Running on empty and no service station ahead..., What to do about the world oil peak

#1

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
The only thing that's really in contest now is when it will happen, not if. The most optimisic appraisals, such as those issued by United States Geological Survey give us between fifty and a hundred years. Cambridge Energy Research Associates give us until roughly 2020. Less optimistic experts believe it's already happened or will happen in the next five to ten years. And that's the arrival of world peak oil, the point at which oil production will max out globally. After that, it will fall. Demand, however, will not fall. It will rise and keep rising, especially as India and China, with over a billion people each, become industrialized. This is not pleasant to contemplate.

If you think gas is expensive now... This will make the energy crises of 1973 look like a cake walk. And this time there'l be no way out.

What is worse, no other energy source is nearly efficient enough to overtake fossil fuels as a reliable alternative. Many, such as hydrogen actually use more energy to produce than they themselves produce. Wind power and solar power are light years away from being able to pick up even a portion of the slack. Conversion to coal power will be phantasmagorically expensive, dirty and prolong the inevitable by twenty years tops before coal too is estimated to run out. Nuclear power requires rare and expensive uranium, and then there's the problem of disposal of left over waste and the odd Chernobyl taking place. The willingness, or lack thereof of people and governments to face this coming crisis, be it tomorrow or in a century, is what may make us or break us. In the meantime, oil production will focus increasingly on world trouble spots, and further violence and warfare over control over these will increase.

The consequences of unmitigated oil peak are apocalyptic, and if the pessimists are right, might be just around the corner. Imagine gasoline becoming twice as expensive, five times as expensive, ten times as expensive. And so does everything made with the use of fossil fuels. Which means just about everything. Not to mention shipping and handling costs. The efficiency of food production becomes what it was decades or even centuries ago. And there goes the world's capacity to feed its population. The great depression will be a caviar and ivory backscratcher party by comparison. Air travel is the first to become essentially a rare privelige for the elite. Soon it's back to the future as cars become something only the rich can afford, or else kept and pooled by whole communities. Ultimately, it may be back to pre-industrial ways of living. I've seen estimates of a global maximum population of maybe one to two billion people.

A solution to the greenhouse gas problem to be sure as we stop pumping greenhouse gases into the air. This is not as good as it sounds. Green plants, plankton and algae that have grown to overabundant proportions in response to existing levels would be able to suck all the carbon dioxide out of the air, precipitating a new ice age. Just what you need when cheap heat has run out.


Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
The U.S. has all the oil it will need for the next 100 years in the form of oil shale in Utah and Colorado.

What I would like to see is everyone driving electric cars that can run on lithium batteries that travel 200-300 miles and are recharged for a few dollars in 15 minutes at an outlet at home. The big rigs could run on biodiesel generated from algae farms in the arid southwest where the land is little utilized and using sea water. I hope thats the future. My 2 cents.
 
#3
#3
Think about all the oil in alaska that our government isnt even touching we could be undependent from outside oil sources if they would just pump it
 
#4
#4
Oil and Coal cannot sustain us forever...and since they back up most of our electricity supply - rechargable Lithium batteries can't be the answer. Alaska is only a band-aid. Oil shale and tar sands will extend our ability to depend on fossil fuels; however, we will only get it at a higher price than we are accustomed to. When the CEO of Shell Oil came to campus, he claimed that they will eventually be able to recover Oil Shale at 30-40 dollars a barrell...I'm not so sure, but maybe he's right.

Biofuels will definitely be a part of future energy solutions, but there isn't enough land area to support our consumption.

Hydrogen is only an energy carrier - not a fuel source...so it should not enter into any discussions about energy supply (unless we find a big cavern of underground hydrogen somewhere..then we could discuss it).

Wind can't be the solution either..there isn't enough land area available...and that isn't even considering the negative effects removing that much energy from the earth's boundary layer could have on our weather patterns (and of course, the poor birds :) ).

Solar has the potential to be a greater source of energy production in some regions of the world. It will likely be part of future infrastructures along with biofuels....but we're still not talking enough power.

Nuclear is generally considered a nice bridge to get from "the here" to "the then" ... "the then" being a time where we will have a better energy source. But, the problems you mention about nuclear are quite true. I am a proponent of nuclear energy, but ultimately, it only has a limited place in our energy portfolio.

Ultimately..as much as it annoys me...we will either have to discover a new energy source unknown to us today (like fusion) or we will have to become much more energy efficient (as a global community) ... including much more energy conservation. There is really not feasible way that has been presented to me or that I see where we can grow unchecked as a global community and sustain that growth with known energy sources.
 
#5
#5
I shouldn't rain on this worry-fest, but I have to.

When I was in high school (early 1970s) the world's oil production "was peaking and we'll run out of oil by 1985 or 95 at the latest."

I can also remember one dickweed who predicted (with charts and graphs and circles and arrows on the back of each one) that the world economy was doomed to collapse in 1979!

His book was a best seller.

Oh yeah, and then there was the "Millenium Bug" that was going to cause the End of Us All as well.

The gloom and doomers, if you note, are always careful to posit the catastrophe de jour at least fifteen years in the future. That way, WHEN they're wrong, nobody will remember and they can preach on something else that's sure to Kill Us All.

The Algore/Global Warming crowd was running around whining about "global freeze" about 20 years ago. Twenty years from now they'll proibably be wringing their earnest little hands over all the temperate weather we're having (actually Global Warming has about run it's course as an issue and they are actually moving to this.)

It is thinking like this that causes more people to read and ponder Revelations rather than the Gospels. Which of those has been more important over the intervening 2000 years?

Every time one of the Global Warming twits gets on camera I flash back to Bill Murray in Ghostbusters:

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.
 
#6
#6
The Algore/Global Warming crowd was running around whining about "global freeze" about 20 years ago. Twenty years from now they'll proibably be wringing their earnest little hands over all the temperate weather we're having (actually Global Warming has about run it's course as an issue and they are actually moving to this.)

Oops, sorry, the new "issue" is that we USE TOO MUCH SUNSHINE (Yes, you read that right...)

Idiocy, Ahoy!

Human greed takes lion's share of solar energy - Environment - smh.com.au

An agriculture professor at the University of Melbourne, Snow Barlow, said the paper showed humans were taking up too much of an important natural resource.
"Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources … we're probably being a bit greedy.

:eek:
 
#7
#7
Global warming has not just about run its course as an issue. I've debated the issue forards and backwards in this forum before - so I'll save everyone the bother and stop there....
 
#8
#8
For the reasons you state, I am a bit hesitant to say when we are going to have a problem with peak oil. 30 years ago, we had a date in mind...based on the best science of the time, the predictions were made. The science is better today, and new predictions are being made. However, that doesn't mean that the science (read: accuarcy and technology) won't further improve and more oil will be discovered. However, we are getting ready to start going through oil like nobodies business as a global community. The date doesn't matter as much as the fact that we will not have enough oil to sustain this growth and energy consumption indefinitely. It is impossible. That was the perspective from which my post was made...
 
#9
#9
The date doesn't matter as much as the fact that we will not have enough oil to sustain this growth and energy consumption indefinitely. It is impossible. That was the perspective from which my post was made...

Dear Gussie ...

Other than worrywarts, just exactly what DO we have a "indefinite supply" of?

"Based on the best science of the time" in the 1850s it was assumed that if a train went faster than 60 mph, all the air would blow out of the cars and the passengers would asphyxiate.
 
#10
#10
Dear Gussie ...

Other than worrywarts, just exactly what DO we have a "indefinite supply" of?

"Based on the best science of the time" in the 1850s it was assumed that if a train went faster than 60 mph, all the air would blow out of the cars and the passengers would asphyxiate.

Perhaps it would be better to say far from indefinite supply. We have only been using oil in large amounts for about 60 years (and China will obviously accelerate this consumption). Even if it is 100 years before we run out of oil....we will still be faced with finding new forms of energy.

This is unlike water - as long as we are stewards and keep it clean (or can clean it) - we're pretty much good. As long as we leave room to grow food (and the population doesn't entirely explode) - we will be able to feed ourselves. As long as we are going to live on earth, the sun will give us a supply of UV and visible energy....if we can use some of this, that will be an indefinite (from our perspective) form of energy. There are things that we have come to depend on that can be classified as pseudo-indefinite or with care, renewable. Oil is not one of those. (at least not without a thousands of years delay for decay/pressure/reactions to make new oil from some carbon source that we throw together or is thrown together for us).

I think that it is careless to proceed forward using oil without regard...knowing that it is a finite resource that we have come to depend on to a very high degree.
 
#11
#11
Dear Gussie ...

Other than worrywarts, just exactly what DO we have a "indefinite supply" of?

"Based on the best science of the time" in the 1850s it was assumed that if a train went faster than 60 mph, all the air would blow out of the cars and the passengers would asphyxiate.

There are always mistakes and uncertainties in science - but much of the time, it gets it right. Perhaps you didn't make your train comment in the way I took it....but it bugs me when people bring up some obscure mis-step of science or engineering to discount a scientific conclusion that they find inconvenient. I acknowledge that "the best science of the time" is sometimes not good enough - but it often is.
 
#12
#12
Oil and Coal cannot sustain us forever...and since they back up most of our electricity supply - rechargable Lithium batteries can't be the answer. Alaska is only a band-aid. Oil shale and tar sands will extend our ability to depend on fossil fuels; however, we will only get it at a higher price than we are accustomed to. When the CEO of Shell Oil came to campus, he claimed that they will eventually be able to recover Oil Shale at 30-40 dollars a barrell...I'm not so sure, but maybe he's right.

Biofuels will definitely be a part of future energy solutions, but there isn't enough land area to support our consumption.

Hydrogen is only an energy carrier - not a fuel source...so it should not enter into any discussions about energy supply (unless we find a big cavern of underground hydrogen somewhere..then we could discuss it).

Wind can't be the solution either..there isn't enough land area available...and that isn't even considering the negative effects removing that much energy from the earth's boundary layer could have on our weather patterns (and of course, the poor birds :) ).

Solar has the potential to be a greater source of energy production in some regions of the world. It will likely be part of future infrastructures along with biofuels....but we're still not talking enough power.

Nuclear is generally considered a nice bridge to get from "the here" to "the then" ... "the then" being a time where we will have a better energy source. But, the problems you mention about nuclear are quite true. I am a proponent of nuclear energy, but ultimately, it only has a limited place in our energy portfolio.

Ultimately..as much as it annoys me...we will either have to discover a new energy source unknown to us today (like fusion) or we will have to become much more energy efficient (as a global community) ... including much more energy conservation. There is really not feasible way that has been presented to me or that I see where we can grow unchecked as a global community and sustain that growth with known energy sources.

nuclear power has potential for 200 years. Like the idea, of nuclear power plants built in conjuction with cogenerations plants to produce water, especially in the southwest.

oil shale 100 years

Biodiesel in the arid southwest has a lot more potential then you give it IMO. There is a huge area of land unsuitable for farming which could be used for growing algae for biodiesel. Not to mention the ocean itself as a source for controlled farming of algae.

wind, solar is some areas is worthwhile.
 
#13
#13
nuclear power has potential for 200 years. Like the idea, of nuclear power plants built in conjuction with cogenerations plants to produce water, especially in the southwest.

oil shale 100 years

Biodiesel in the arid southwest has a lot more potential then you give it IMO. There is a huge area of land unsuitable for farming which could be used for growing algae for biodiesel. Not to mention the ocean itself as a source for controlled farming of algae.

wind, solar is some areas is worthwhile.

"In some areas" is an important point. The answer to our energy problems will lie in a diverse portfolio that will employ many forms of power production. Wind and solar will be used to meet future demand - but even when used together, there will still be a large gap.

I'm not familiar with the 200 years number you cite. Is that number including projected increases in energy demand and a new nuclear fuel cycle - or the current once-through?

Also, I don't want to cut biodiesel from algae short...but from the numbers I have seen on similar biofuels (but not this), it is basically impossible to meet global energy demand. Are you suggesting that this would be a good way to meet demand for trains, shipping trucks, etc. (i.e., niche service)? Or, are you suggesting that this can provide a larger source of energy to be burned for electricity? If so, what is the energy content of algae, how quickly can it be grown in the southwest, etc.? I'm just not familiar with those numbers...

As for the oceans, I find that people are very very wary of doing anything with the oceans. I think it is because there is much much uncertainty about the stability of the ocean ecosystems and this drives a lot of caution.

But - I think these discussions should continue, including at high levels of the government to begin addressing these issues. We won't need them tomorrow...and maybe not in 20 years. But, they take time to develop..and this will be a significant challenge.
 
#14
#14
"In some areas" is an important point. The answer to our energy problems will lie in a diverse portfolio that will employ many forms of power production. Wind and solar will be used to meet future demand - but even when used together, there will still be a large gap.

I'm not familiar with the 200 years number you cite. Is that number including projected increases in energy demand and a new nuclear fuel cycle - or the current once-through?

Also, I don't want to cut biodiesel from algae short...but from the numbers I have seen on similar biofuels (but not this), it is basically impossible to meet global energy demand. Are you suggesting that this would be a good way to meet demand for trains, shipping trucks, etc. (i.e., niche service)? Or, are you suggesting that this can provide a larger source of energy to be burned for electricity? If so, what is the energy content of algae, how quickly can it be grown in the southwest, etc.? I'm just not familiar with those numbers...

As for the oceans, I find that people are very very wary of doing anything with the oceans. I think it is because there is much much uncertainty about the stability of the ocean ecosystems and this drives a lot of caution.

But - I think these discussions should continue, including at high levels of the government to begin addressing these issues. We won't need them tomorrow...and maybe not in 20 years. But, they take time to develop..and this will be a significant challenge.

I think fusion nuclear power using lithium from seaweed would solve the world's energy problems. Assuming enough lithium is available for everyone to drive electric cars using lithium ion battery technology. Biodiesel for the big diesel trucks.


Fusion power commonly propose the use of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[24]
Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#15
#15
The so called "yellow" power of corn for biodiesel is not the right direction for sure! Adding the competiton of a food staple (for humans and animals) is just a bad idea and we are all paying for it in the rise of cost of other products such as milk, meat, and other staples such as soybeans and cotton. The amount of energy expended to produce a corn crop just cancels out the progress made by this "alternative". Switch grass and algae (which is a new one for me) need to be the forerunners for alternative fuels.
 
#16
#16
The so called "yellow" power of corn for biodiesel is not the right direction for sure! Adding the competiton of a food staple (for humans and animals) is just a bad idea and we are all paying for it in the rise of cost of other products such as milk, meat, and other staples such as soybeans and cotton. The amount of energy expended to produce a corn crop just cancels out the progress made by this "alternative". Switch grass and algae (which is a new one for me) need to be the forerunners for alternative fuels.

UNH Biodiesel Group
 
#18
#18
I decided not to go for the nuclear engineering degree, so I must admit my nuclear knowledge isn't as it could be....but is nuclear fusion applied on a wide scale even near feasible...lithium or not?
 
#19
#19
What about hydrogen?

ScienceDaily: New method to create hydrogen is found

AVEIRO, Portugal, July 2 (UPI) -- Portuguese scientists have created a new method of producing hydrogen for portable fuel cells, negating the need for expensive equipment.
Significant amounts of hydrogen are needed to power long-lived fuel cells, but producing the chemical has, until now, been costly and difficult.
Zhen-Yan Deng, a researcher at Portugal's University of Aveiro when the study was conducted and now a professor at Shanghai University in China, found modified aluminum powder can be used to react with water to produce hydrogen at room temperature and under normal atmospheric pressure.
The finding provides a cost-efficient method for powering fuel cells that will make their use a more practical and realistic option in many applications, he said.
Efforts to produce large amounts of hydrogen for portable devices have previously focused on other chemicals. However, compared with other hybrids, aluminum is cheaper and requires no other chemical to react with water.
"This makes the modified aluminum powder a more economically viable material to generate hydrogen for the future use of portable fuel cells," Deng said.
The research appears in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society.
Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

Thoughts?
 
#20
#20
Or Sugar?

ScienceDaily: High energy liquid fuel created from sugar

MADISON, Va., June 21 (UPI) -- U.S. scientists have transformed sugar into a liquid transportation fuel they say has a 40 percent greater energy density than ethanol.
Reporting in the journal Nature, University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor James Dumesic and colleagues describe a two-stage process for turning biomass-derived sugar into 2,5-dimethylfuran, or DMF.
"Currently, ethanol is the only renewable liquid fuel produced on a large scale," said Dumesic. "But ethanol ... has relatively low energy density, evaporates readily, and can become contaminated by absorption of water from the atmosphere. It also requires an energy-intensive distillation process to separate the fuel from water."
Not only does dimethylfuran have higher energy content, Dumesic said it also is not soluble in water and therefore cannot become contaminated by absorbing water from the atmosphere.
DMF is stable in storage and, in the evaporation stage of its production, consumes one-third of the energy required to evaporate a solution of ethanol produced by fermentation for biofuel applications, he added.
Dumesic and graduate students Yuriy Roman-Leshkov, Christopher Barrett and Zhen Liu also describe an improved process for turning sugar into a chemical intermediate -- hydroxymethylfurfural -- in the journal Science.
Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

Thoughts?
 
#21
#21

I know Dumesic and his work - and he is a sound scientist. He makes some good points about some drawbacks of ethanol. The problem is that this country (because of powerful farm lobbies / the electoral college) will likely pursue ethanol for political reasons rather than scientific reasons. Ethanol can be a fine fuel, but there are other options - as Dumesic points out here. The problem is that this country will probably be preoccupied with CORN ethanol - which will never be a sucessful, wide-spread fuel source. Aside from competing with food resources, the energy efficiency is just not as good as other sources of ethanol. Maybe I don't give the pols enough credit...but I'm not super hopeful. It is also worth noting that these sorts of fuel will only be able to serve the transportation sector - we can't expect to produce enough to actually meet global electricity demand.
 
#22
#22

My thesis research is in the arena of hydrogen production - but I am focused on a different method (strictly because of $$ from my funding source). I actually don't know anything about this....so I'll have to look into it. What I do know is that hydrogen is generally only viewed as an energy carrier because of the high energy required to produce it. In general, the energy consumed to produce hydrogen is equivalent to the energy of the hydrogen produced. There are advantages to using hydrogen though, and that is why it is explored as a fuel (really an energy carrier).

If the modified aluminum power catalyzes the process of hydrolysis such that more units of hydrogen energy can be produced than traditional fuel source energy units - then something along these lines would be an excellent source of fuel. Of course, you would have to also factor in the energy cost to produce the aluminum, as well as the energy cost to "modify" it to whatever form they are using. As you may be aware, making aluminum is a VERY energy intensive process - it is amazing just how much energy it takes. Because of this, the lifetime of the modified aluminum promoter/reactant/catalysis (however it is acting in this system) would have to be pretty long to make the net energy gain positive...
 
#23
#23


I read (well...skimmed/read) the article in the Journal of American Ceramic Society. It appears that when in water, OH ions are transported to a alumina/aluminum interface and at this interface, can oxidize the aluminum to form hydrogen bubbles. These bubbles grow and can eventually release to "give off" hydrogen gas. In the process Aluminum (Al) is converted to alumina oxide (Al2O3). The reaction of hydrogen with oxygen to make water releases roughly 285 kJ of energy per mole of hydrogen (assuming a liquid fuel cell application). Because aluminum is consumed in this process, it takes 2 moles of aluminum (Al) to make 3 moles of hydrogen gas. So, consuming 2 moles of aluminum is worth about 855 kJ of energy. To be generous, I will say 1000 kJ of energy.

The most expensive part of making aluminum from bauxite is actually reducing alumina oxide (Al2O3) to aluminum (Al). The cost of this (if I did my calculations right...but it is 1:00 here, so I could have made a stupid mistake) is 6.8 kW-hr/lb Aluminum or 1500 kJ/mol aluminum. This means that it would take 3000 kJ to regenerate 2 moles of aluminum metal after this reaction takes place. These 2 moles of regenerated aluminum are worth 1000 kJ of hydrogen energy.

Granted, I could have made a stupid mistake here, but it looks like this process (when considering just the alumina oxide reduction expense) makes 1 unit of energy for every 3 spent (and really, it is worse than this if I haven't made a mistake).

You could recyle aluminum as an initial source - but that just means that you have to make more aluminum to replace what that recycled aluminum would have gone into. I don't see a way around having to regenerate the aluminum or make new aluminum from bauxite, which are both very expensive (obviously regenerating is less expensive than making new, though).

Assuming that I haven't made an error here (in math or logic) - perhaps someone would like to tell me why this is a good idea?
 
#24
#24
I read (well...skimmed/read) the article in the Journal of American Ceramic Society.

Admit it, you only subscribe for the centerfold. :)

Seriously, I appreciate your perspective in these threads. :salute:
 
#25
#25
I read

Assuming that I haven't made an error here (in math or logic) - perhaps someone would like to tell me why this is a good idea?

I thought about this a bit more this morning, and one could argue that you may be able to recover the heat from the aluminum conversion to alumina oxide - the actual process that makes the hydrogen. You can get about another 1000 kJ per 2 moles of Aluminum consumed (enough to make 3 moles of hydrogen). The problem here is that because the process is carried out in water. The water will absorb this heat. If there isn't too much water, then the temperature of the water could get hot enough that you might actually be able to recover some energy from it in a cogeneration process. However, typically (in other energy generation processes) this type of heat is just low-temperature waste heat...a lot of Joules, but nothing you can do with it. Assuming you can recover all of it, it makes the efficiency about 66%...which is on par with traditional methods of making hydrogen, but no better. In truth, you probably can't recover that much of it at all - which means the efficiency is down around 40%...not too good at all.

edit: it appears that they need to operate this process at low pressure to encourage the hydrogen to evolve from the system - which means that they are limited to temperatures of 40-60°C. At these temperatures, none of this heat could be expected to be recovered efficiently.
 

VN Store



Back
Top