Out of Gas 1098
Oil -- and energy in general -- has long been a big topic among
Slashdot readers. Predictions about The End of the Age of
Oil (about which, claims the subtitle, this book provides "all you need to know") certainly are not new --
and if civilization lasts long enough, one day they'll prove true.
It's nice to consider that automobiles aren't necessarily
tied to petroleum, but mine certainly runs on 87 octane gasoline,
and there aren't enough turkey guts or grease to power everything that we use petro-fuels for right now (though places like Iceland are trying hard to tap other sources). Current gas
prices (in the U.S. at any rate) are higher than they have been in a
decade or so, but in constant dollars, gasoline prices have certainly been worse. How much to panic, and when? Read on below for Arthur Smith (apsmith)'s brief review of David Goodstein's Out of Gas for a rather gloomy look at the future of oil-based energy.
Americans have started to notice prices at the pump with an unfamiliar '2' on the sign. Meanwhile, crude oil prices are hitting 13-year records close to $40 per barrel. As the International Energy Agency reports, there is "no relief in sight". All this should come as no surprise to readers of David Goodstein's Out of Gas - the only question is, have we left it too late to survive the inevitable shocks that are coming?| Out of Gas: All You Need to Know about the End of the Age of Oil | |
| author | David Goodstein |
| pages | 128 |
| publisher | W.W. Norton & Company |
| rating | 9/10 |
| reviewer | Arthur Smith |
| ISBN | 0393058573 |
| summary | Why replacing oil is the world's most urgent and ignored problem. |
In this slim and subtly illustrated volume Dr. Goodstein, physics professor and vice provost at Caltech, explains in clear and simple terms why the fossil fuel age is coming to an end. A "massive, focused commitment" is needed to develop alternatives, and every year of delay in that commitment adds immeasurably to future human suffering.
In years, or at best a decade, we will reach the global "Hubbert's peak" for conventional oil, when production starts to decline even with rising demand. Such a peak was reached for US production in 1970. "Foreign oil" has sustained us until now, but Goodstein shows why it cannot for much longer.
A number of books on this subject have come out in recent years, some very pessimistic about the future (for example Heinberg's "The Party's Over", which warns of a greatly decreased world population). Goodstein offers some hope in alternatives, substantially based on the analysis of climate scientist and space solar power advocate Martin Hoffert.
Solar-based renewables and fusion are the only long-run energy solutions. According to Goodstein, natural gas and nuclear fission can help tide us over. All of these have problems, with the most scalable (solar power from space) still the least mature. Goodstein's longest chapter discusses thermodynamics and the physical laws that explain usable energy and its relation to entropy. As a physicist, I was pleased and surprised to learn something from Goodstein's clear explanation here.
Goodstein also discusses global climate problems with continued use of fossil energy, particularly an increasing dependence on coal. He concludes: "Civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime in this century unless we find a way to live without fossil fuels."
There were a few minor things to complain about. Transitions between the chapters are too abrupt, perhaps caused by the wide range of discussion in such a short book. A few technical things seemed wrong - for example, it is quite feasible to run transportation systems off grid electricity (electric trains, subways, etc. do this) - would it be so hard to do it for personal transport too?
But Goodstein's book is the clearest explanation yet of our need to get beyond fossil fuels. Is it enough to get the public, and our leaders, actually paying attention?
You can purchase the Out of Gas: All You Need to Know about the End of the Age of Oil from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Great Article: (Score:5, Interesting)
A highly recommended read on what appears to be a similar topic. My favorite line:
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.
Re:Inflation. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Start by banning plastics for consumables (Score:5, Interesting)
What about alcohol? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, it would take very little to no modification to get a petrol car to run on grain alcohol.
Re:Inflation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Gas, oil & the U.S. military (Score:2, Interesting)
I.e. even if all cars & SUVs were electric/solar/bio, the U.S. would still have a huge demand for gas & oil to fuel the massive military machinery.
Can anyone here comment?
Re:Let's not forget synthetics...and politics... (Score:2, Interesting)
High gas prices are really detrimental to the US economy. For every penny increase in a gallon of gas, something like $1 billion dollars leaves the US to the middle east (please spare me any Iraq commentary.) In addition, that is money that people can't spend elseware so other businesses suffer. Also, think of people like taxi drivers or pizza delivery people. They can't raise their rates to compenstate. And what about people who are just making as is. People need cars to get work.
Excellent review of the book (Score:4, Interesting)
After reading these materials in early January of this year, as I watched oil prices rise higher and higher, I couldn't help but think about what I read!
The other interesting thing about this book is that it points out how petroleum provides us with benefits far beyond keeping our cars running. Plastics? Herbicides? Fungicides? CD-Rs? Certain medicines? All are dependent on keeping the oil flowing.
The only real answer is to reorganize society. (Score:5, Interesting)
Eventually, something will click in someone's head, and they will start to seek alternatives. I started looking at hybrids when my gas pump cut me off at $50.00 without filling my tank ('92 ford bronco, 11 mpg, 32 gallon tank). About a year later, I bought a VW New Beetle with the TDI (diesel) engine. Now it's *possible* to run my car with *no* foreign oil (biodiesel), and to date, about 1/3 of the fuel I've used has been from renewable sources, grown by my local farmers. It costs me $3.00 per gallon at the pump, but thanks ot a rebate program, I'm only paying $1.50 per gallon, net. I'd rather pay $3.00 to the benefit of my local farmer, and local economy, than sending it overseas to support societies that *hate* us. If I get particularly motivated (or more likely, when my warrantee is getting closer to expiration), I can recycle used vegetable oil into fuel at an estimated cost of $0.40-0.50 per gallon.
Not to mention the added benefit of getting 45 mpg without even trying. =)
James Howard Kunstler is my personal favourite "end-of-the-oil-age" critic. He takes the time to posit potential *solutions* to the problem of a transportation-dependent society.
For more on this subject see... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cost to society (Score:4, Interesting)
More generally (and more importantly) oil is underpriced, period. Look at the costs to society:
Re:Inflation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look around the room your in: --from here I have a desk, vinyl sided windows, two computers w/monitors, picture frames, book covers, folios, CDROMs, waste paper basket [and bag]. It seems that almost everything is made of petrol--people focus on the gas, but if it disappeared, lack of gas would not be the top problem on this list.
I'm curious to know how much petroleum goes to fuels vs products . . . anyone know?
Some related notes:
I believe that Chevron-Texaco posted its most profitable quarter EVER last month.
The process of petroleum use is so refined/efficient that it would be more efficient to simply burn the alternatives [e.g. corn-plastic] to heat the factories that petroleum-based products are fabricated in. [Or, this was the case a few years ago]. There's a long road of process engineering to hoe before we really even have the ability to replace petroleum in a serious manner [better start now!].
Rhetorical question: if the price of oil is not as high now as it was in 1981, why was the price of gas in 1981 about 1/3 of what is is now [adjusted, and from a US perspective]?
Adjustment is tough (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, what will change things is the rising price of gas. This is a big news item lately, and the reactions kind of freak me out. People everywhere are outraged, and want to know when this will be "fixed". Like maybe they'll go back down next month, or if we boycott ExxonMobil for 24 hours. This is crazy. In the long run, they're gonna go up, forever. It's a resource we have in finitie quantity. It's running out. As it runs lower, it will get more expensive, until eventually nobody is using it to power their cars.
In the short term, the US has far lower gas prices than European countries. It's not like "they're screwing you" with crazy, unjustifiable markup. If you really think that "Big Oil greediness" is to blame, I suggest you start your own gas company and sell for $1.25. You'll certainly have plenty of customers, if you can sustain that profit margin.
Re:Let's not forget synthetics...and politics... (Score:5, Interesting)
We've been led astray by believing the estimates of the OPEC nations with regards to their reserves. Well, the price they get, according to their agreement, is tied to how large their reserves are. There is zero incentive for any of the OPEC nations to provide an accurate estimate if it means lowering the number. In addition, many of the wells are pumping out large quantities of water that was pumped down into the oil fields to force out more oil. They are beginning to go "dry" so to speak.
Check out www.peakoil.net [peakoil.net] for more information.
Gloom and Doom Predictions in the 70's... (Score:2, Interesting)
Predictions worked! People were in a panic state. Lines at the gas pumps. Price of coal reached unbelieveable high. Life was good if you lived in Texas or West Virginia.
Re:Something good may yet come out of this (Score:3, Interesting)
If this is so, it would see that neither Europeans nor Americans are truely aware of what energy costs, both suffering from a tax induced distortion. And of the two the Americans would seem to have the least distorted notion of the price of energy.
Re:Start by banning plastics for consumables (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Start by banning plastics for consumables (Score:1, Interesting)
Any hydrocarbon compound that can be made from petroleum can be made from water and rock with a bit of input energy in the form of electricity. But more to the point, all plastics are not hydrocarbons.
It's worse than that (Score:5, Interesting)
What this probably means is that we screwed up when the mergers were allowed. Then again, we also screwed up 25-odd years ago when we used the half-assed measure of CAFE regulations instead of just taxing fuel. We screwed up again when we allowed the California Air Resources Board to try to mandate use of ZEVs (in practice, battery-only electric cars) before the battery technology was remotely ready rather than far more achievable HEVs. If 30% of all new vehicles sold in California since 1990 had been hybrids, we'd be way beyond Toyota and Honda technologically and the reduced fuel demand would have eliminated the refinery capacity squeeze too.
Right now we need to aim at plug-in hybrids, so that our cars aren't totally dependent on petroleum for energy. Even if they didn't get radically better mileage than current vehicles, the flexibility in energy supply would add elasticity to fuel demand and moderate prices.
Unlikely to run out of oil -- ever!! (Score:2, Interesting)
There are current theories (that the oil companies don't want you to consider) that suggest that oil does not originate in dinosaur-era plant life, but in reactions to high pressure and temperature in carbon-bearing rock in the earth's crust. See here [enviroliteracy.org] for an article.
Points to consider: Some of the major oil basins have no connection to the primordial seas, and are much deeper than life ever existed. Also, no remains of life have ever been found in oil-bearing rock. Lastly, the makeup of petroleum is consistent with what can be made from meteoric carbonaceous chondrite rock.
Re:Inflation. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think there's some sort of conspiracy to keep oil prices high, then you're just a kook because all the facts are against you. Why did gas prices ever come down after the 70s oil embargo if what you say is true? Why were gas prices at record lows two years ago? I guess "big oil" is pretty incompetent as well as evil.
It's a well-known fact that specialized region-specific formulations are taxing the snot out of refineries. It can take up to two weeks to shift to a new formulation of gasoline.
It's also a well-known fact that we're pretty much at peak refinery capacity.
It's also a matter of public record that EVERY time a refinery is proposed, enviro-wackos come out of the woodwork and scream and holler until the idea is killed.
Gas and GasOil alternatives (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, Brazil prouduces alcohonafta (alcohol from "can~a de azucar") that can be used as a direct replacement for GAS (the mesures shows a 20% power drop from GAS).
For GasOil there's bio-diesel produced from any vegetal oil (simply choose the cheapest one) that works great for big diesel engines (I'm not so sure if it works on direct injection diesel engines).
Both options are far more clean that traditional petroleum based Gas.
Obviously there's no enough surface in the world to produce enough alcohonafta or bio-diesel to run every engine out there, but you can replace a lot of the consumed petrol, slowing down the burn out rate, giving time for the world to migrate to more eficient internal combustion engines (that can be drive with the world produced alcohonafta).
Fly-Weels are doesn't allow big shocks becouse of it giroscopic nature, and would require a hole new kind of machinery, while acohonafta won't change current technology.
As far as I remembered alcohonafta is profitable when petrol exceeds U$S40 the barrel (nowadays), I'm not so sure about bio-diesel but I think it's about U$S35 the barrel.
Re:Inflation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For more on this subject see... (Score:1, Interesting)
Thomas Gold's home page is here [cornell.edu], with html versions of several papers. Definately worth a read, especially The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth [cornell.edu].
By the way, one of the factors pushing prices up is that China now has a major demand for oil products, which wasn't true even a few years ago.
about geothermal energy (Score:3, Interesting)
in january i had the pleasure of visiting the largest such natural steam generator facility in the world on another island cursed/ blessed with geothermal activity, on the island of leyte in the philippines [calenergy.com]
it powers virtually the entire island, for free, as well as parts of samar and lower luzon
the natural steam sources are really quite amazing up there in the mountains: it is always raining, for example, downslope from the facilities because of all of the steam that is always issuing forth... and run off rivers of steaming brilliant cobalt blue from superheated hyperdissolved minerals from deep in the earth mixing with the cold muddy waters in the middle of the mountain jungle... and to find, deep in the poor rural mountain jungles where water buffalo roam free on dirt roads and unhusked rice dries by the roadside, to find what looks like an evil genius's lair of ultramodern technology and giant steaming generators surrounded by nervous machine gun toting filipino forces at military checkpoints
unfortunately, a few weeks after i visited the facility, it was overrun by local npa (communist) guerrillas... this was tied to election politics in the philippines, where remote rural guerilla forces often demand protection money in exchange for allowing voting to proceed... it would be hoped that the poor rural areas in the mountains north of ormoc city around lake danao [mobilemediaph.com] would benefit from this facility more directly through tourist facilities and other infrastructure development
then they would be invested in the success of the plant, rather than it having be controlled by manila and calenergy from afar
but for those who are hellbent on imagining a dystopic future where civilization fails because we don't make the transition from oil to fusion energy, for example, know that there are oases in the world like iceland and leyte where mankind's power hungry needs can and will be satsified for centuries to come, virtually for free
Fission and coal, if we have to (Score:5, Interesting)
Nuclear waste disposal isn't really a problem. It's a political football in the US, but that's a political problem, not a technical one. There are rock formations that have been stable for twenty million years. (Yucca Mountain isn't one of them, though.)
The problem is Chernoybl-sized disasters and air pollution from the coal. Everybody worries about the first, but the second is more dangerous.
Re:Inflation. (Score:2, Interesting)
From this article [detnews.com]
Just because our total price is lower doesn't mean we have no right to complain. In fact, one might wonder why Europeans tolerate such outrageous taxes on gasoline.
Doomsayers (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you know that the average mile per gallon today in the US is lower than in the mid-80s?
What would be the reduction in gas consumption if we all dumped our SUVs and bought Honda Civics?
Now, what if we then switched to Hybrids?
What if we gave up the back seat for our one-person commute and we all switched to smart cars?
What if we equipped said smartcars with super-efficient bicycle-like wheels as California is suggesting we do?
Mark my words: in two years people won't be able to give away for free their gas guzzling SUV (people who are old enough will remember that in the late 70s you could not give away your LTD Crown Victoria).
WAY simplistic (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't even need a book, a simple two line graph will suffice. One graph shows world wide demand-that is going UP. Another graph line shows production-that will be going down as fields leave their "peak" where it's the cheapest to extract in terms of BTU's --> in to get BTU's -- out. Those lines will cross, then go in opposite directions, and the result is quite literally madmax, the movie, in spades.
In most fields outside the middle east, it's passed peak, and even the big fields in the middle east it's getting closer.
Those lines more or less cross within 15 years most places, some places earlier, other places later, but short of them developing some extremely energy efficient extraction techniques, and especially something that doesn't require high pressure water injection, we will be enscrewed.
BUT, the hard choices will not be made until it's too late to do much about it. We should already be using a significant proportion of the worlds petroleum energy to mass produce alternative enrgy devices, instead, we are using only a tiny fraction, waiting for the Mr. Fusion back yard perpetual motion machine generator.
Nuts, but there ya go.
I also think the "proven reserve" numbers aren't accurate, I think it's less in the middle east than what they say, but slightly more in the arctic circle. And there's some more to be gained in the gulf of mexico, etc, currently off limits to drilling, but once fuel gets to be about 5$ a gallon in the US, you won't find many people who give a care where we drill, unlike now when it's still fatcity and cheap and no one really is hurting yet-easy to complain OR ignore the problem as long as you are well fed, comfy, and want for naught. Once that changes, we could see what are euphemistally called in history books "major social changes".
Stuff can happen FAST, too, I personally paid 10$ a gallon for two gallons max back in the OPEC embargo days. And it doesn't matter how much you whine about it when it happens, scam or no scam, you pay, or walk. And with the current middle east situation, chaos theory says-you don't know, the whole dang place over there could el kaboom any day. No one can say it won't, you can't say it will, but the posibility is there for major war to seriously disrupt supply, and that would effect everyone in any nuymber of ways, irregardless if they are an urban bicycle/mass transit rider or not.
We are just way too dependent on oil, our entire economies revolve around it.
Heck, I just came in for a breather, about to go back outside and climb onto a diesel powered tractor, without that diesel, I can't work. PERIOD. Multiple that by another billion guys around the planet, one way or the other everyone goes to work, and diesel and gas make it happen. We simply cannot replace it, even by a massive switch to coal, can't be done now.
Distributism (Score:2, Interesting)
Nah, that's TOO easy.
Dismally Realistic Science (Score:4, Interesting)
Bully for you!
In the long run, of course, we are all dead, but also in the long run human cultures can and will adapt to a world of incredibly expensive, rare oil.
The question is whether that is a world that can sustain 8+ billion people at anything like the current astonishing consumption rate.
I'm given to understand that economists spend a lot of time measuring the theoretical epiphenomenon known as "productivity" within an "economy". I put it to you that a major input into measurements of productivity is in fact trapped solar energy in the form of fossil fuels.
The transition from a medieval society based on slaves/serfs and water/wind power to the consumption of fossil fuels on a vast, increasing scale over past few centuries is what has enabled us to move from agrarian to an urban societies. We no longer require vast armies of slaves and serfs to till our fields and shit in them - instead we burn fossil fuels to till the, and convert more fossil fuels into fertiliser. By burning 400 years worth of solar energy input every year, we have increased producitivty massively, freeing up hundreds of millions of bodies to work in urban manufacturing and service jobs. We have created our economies, literally, by burning fossil fuels.
Unlike economics, physics and geology doesn't work in a vacuum or a finely divisible continuum of graduated, switchable inputs. There is a finite limit to growth, dictated by several realities: total solar output, diameter of the earth, effectiveness of photosynthesis, energy conversion efficiencies, and so on. We could, as you say, transition our cultures to move from fossil fuels to other power sources, but what are the consequences?
Re:Inflation. (Score:3, Interesting)
I say make gas more expensive, tax the shit out of it and get some better public transportation going (much of which already is running on Natural Gas or electricity). We need a kick in the ass to hopefully knock us out of such an extreme dependancy.
Re:Coal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Do some google searching, there is quite a lot of research going on to use Fischer-Tropsch to produce renewable fuels.
Still a Peak (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if you accept this hypothesis, you still run into a crunch because the rate of metabolysis for oil is incredibly slow over human timescales. Whereas our economic growth rate and thirst for oil is incredibly rapid by comparison. Waiting for new petrol to be squeezed out of rocks is not going to keep those Hummers on the roads!
We, the US, brought this on ourselves... (Score:5, Interesting)
See, when that crazy SOB was running loose in Iraq, Saudia Arabia and the other OPEC nations were scared. They needed their big buddy, the US, to keep him in line. Now that he is gone and Iraq has declined into a state of continuous *local* guerrilla war, the possibility of Kuwait or Saudia Arabia being invaded is zero. So now, things are a little different between the US and OPEC. Sure, we did them a huge favor by removing Saddam, but now, the US has nothing over them. So, if oil prices should drift up and up and up. So sorry. Pay me, sucker.
Re:On a related note.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:These are all lies (Score:5, Interesting)
----------
George Washington - In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own... No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
Herbert Hoover - It is a dedication and consecration under God to the highest office in service of our people. I assume this trust in the humility of knowledge that only through the guidance of Almighty Providence can I hope to discharge its ever-increasing burdens.
James Monroe - with my feverent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection that he has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor.
William Harrison - I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness.
John Adams - And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue his blessing upon this nation and its government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.
Calvin Coolridge - America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions. The legions which she sends forth are armed, not with the sword, but with the cross. The higher state to which she seeks the allegiance of all mankind is not of human, but of divine origin. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God.
Dwight Eisenhower - This is the hope that beckons us onward in this century of trial. This is the work that awaits us all, to be done with bravery, with charity, and with prayer to Almighty God.
Teddy Roosovelt - No people on earth have more cause to be thankful than ours, and this is said reverently, in no spirit of boastfulness in our own strength, but with gratitude to the Giver of Good who has blessed us with the conditions which have enabled us to achieve so large a measure of well-being and of happiness.
Woodrow Wilson - I summon all honest men, all patriotic, all forward-looking men, to my side. God helping me, I will not fail them, if they will but counsel and sustain me.
FDR - The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world. So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly--to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for all our fellow men--to the achievement of His will to peace on earth.
Abe Lincoln - Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
Re:Running out of gas (Score:5, Interesting)
What Hubbert, and so many of his followers fail to realize is the reason U.S. oil production peaked in the 70's. It had nothing to do with failing reserves, or empty oil fields. It had everything to do with rising costs for extracting oil in the U.S. My family has owned mineral rights in western Oklahoma for over 100 years (land rush in 1889). The first oil and gas wells were drilled on family land around 1940. From about 1978 untill 2002, those wells were pumping at "maintenance levels" only. This means they pumped just enough to keep the self lubrication working and fill the holding tanks as slowly as possible. This was because, the cost of maintenance and transport in the U.S. for that time meant that a barrel of oil cost the oil company $38 to deliver it to the refinery. During that same time avareage world oil prices were $20 - $35 per barrel. The royalty checks for the family, that used to run $4,000 a month or more during the 60's dropped to a couple hundred a month during the 80's and 90's. Most of the family sold thier share of the mineral rights during that time. Now, with higher oil prices those wells are being put back into pruduction and the royalty checks are looking better. Last estimate we received from the oil company surveyors was that we still have probably over 50 million barrels sitting under our land. But if the price per barrel drops again, our wells will be shut back down until they can be profitable.
Re:Let's not forget synthetics...and politics... (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me an optimist, but stateside, I expect gas to hit around 4 or 5 dollars in the next few years, per capita consumption to go way down, plenty of lifestyle changes (I'll probably riding a bike to 5 miles work in a few months, after the heat goes down here in Texas and I buy a new bike), and globally, a slowing down in population growth... Expect more 'oil companies' to continue rebranding themselves as energy companies.
Re:Inflation. (Score:3, Interesting)
Its also not just the taxes that make gasoline more expensive in Europe than America. You also have to figure out the currency equation too. Oil is priced in dollars, not euros or sterling. Heck, I think the North Sea Oil is even priced in dollars.
One of the dire predictions in the alarmist book entitled "Euroquake" was that the Arab oil producing counties would grow even more angry with U.S. support of Israel and would counter the perceived inequality by changing the pricing of oil to euros. Saddam tried to do that with the oil-for-food program but even the UN shot down that idea. Now if oil was priced in euros in the markets, us in the U.S. would be out more money for gasoline, especially if the euro continues to appreciate in value against the dollar.
Re:www.dieoff.org - depressing news for you (Score:3, Interesting)
That can be explained, as you are suggesting, by reserves being more difficult to find.
Unfortunately, that phenomenon can also be explained by simple economics. For the past few decades it has been (nearly) financial suicide to engage in oil exploration. Domestic (U.S.A.) exploration has continued to dwindle. The decline can largely be explained by price uncertainty.
It costs 6 or 7 figures to bring a single well online.
Will it produce? Dunno for sure until it is online.
How much will it produce? Dunno for sure until it is online.
How long will it produce? Dunno for sure until it is online.
How much water will need to be removed from the oil? Dunno for sure until it is online.
How much will it cost to extract the oil? Dunno for sure until it is online.
Here's the killer:
What will the spot price of oil be if and when I get my well online?
Dunno.
Will I ever get my money back from the well?
Dunno.
Exploration is risky. Right now there is plenty of known oil. Until the price volatility gets removed from crude prices, few will explore. Those (not well funded) groups that do explore will get killed the next time OPEC gluts the market and shakes out the weaker competitors.
None of this has anything to do with how much oil is underground.
Goodstein's colleague seems to disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone in the audience mentioned Goodstein and Lewis made kind of a scoffing noise. Lewis seemed very skeptical of Goodstein's estimates of how soon we will run out of coal.
The real problem, according to Lewis, as I understood it, is not that we will run out of oil, but that we will probably not be able to meet energy demands without putting significantly more carbon into the air than there has been in the last half million years.
Re:In the land of empty tanks (Score:4, Interesting)
The real problem here is not that cars will be fucked -- which they will be if they still run on petroleum -- it's that most people live WAY too far from work and from markets/shops/etc.
I walk to work and do most of my shopping on foot or bike. If worst comes to worst, I can do it all by foot: because I live *in* a city and the things I need are convenient.
If we don't have alternative fuel sources when the shit hits the fan, I predict the suburbs/exurbs will become 21st century ghost towns.
Re:Inflation. (Score:4, Interesting)
Taxing the shit out of petroleum in the U.S. would have consequences so dire you can't even begin to imagine. The United States is NOT Europe. Most people live 20 to 30 miles away from their place of work with some living even farther. Because of the lack of a usable and succesful form of mass transit in most U.S. cities, a massive gasoline tax would take a huge amount of money right out of the hands of the people keeping our economy alive. The U.S. rail system is not an option in many cases, and remember that most every consumer product you buy is shipped for the most part by diesel trucks. The United States isn't Europe, and a high tax is ABSOLUTLY NOT the first step to reducing dependence on the automobile.
1. Build and finance usable forms of mass transit
2. Make sure that the public transit is capable of sucessfully allowing wage workers to commute.
3. Gradually make cars less attractive.
Economics motivation for conservation (Score:5, Interesting)
The US has a VERY large reserve of oil, and the world's oil fields are completely under produced. We have at least enough oil for 50-100 more years, unless everyone in China & India start to drive. US consumption can be supported for quite some time.
Either way, if you think that gas-powered cars are evil, you should be rooting for higher oil prices. Otherwise, no serious effort will be made for alternatives.
That said, a serious effort at an alternative has been found and it is called nuclear energy (pronounced "new-clear" -- i know these new fangled science terms are hard).
It harnesses the power of the atom and can be made small enough to power your small car or large enough to power your small country.
Too bad that people think it is unsafe. It is understandable though, given a total of ZERO deaths caused by meltdowns in the western world.
Umm Ethanol (Score:4, Interesting)
Much of this country's corn is wasted, or sent to other places as 'aid'. We dont need any of the gasoline we are using now.
Even most lubricant oil can be replaced with soy oil..
The only real reason we still have an oil industry is due to the $$ it generates for washington.
Methanol from coal. (Score:5, Interesting)
Coal is in the long run a better choice because we have so much of it--about four trillion tons in the US alone which translates roughly to 8 trillion barrels (global oil reserves are estimated at about 1 trillion barrels). One problem is that coal conversion plants are relatively expensive to build, and since there's little demand right now we don't have the capacity to start producing huge quantities immediately if there is a sudden spike in gas prices.
Methanol has about half the energy density of gas (so you'd have to refill more often) but it also has lower emissions. On the other hand the lower emissions are offset by the environmental damage from coal recovery, i.e. strip mining.
Re:Inflation. (Score:3, Interesting)
Here [monbiot.com] he mentions the Iraqi war may have had more to do with the US dollar than WMDs or Human rights, and here's [monbiot.com] another look at falling oil supplies.
Re:misunderstandings (Score:2, Interesting)
Only for political reasons, not for technical ones. It would be relatively straightforward to select a standard reactor design which was in the top 10 designs for productivity, and the top two for safety, and say "all reactors will be of this model." At that point, we could pretty much drop them anywhere we wanted (where there is a water source for the steam turbines).
Any given reactor takes a couple of years to actually build, starting from levelling some ground. We could build 100 reactors in 10 years if we wanted to.
Re:www.dieoff.org - depressing news for you (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, someone did. In 1997. If you do a WayBack search for the site in this thread, dieoff.org, you'll find this tidbit:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980113194457/dieoff.o rg/page128.htm [archive.org]
Jay Hanson predicted a war in Iraq in 1997, and he thought that it would coincide with a peak in oil prices that could occur around 2005. Search on that page for the word Iraq and you'll find this:
Rather chilling, I think. A conspiracy theory, yes. And I had to don my tinfoil hat while reading it. But the prediction is thought provoking. He was right about the war, but he was wrong in that he predicted the American people would throw their support behind a war for oil. In fact we didn't go to war for oil, we went to war to find weapons of mass destruction. Which we haven't found.
Tin foil had still on ...
Re:Grmbl... (Score:2, Interesting)
And, no, I did not and do not support the war in Iraq (which is not a war anymore, since it's over, or so we have been told by US officials) Besides, just assuming that the Iraq war was because of oil, the prices in the US should be lower than ever and in Europe even higher than now. After all, we would probably not get any of the oil of Iraq pushing up our prices.
There is probably not a "next country on the hitlist", because for that the US needs more troops, resulting in more bloodshed and that doesn't look good just before an election.
Just coal alone is enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Repeat after me, Synthetic Fuel. It's made from coal. The technology is mature, Germans fought during WWII using it. The only problem is that there is no guarantee of prices going down! Last synthetic fuel factory in Germany was closed in sixties being unable to compete with ultra-cheap arab oil. When investors will be sure that prices will stay high we'll see factories popping around the world.
Re:Economics motivation for conservation (Score:2, Interesting)
No major disagreements here, but ... I believe (and hope) that economic growth in Asia over the next 50 years wiil be such that everyone in China & India will start to drive.
Re:Let's not forget synthetics...and politics... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is what ExxonMobil has to say about the matter. [peakoil.net] Hardly scaremongering.
Add to the mix the fact that some oil companies have been overestimating their oil reserves, [chemicalnewsflash.de] and you have a looming problem that is notscaremongering. Are we adapting (using our oil resources more wisely/conserving)? Not really. [doc.gov]
Unfrotunately, any debate on oil quickly degenerates into partisan bickerring. The fact remains tha gasoline is cheap and we are used to it. Adjusted for inflation, we should be paying almost twice of what we are used to. [fintrend.com] Like it or not, we are headed for sharply higher oil prices. This will likely provide a shock to the stock market [fintrend.com] and and a related price rise in other comodities we consume.BTW, none of theses views are from "liberal environmentalist caremongerers" (whoever the heck they are.)
Cheers- raga
Totalitarian, or patriotic? (Score:3, Interesting)
But looking at both reponses, let's explore further
I'm not saying massive government intervention is always the answer, but I think the free market is going to need some help on this one. Maybe the combination can get us to biodiesel/electic hybrid engines.
Tommorow is Bike To Work Day (Score:2, Interesting)
Turkey Guts (Score:3, Interesting)
Changing World Technologies [changingworldtech.com] is the company behind the "turkey guts" thermal depolymerization (TDP) plant in Carthage, MO, USA.
Running some back of the envelope calculations shows some interesting figures. First establish what we use today. In 2002, the United States used an estimated [nationmaster.com] 19.7 million barrels. Per day.
A plant of this size produces 180,000 barrels of oil per year; it is claimed that this is over and above the energy it uses. That works out to 493.15 barrels per day out of 200 tons each day. There are 160 million tons [wastecapwi.org] of wood waste per year (1998 figures) alone. That works out to 1,080,876 barrels per day if we assume the same conversion rate of 200 tons of organic matter to 493.15 barrels per day. 5.4% of our daily total oil demand from wood waste alone. Enough to affect prices at the margin, where it counts. At current rates, we will import 68% [biodiesel.org] of our oil by 2025. This same reference cites DOE figures that say we currently import about 50%, or about 10 million barrels. If we put this in place today, the percentage of imports this represents rises to 10.8%.
Pulling our focus back a bit, we find that agriculture produces about 1 billion tons of waste per year. Remember, agricultural waste streams are not the only feedstock; some manufacturing waste streams are also eligible. But for the sake of back of the envelope calculations, let's assume that all eligible waste streams for TDP amounts to 1 billion tons [tufts.edu] per year. That works out to 6,755,479 barrels per day, or about 67% of daily import demand today.
Even if we project out increased demand for petroleum in the future, the potential for this technique to affect prices at the margin should not be dismissed out of hand. It is highly unlikely that we can use this technique (assuming all the engineering, business and logistical details are worked out --- the reaction chambers need to be calibrated for the feedstock, and they don't have many "recipes" worked out yet, and don't even know what is or is not feasible) to supplant import demand. Fortunately, we don't need it to wholesale replace imports: if we can make it affect the marginal price, that's still a useful tool in our national assets.
If the Changing World folks really are on the up and up, and they produce a small net of oil from these big brother versions of the pilot plant, then this is a strong piece of evidence for the school of thought who contend that market mechanisms will produce solutions as the need arises. As others in this thread have already pointed out, we certainly have nowhere approached the theoretical physics-imposed limits of available energy that can be gathered from the sun.
Re:Fission and coal, if we have to (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Inflation. (Score:3, Interesting)
I spent 10 years pulling klunkers from feed chutes because of this. The coal dust and deisel fuel will colect at certain points and you need to blast them out with small explosives. usually at least once a year.
Well, they didn't leave any buffalo for me! (Score:2, Interesting)
We will use all the oil until its gone, that is just human nature. Then we will make the change and not until.
Oh and as I said before just fix the F@#King traffic problems and we would save plenty of gas. Build some more roads, work from home, stagger office hours etc. If you cut 5 minutes off everyones drive time
Re:Water, not Oil. (Score:2, Interesting)