Posted on 08/19/2006 7:56:28 PM PDT by nicollo
As the Auto Age Dawned, Gasoline Wasn't King
By Steven Levingston Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, August 13, 2006; F01
D.H. Killeffer had a dire warning for gasoline-greedy Americans. The chemical engineer had crunched the numbers -- he compared the country's production of crude oil with its thirst for gasoline. "Estimates based on the most complete data now available place the end of our gasoline supply between ten and twenty years, with the odds in favor of ten rather than twenty," Killeffer, secretary of the New York division of the American Chemical Society, wrote in the New York Times.
The year was 1925.
Gasoline-powered travel was still new enough, Killeffer thought, that it was possible to break an incipient addiction to the fuel. "The general public is not necessarily committed to the gasoline-operated automobile for its transportation," he wrote. "It need not worry if it should become more economical in the future to fall back on steam or on electricity to get itself and its goods from one place to another. Even horses might again come into use in such a way as to supply the necessary transportation."
As a first recourse, Killeffer urged the auto industry to improve the efficiency of its engines. But because, as he said, "the end of petroleum and of gasoline as we now know them is imminent," he also encouraged a wide-ranging exploration for the best alternative fuel. He placed his bet on alcohol-powered engines.
Killeffer, obviously, was no prophet. But he stands as a telling symbol of where we have been and, it seems, where we will always be: fretting about the supply of gasoline and which fuel, if any, can provide a cheaper and more plentiful alternative.
... snip ....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So he sought me out, and I assisted with the article, but not so as to correct some of the problems in it. (Basically, my ideas didn't jibe with his thesis.) Nevertheless, the writer was earnest and honest, and it's a good article. It shows, however, how quick looks at history can be misleading. He came up with the idea for the article after discovering in the historical newspaper databases a 1925 pronouncement of the coming end of petroleum fields. Not knowing the context of 1925, he made some poor assumptions. In 1924, for example, the government announced that national oil production was down from the previous year. This alarmed many into thinking the oil had run out, whereas the real cause was lower prices following the 1920 depression and the introduction of cheap CA oil, both of which suppressed extraction in the East and Midwest.
As for why gasoline, the Post writer set it straight with this, coming from me:
"Against competing technologies, gasoline ultimately won because it was inherently a more useful form of storing energy," said Michael L. Bromley, a automobile historian in Bethesda.
Freepers will note that the (com)Post article does not mention the, perhaps, greatest oil-running-out prediction, Hubbert's 1956 "peak oil" theory. The Post writer deliberately limited his discussion to the 1920s and before. We've had plenty enough discussions of peak oil here, so Freepers ought to be plenty familiar with that theory.
One comment about it: peak oil does not accommodate price reactions to/from supply, so it serves no other purpose than, right or wrong, to define when a particular oil field has "peaked." It says nothing about the usefulness of petroleum or its alternatives. For that, see my blog, as per the above link.
Come October, watch for Diesel cars to get a big push. And watch for Honda's diesel. They could possibly change how history looks at diesel engines; as being clean burning and better than gasoline engines.
If they had, we'd have run out much sooner and would now be back to the horse and buggy.9?Luddite)
The enviros will kill it, just like they kill any other diesel out there. About 15 years ago the ford ranger was available with a diesel. Got 55mpg on the highway and 40 around town. Environazis killed it off quick.
What is the supposed advantage with diesel? Does it take less crude to make a gallon?
No they won't. New EPA rules regarding the formulation for diesel take effect. Many car companies, including Honda, have ultra clean burning diesel engines that you won't even know are running diesel (no smog or clanking diesel sounds that we associate with diesel engines).
That's because THEY didn't need it.
ADvantages include better gas mileage( 20-30% better than gas), no additives like gas (ethanol) and much better torque than gas. Honda says that their diesel will comply with Cali's strict requirements. It's my hope that diesel makes hybrids obsolete.
All I remember about the Olds Cutlass diesel I bought from my folks in 1983 was that is was useless in Detroit in January unless I could garage it or park near an electrical outlet. Is climate still an issue with the current generation of diesels?
I do remember that it was otherwise largely maintenance free as long as you changed the oil regularly.
I don't know about extreme weather...i am sure with really cold weather it could but that's the same with gas engines (hence why they sell heater blocks). But, you'll save fuel when you drive to AA during the Winter to get deli at Zingermans.
And may U of Mi actually win more than 7 games this year and win their bowl game.
Innerestin'
Making a note to check it out next time.
Diesel was king in 1979/80, but only because gasoline was artificially expensive then. It wasn't just the enviros that killed it. The technology, the distribution, the makers... it just wasn't its time.
As you say, small diesel engines are now more efficient and clean, but they can only displace gasoline in part and cannot replace gasoline entirely. Diesle's a good and getting better alternative for gasoline, but it's not a replacement for it, and not anymore than hybrids pretend to be.
As in politics and love, with motor fuel it's never enough to be the "alternative." Gasoline is still it.
I don't expect Diesel to over take gasoline. The gas engine still has a long way to go. It's just not as efficient as a diesel engine. Like I said, keep a watch for Honda, which happens to be the cleanest and largest engine manufacturer in the world.
The important thing is that reserves only extend 20 years ahead of time. There is no incentive to spend money now to find oil that you will need 21 years in the future. There is an incentive to spend money to find oil that you will need 10 years from now.
That is why for the last 80 years we have between 10 and 20 years of proven oil reserves, and will probably have 10 to 20 years of reserves for the next 80 years.
Coal can be hydrogenated to produce oil, but that doesn't count towards oil reserves.
The good ole New York Times, always incorrect, inconsequential, but not often informative.
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.