another. You are correct in the sense that when the oil (or any commodity that one buys) comes due you either take delivery (assuming that you are a refinery) or sell to someone else.

And there is the rub: you pretty much have to sell at the current market price and that may be lower than your purchase price.

 

[ThomasC]

If it's not renewable, then how will we never run out of it? If there's less and less every year, won't the supply someday go down to 0 or approach so close to 0 that it's no longer worth extracting?

 

[Don Solosan]

Chevron CEO: Market, not greed, driving gas prices - CNN.com

Chevron CEO is asked about peak oil; rather than poo-poo the idea, he acknowledges the difficulty in getting new supply out of the ground these days. He also doesn't lay the blame of high prices off on speculators; he says it's the cost of the crude.

"The old CAFE standards have proven to be generally meaningless. The new ones will also be meaningless for the same reason the first ones were."

Phillip, does that mean you were comparing European cars today to American cars back in the 70s/80s? Plus, I was under the impression that the fuel standards, lower speed limit, and people's cooperation in conserving put a rather large dent in the amount of oil we consumed. Some credit that with pushing the peak back from Hubbert's late 1990s projection.

"If it's not renewable, then how will we never run out of it? If there's less and less every year, won't the supply someday go down to 0 or approach so close to 0 that it's no longer worth extracting?"

Thomas, petroleum is found embedded in rock formations in varying degrees of viscosity. On average, they're only able to get 35-40% of the oil out of any field. What's left is so thick and embedded that even injecting steam, etc., doesn't dislodge it. So after the oil age is done, there will still be a lot of this oil left behind. An economist would say that eventually the price of oil will go so high that even this sludge will be profitable to produce, but it takes energy to extract oil (energy), and once that equation equals out, it's over.

This is known as EROEI: Energy Returned On Energy Invested.

 

[RobertR]

There was a long discussion on here with someone who was touting hydrogen as the solutiion to our energy problems, until he finally comprehended what people were telling him--that hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source, and that it takes more energy to get the hydrogen than it carries.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Those old CAFE standards never went away, they're still with us. The current debate is regarding changing the numbers to progressively make CAFE laws enforce more efficient vehicles. What made us more efficient in the late 70s and early 80s was high gas prices, not CAFE standards of the time.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Hydrogen means you can fuel a car with a nuclear reactor, a hydroelectric dam, wind power, and so on.

 

[KurtEP]

It also allows you to store things like solar or wind power indefinitely.

Also, regarding CAFE and similar measures versus the market, there is absolutely no reason why a CAFE type standard cannot work, other than the basic fact that it wasn't politically expedient over the past 30 years with cheap oil. The government has mandated plenty of equally onerous things on the automotive industry, mostly regarding safety, that may or may not have come around relying on market forces. It certainly took the market long enough to get interested in safety, probably long after the government did, from my recollection. I know that the auto industry was initially reluctant to put seat belts in cars because the public might perceive them to be unsafe. When you have a public that can be manipulated in such a manner, you need to move a bit past the market.

Also, instituting a CAFE type standard puts the burden on the automotive industry, for the most part. Of course, it will trickle down to the consumer to some extent (how much is debatable), but high fuel prices driven by supply shortages or taxes will hit consumers every day, and has a correspondingly harsh impact on those least able to afford it. This is especially problematic for taxes on fuel. Of course, if you just let the market handle it, you'll have the wild swings and market manipulation we are seeing now, plus you'll have the advantage of sending billions of American dollars to various countries whose interests are opposed to our own (are there any major oil producing nations that are actually good allies of ours?) Consider for a moment how much simpler foreign policy could be if we didn't have significant economic interests in places like the middle east and Venezuela.