atpcliff
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,260
Hi!
"I'm told that we have a LOT of oil left, enough to last until we develop alternatives, like the inexpensive conversion of seawater to hydrogen, for example."
The above statement is totally true. We have enough oil left to last until we develop an alternative. The problem is, if we don't do anything to develop an alternative soon, the oil we have left will be gradually priced higher and higher until the alternative fuels get online.
If we wait a long time to develop alternatives, the oil will become so expensive that the global economy will be destroyed and will be in a "Dark Ages" type of situation like Europe experienced after the fall of Rome.
We won't run out of oil, the prices will just go through the roof.
KEY:
It doesn't matter when we "run out" of oil, it matters when the Peak Year of production occurs, because after this point the price of oil will begin to rise steeply and it won't ever go down again, until the demand for oil is ended.
Hubbert, in the 1950s, predicted the peak of US oil production, which was around 1970. The people interpreting his data have said that somewhere between 2000 and about 2010 should be the peak global oil production year.
I checked the US DOE data, and 2001 had higher production than 2002 (2003 isn't available yet). So the peak may have already occured, in 2001. However, if Iraq can get it's sh!t together, and with the rising demand in places like China, if Saudi ramps up their production, the oil peak may be pushed back a few years.
The US DOE site says that oil demand globally will increase tremendously, but somehow oil production will keep up, and the prices will remain stable through 2040.
The BP (that's British Petroleum) site says that those predictions which acknowledge a large increase in demand, coupled with huge prodcution increases and stable prices will be wrong. So, BP is much more pessimistic than the US DOE site. Interesting.
Here is more info from previous posts:
Hi!
To start with, oil is a dead-end energy source. What I mean by that, is it's going to run out, and it won't sell for $25/barrel down to the last barrel. The cost will rise and continue to rise until it's impractical for use as a transportation fuel.
1964 was the peak of oil discovery. We now have very advanced scientific tools to discover oil, and they aren't working, as there basically is no more oil to be found. The last 2 major finds were the North Sea and Alaska, and those both happened years ago.
If we drill everywhere in Alaska, and get out all of the oil that we can, that will provide the US with about 6 months worth of oil. It is a very short term solution, and we need long term ones.
Our trade deficit is VERY high, and it's because of oil. It doesn't matter what party is in power, or who is president, it won't be solved until we quit using oil. I hate buying gas for my car, knowing how much of that money is going to corrupt rulers in the Moslem countries.
One situation we have is that we don't pay for our gasoline when we pump it into our cars. Our gasoline prices have been artificially low for years, and even now, in fact, gasoline costs very little when compared with historical pricing.
American consumers will change their driving and buying habits when gasoline costs about $4+ at the pump. When consumers pay this amount at the pump, they will buy gasoline-efficient cars, or alternative fuel cars, they will drive less, and they will use public transportation more.
The problem that is delaying our transition to alternatives to oil, is that, while gasoline actually costs us between $5-$15 per gallon, we aren't charged that price at the pump.
One of the actual costs of gas, that we don't pay at the pump, is the cost of military spending to protect our oil. We pay a variety of taxes, including income tax, that pays for military spending. What's worse, is we're also adding to the deficit to pay for these gasoline costs.
If we had to pay the actual cost of gasoline at the pump, it would be easier for us consumers to see how much we're actually paying for our gas, and it would speed our transition away from oil.
What's worse, we, the US taxpayers, are subsidizing the cost of gasoline in other countries. I read an article in the past year by a British politician, who said that we are subsidizing British gas to the tune of $1 a gallon. He said that $.70 of that dollar is our tax money spent on our military to protect the oil supplies. I assume that if British gasoline is being subsidized, we are also helping to pay the oil costs of a lot of other countries.
The reason that OPEC is increasing their capacity, is that the value of a US Dollar is down 30% against the Euro, so the OPEC countries need to pump more oil to keep their buying power up. Luckily for us, OPEC is still using the US dollar as a standard instead of switching over to the Euro, which would be devastating to our economy.
As for hydrogen as a potential fuel, it could work out very well. We could use wind turbines in the plains states, and solar power in the high-sun states to break water down into hydrogen, and then use our existing pipeline technology to ship the hydrogen to market, just as we do with oil now. The wind and solar power could replace ALL of the electrical production capacity in the US as well.
We could develop larger hydrogen fuel cells for those solar and wind locations which would, in addition to providing hydrogen for transportation fuel, provide electrical power when the wind turbine or solar cell wasn't producing electricity. They would produce the hydrogen in the fuel cells when they were working, and then the fuel cells could use the hydrogen to make electricity at night or if the wind slowed down at that location.
My brother believes that a biodiesel fuel engine, coupled with a plug-in hybrid setup would actually be better than a hydrogen fuel cell car. When the car was parked, the electrical power provided by the sun and wind power, would recharge the battery in the vehicle. If, while you were driving, for example on a long trip, and the battery needed charging, the biodiesel engine could then charge the battery, just like our current hybrids do.
One problem with using biodiesel, is our farm productivity is based on buring oil in the farm machinery. However, if we converted the farm machinery engines to biodiesel, that would solve that problem.
The US currently has the #1 solar energy potential of any country on earth, and the #1 wind energy potentil of any country.
Let's develop these sources of energy, available here, on our land, paying US companies to make the equipment, and paying US citizens to run this operation. This would make our country much stronger economically, make us less able to be blackmailed by other countries with control our energy supply, and our military wouldn't have to be running over to the Arabian peninsula every few years.
I fought in the Persian Gulf War, and I don't want my kids to have to go back there to protect our access to dwindling supplies of oil in 15-20 years.
I think spending $20 bill/yr, starting this year, and ending whenever we can get a viable renewable energy source in place to serve our countries needs for the long term.
About 100 years ago, we used horse power as transportation, and many people said that the automobile would never amount to much. As proof, they pointed out that there were no roads, no stations to refuel the cars, and no places to get them fixed. It would cost the country too much money to build these facililties, which is why the "fad" of the auto would die out, and horses would continue to be the transportation vehicle of choice.
Hi (again)!
I forgot to mention GM's determination to once again be the global automotive leader, by producing inexpensive to build hydrogen fuel-cell powered autos.
About 5 years ago, they went Exxon and told them their plans. They wanted Exxon to be their partner in developing the infrastructre for hydrogen fuel.
Exxon told them they were an oil company, and walked out. GM said it didn't matter, and that they'd find someone else.
BP now calls themselves and "energy company" vs. an "oil company". They are doing this because they, like GB, can see the writing on the wall, and they want to be global leaders in the post-oil economy. If companies like Exxon stick with their oil plans, they will be left behind like the horse carriage makers were after the turn of the century.
Hi (again)!
I forgot to mention GM's determination to once again be the global automotive leader, by producing inexpensive to build hydrogen fuel-cell powered autos.
About 5 years ago, they went Exxon and told them their plans. They wanted Exxon to be their partner in developing the infrastructre for hydrogen fuel.
Exxon told them they were an oil company, and walked out. GM said it didn't matter, and that they'd find someone else.
BP now calls themselves and "energy company" vs. an "oil company". They are doing this because they, like GB, can see the writing on the wall, and they want to be global leaders in the post-oil economy. If companies like Exxon stick with their oil plans, they will be left behind like the horse carriage makers were after the turn of the century.
Cliff
DTW
"I'm told that we have a LOT of oil left, enough to last until we develop alternatives, like the inexpensive conversion of seawater to hydrogen, for example."
The above statement is totally true. We have enough oil left to last until we develop an alternative. The problem is, if we don't do anything to develop an alternative soon, the oil we have left will be gradually priced higher and higher until the alternative fuels get online.
If we wait a long time to develop alternatives, the oil will become so expensive that the global economy will be destroyed and will be in a "Dark Ages" type of situation like Europe experienced after the fall of Rome.
We won't run out of oil, the prices will just go through the roof.
KEY:
It doesn't matter when we "run out" of oil, it matters when the Peak Year of production occurs, because after this point the price of oil will begin to rise steeply and it won't ever go down again, until the demand for oil is ended.
Hubbert, in the 1950s, predicted the peak of US oil production, which was around 1970. The people interpreting his data have said that somewhere between 2000 and about 2010 should be the peak global oil production year.
I checked the US DOE data, and 2001 had higher production than 2002 (2003 isn't available yet). So the peak may have already occured, in 2001. However, if Iraq can get it's sh!t together, and with the rising demand in places like China, if Saudi ramps up their production, the oil peak may be pushed back a few years.
The US DOE site says that oil demand globally will increase tremendously, but somehow oil production will keep up, and the prices will remain stable through 2040.
The BP (that's British Petroleum) site says that those predictions which acknowledge a large increase in demand, coupled with huge prodcution increases and stable prices will be wrong. So, BP is much more pessimistic than the US DOE site. Interesting.
Here is more info from previous posts:
Hi!
To start with, oil is a dead-end energy source. What I mean by that, is it's going to run out, and it won't sell for $25/barrel down to the last barrel. The cost will rise and continue to rise until it's impractical for use as a transportation fuel.
1964 was the peak of oil discovery. We now have very advanced scientific tools to discover oil, and they aren't working, as there basically is no more oil to be found. The last 2 major finds were the North Sea and Alaska, and those both happened years ago.
If we drill everywhere in Alaska, and get out all of the oil that we can, that will provide the US with about 6 months worth of oil. It is a very short term solution, and we need long term ones.
Our trade deficit is VERY high, and it's because of oil. It doesn't matter what party is in power, or who is president, it won't be solved until we quit using oil. I hate buying gas for my car, knowing how much of that money is going to corrupt rulers in the Moslem countries.
One situation we have is that we don't pay for our gasoline when we pump it into our cars. Our gasoline prices have been artificially low for years, and even now, in fact, gasoline costs very little when compared with historical pricing.
American consumers will change their driving and buying habits when gasoline costs about $4+ at the pump. When consumers pay this amount at the pump, they will buy gasoline-efficient cars, or alternative fuel cars, they will drive less, and they will use public transportation more.
The problem that is delaying our transition to alternatives to oil, is that, while gasoline actually costs us between $5-$15 per gallon, we aren't charged that price at the pump.
One of the actual costs of gas, that we don't pay at the pump, is the cost of military spending to protect our oil. We pay a variety of taxes, including income tax, that pays for military spending. What's worse, is we're also adding to the deficit to pay for these gasoline costs.
If we had to pay the actual cost of gasoline at the pump, it would be easier for us consumers to see how much we're actually paying for our gas, and it would speed our transition away from oil.
What's worse, we, the US taxpayers, are subsidizing the cost of gasoline in other countries. I read an article in the past year by a British politician, who said that we are subsidizing British gas to the tune of $1 a gallon. He said that $.70 of that dollar is our tax money spent on our military to protect the oil supplies. I assume that if British gasoline is being subsidized, we are also helping to pay the oil costs of a lot of other countries.
The reason that OPEC is increasing their capacity, is that the value of a US Dollar is down 30% against the Euro, so the OPEC countries need to pump more oil to keep their buying power up. Luckily for us, OPEC is still using the US dollar as a standard instead of switching over to the Euro, which would be devastating to our economy.
As for hydrogen as a potential fuel, it could work out very well. We could use wind turbines in the plains states, and solar power in the high-sun states to break water down into hydrogen, and then use our existing pipeline technology to ship the hydrogen to market, just as we do with oil now. The wind and solar power could replace ALL of the electrical production capacity in the US as well.
We could develop larger hydrogen fuel cells for those solar and wind locations which would, in addition to providing hydrogen for transportation fuel, provide electrical power when the wind turbine or solar cell wasn't producing electricity. They would produce the hydrogen in the fuel cells when they were working, and then the fuel cells could use the hydrogen to make electricity at night or if the wind slowed down at that location.
My brother believes that a biodiesel fuel engine, coupled with a plug-in hybrid setup would actually be better than a hydrogen fuel cell car. When the car was parked, the electrical power provided by the sun and wind power, would recharge the battery in the vehicle. If, while you were driving, for example on a long trip, and the battery needed charging, the biodiesel engine could then charge the battery, just like our current hybrids do.
One problem with using biodiesel, is our farm productivity is based on buring oil in the farm machinery. However, if we converted the farm machinery engines to biodiesel, that would solve that problem.
The US currently has the #1 solar energy potential of any country on earth, and the #1 wind energy potentil of any country.
Let's develop these sources of energy, available here, on our land, paying US companies to make the equipment, and paying US citizens to run this operation. This would make our country much stronger economically, make us less able to be blackmailed by other countries with control our energy supply, and our military wouldn't have to be running over to the Arabian peninsula every few years.
I fought in the Persian Gulf War, and I don't want my kids to have to go back there to protect our access to dwindling supplies of oil in 15-20 years.
I think spending $20 bill/yr, starting this year, and ending whenever we can get a viable renewable energy source in place to serve our countries needs for the long term.
About 100 years ago, we used horse power as transportation, and many people said that the automobile would never amount to much. As proof, they pointed out that there were no roads, no stations to refuel the cars, and no places to get them fixed. It would cost the country too much money to build these facililties, which is why the "fad" of the auto would die out, and horses would continue to be the transportation vehicle of choice.
Hi (again)!
I forgot to mention GM's determination to once again be the global automotive leader, by producing inexpensive to build hydrogen fuel-cell powered autos.
About 5 years ago, they went Exxon and told them their plans. They wanted Exxon to be their partner in developing the infrastructre for hydrogen fuel.
Exxon told them they were an oil company, and walked out. GM said it didn't matter, and that they'd find someone else.
BP now calls themselves and "energy company" vs. an "oil company". They are doing this because they, like GB, can see the writing on the wall, and they want to be global leaders in the post-oil economy. If companies like Exxon stick with their oil plans, they will be left behind like the horse carriage makers were after the turn of the century.
Hi (again)!
I forgot to mention GM's determination to once again be the global automotive leader, by producing inexpensive to build hydrogen fuel-cell powered autos.
About 5 years ago, they went Exxon and told them their plans. They wanted Exxon to be their partner in developing the infrastructre for hydrogen fuel.
Exxon told them they were an oil company, and walked out. GM said it didn't matter, and that they'd find someone else.
BP now calls themselves and "energy company" vs. an "oil company". They are doing this because they, like GB, can see the writing on the wall, and they want to be global leaders in the post-oil economy. If companies like Exxon stick with their oil plans, they will be left behind like the horse carriage makers were after the turn of the century.
Cliff
DTW
