Posted on 08/13/2004 10:47:51 AM PDT by spetznaz
Quick, how many years will it be before the world runs out of oil? Don't know? Join the club. Actually, choose one of several clubs, each of which vehemently disagrees with the others on how much usable crude is left on the earth. The question is far from an academic exercise: This year oil hit a near record-high $40 a barrel, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group downgraded its reserves by 4.5 billion barrels.
While consumers pay for perceived shortages at the pump, scientists and economists struggle to reach consensus over "proven oil reserves," or how much oil you can realistically mine before recovery costs outstrip profits. Economist Leonardo Maugeri of Italian energy company Eni fired up the debate this May with an essay in Science that accused the "oil doomsters" of crying wolf.
Chief among the pessimists is the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, a group of European scientists who estimate that maximum oil production around the globe will peak in 2008 as demand rises from developing economies such as China. "If you squeezed all the oil in Iraq into a single bottle, you could fill four glasses, with the world consuming one glass of oil each year," says physicist and ASPO president Kjell Aleklett. "We've consumed nine bottles since oil was discovered, and we have another 9 or 10 in the refrigerator. How many more are there? Some say five or six, but we say three."
Others believe, like Maugeri, that the number of glasses is virtually limitless......
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
Apples and oranges. You can't directly compare the efficiencies of fuel cells and IC engines like that. When you look at the entire energy cycle, you find that fuel cells aren't better, just different. In the end, the energy still comes from oil.
Fuel Cells that DON'T run on hydrocarbons will be a reality in 20 years (Bush even talked about it his State of the Union Adress).
Hydrogen fuel cells have been around a long time. It's pretty basic chemistry, and all the hand waving about research is political theater for the scientifically ignorant.
Fuel Cell Generators for homes already exist, but nobody's really buying them yet. They'll proliferate too.
That's a joke. Fuel cells just store energy, they aren't a source of energy.
Hydrogen power plants? Yup, they're 20 - 30 years away.
If you are talking about fusion, you're wishing. Fusion is snake oil.
If you are talking about chemically burning hydrogen, well, you are either talking more snake oil or you are scientifically illiterate.
Do you honestly believe that the envirowackos wouldn't put up a fight?
I am not sure I would agree with the 'hydrogen economy' future... you see hydrogen is really an awkward fuel to store and transport, takes up too much space. gasoline is so much easier.
but the trend is right: from coal to gasoline to lighter high density energy, to ...
the ELECTRON is the real end of the rainbow.
I think we could go more to a Nuclear + electric economy, with fossil fuels in 50 mpg vehicles for part of transportation solution and electric vehicles taking up the slack.
In that scenario, our oil consumption could fall by 3/4s. meaning we could be self-sufficient in oil again if we drilled off Cali and in ANWR.
very high density batteries and induction-based charging on roadbeds is at least as realistic as cheap fuel cells (fuel cell and batteries are similar technologies anyway).
We'll have fusion power 10 or 15 years after we get serious about it...which is to say, you're an optimist.
The best way to make hydrogen would be nuclear (fission) power plants that create hydrogen as a 'side production' to generating electricity.
This would be a fossil-fuel free energy cycle.
but the REAL problem is our true promising non-fossil-fuel energy source - NUCLEAR - is the same energy source the enviro-whackos just hate.
thanks to them, we are more dependent on fossil fuels than we should be.
Are you talking about raw "tar" or synthetic crude?
Cool, add the algee farms to the windmills in Texas, Nebraska, and N Dakota and we can provide all the energy this whole country needs for as long as the sun lasts or until the Lord returns.
Finished crude in the pipe, leaving Alberta.
I think the $30 figure for oil shale is a little old. I saw that figure in 1980 or so. The waste material (processed shale) is also a problem... It becomes 33 percent larger after the oil is harvested.
BITS
Given the fact that, for all intents and purposes, any real geophysical prospecting for new finds stopped in second order oil producing areas (such as the US) during the 1980s, due to the inexpensive overseas sources and green whacko regs here, it would take quite a while to know the answer.
Then there are diesels which can burn veg' oil.
I've been thinking of a 6.6 L 4 X .... ;)
I am certain that direct coal liquefaction would be economical with crude at $45/bbl.
I see lots of talk about oil as an energy source, but what about oil as a raw material? To my mind, that's the real dilemma posed by dwindling petroleum supplies.
I believe that we will continue to use a kind of gasoline for transportation fuel for centuries - very simply, there is no way to store combustible fuel with the same combination of low cost, high energy density, relative safety, and ease of transportation and use. So what about "peak oil", and the end of cheap oil? Well, when the natural supplies run low, we will make more.
What about hydrogen as fuel? The fact is that gasoline is one of the most compact and convenient ways to store hydrogen that exists. Octane - the major component - is almost 16% hydrogen by weight, while water (we have oceans full of hydrogen!) is only about 11%. And hydrogen can be extracted from gasoline in an EXOTHERMIC reaction, without requiring external power except to get it started, unlike water.
Yes, it will be more expensive. It might even approach the cost of drinking water, but we will pay the price, because it works so well. I think that we will make some changes to accommodate the higher cost. "Pure" hybrids will become the standard transportation vehicle. They already have displaced all other power sources for one of our most important commercial transportation systems, the railroads. The idea that tiny, cramped cars with hybrid drives are something brand new is laughable when you think about how long the diesel locomotive has been around.
And this would enable another innovation that would drastically reduce our need for liquid transportation fuels.
Imagine city streets - and major intercity routes - equipped with some kind of spot charging facilities that could transmit power to these electric cars, enabling them to shut off their on-board generation facilities and operating pollution free. No, I don't think we know how to do this yet, except for 3rd rail and trolley systems, but I think it could happen with research. And if so, you would be free to drive wherever you wish, using the transportation grid or your on board generator and motor fuel as necessary based on availability.
The power grid would require expansion, but not need a great deal of extra capacity to drive our entire transportation system.
So that's my idea - does anyone have a better one?
In order to believe that Oil comes from decayed animal life (fossil fuel) I have to believe that a COLOSSAL amount of animals died in just certain places on earth!!
Why can't oil be produced by SAND because from what I see, SAND is the common denominator as to where oil is discovered....under the sea...in the desert. Is it POSSIBLE that "fossil fuel" is a misnomer? FLAME AWAY!!!!
I'm very interested in this. I remember back in the 70's that people started talking about tar sands and oil shale when OPEC first started controlling production. I haven't heard about either much since oil prices collapsed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.