Is the earth's oil supply going to run out soon? If so we are totally screwed. What about Cold Fussion (or is it Fission?) where you take waste and trash and convert to energy?
Is Oil going to run out?
- Thread starter urbantechie
- Start date
Adul
Elite Member
hydrogen is good, but right now it uses more energy to make than you get from it... not good. The immediate solution if moonshine. I would imaging you will see California being the first and requiring a certain percentage of cars to run on ethanol before long.
It's cold fusion, and occurs by smashing hydrogen atoms together and making helium atoms. But I don't understand how we're gonna do this cold. The sun (and I beleive all stars) are fueled by fusion, and last I checked, they were ever so slightly warm... And we think gas is expensive. Wait until we all buy nuclear reactors for our cars, and you pump plutonium into your tank...
As I have talked about that Iceland will be the testing grounds for 100mbps internet connections, its more that we get here.
Iceland will be the first hydrogen based country in the world, sponsored by Deimler and few other big car makers. By 2020 all cars here will be fueled by hydrogen.
Iceland will be the first hydrogen based country in the world, sponsored by Deimler and few other big car makers. By 2020 all cars here will be fueled by hydrogen.
ArMs
They actually made cars powered by nuclear reactors back in 1960's I think. Didnt work because the cars were to heave because of all the sheelding needed for the radiation.
They actually made cars powered by nuclear reactors back in 1960's I think. Didnt work because the cars were to heave because of all the sheelding needed for the radiation.
It's great to see some alternatives to oil, but unfortunately there are some real problems with both hydrogen and ethanol technologies.
Hydrogen is difficult to produce - it's production requires either vast amounts of electricity, or substantial amounts of natural gas. Either way produces substantial carbon dioxide, and serves only to exchange demand for oil, for demand for alternative fossil fuels; in the case of natural gas, this is a poor trade as natural gas is in far shorter supply than oil. In the case of electrolysis of water, the process is desperately inefficient so that you need about 4 times as much energy in the form electricity as you get as hydrogen.
Hydrogen is difficult to handle - if you want to store a reasonable amount, it has to be cryogenic liquid hydrogen. In addition to its extreme flammability it is extremely cold. It is a very poor energy store in terms of volume - a car with a 15 gallon fuel tank, will if converted to hydrogen need a 50 gallon tank to acheive the same range. Hydrogen also evaporates very quickly - typical tanks as used today lose about 5% of capacity per day - if you go on holiday and take your car to the airport - when you come back 3 weeks later you'd better hope that there is a fuel station in the car park, because you won't be going much further.
A lot of hype regarding hydrogen suggests that burning it produces only pure water - this is not quite true. Due to the presence of nitrogen in the air, nitric oxides are produced in combustion; these are highly toxic acidic chemicals which can in turn lead to the production of low-level ozone. Catalytic converters can go a long way to reducing these emissions but, of course, they aren't perfect.
This can be avoided by the use of fuel cell technology - clean and efficient - but with the disadvantage of cost. In todays small production quantities, a fuel cell powerful enough to power a car can cost in excess of $1 million. Even with massive scale manufacturing techniques it is not anticipated that the cost could be reduced to below $10,000.
Ethanol is, from a practical point of view, a better solution. It too has its disadvantages, especially if 'green' production methods are employed.
Producing ethanol by the fermentation of grain has been a long established technique - however, if you want to use the ethanol as a fuel, it is worth considering just how much energy it costs to produce it.
When you factor in the costs involved with modern intensive farming methods, as well as the costs involved in fermenting and distilling the resultant ethanol - you find that for every gallon of ethanol you produce, you will have needed 2 gallons equivalent of energy during its production.
Hydrogen is difficult to produce - it's production requires either vast amounts of electricity, or substantial amounts of natural gas. Either way produces substantial carbon dioxide, and serves only to exchange demand for oil, for demand for alternative fossil fuels; in the case of natural gas, this is a poor trade as natural gas is in far shorter supply than oil. In the case of electrolysis of water, the process is desperately inefficient so that you need about 4 times as much energy in the form electricity as you get as hydrogen.
Hydrogen is difficult to handle - if you want to store a reasonable amount, it has to be cryogenic liquid hydrogen. In addition to its extreme flammability it is extremely cold. It is a very poor energy store in terms of volume - a car with a 15 gallon fuel tank, will if converted to hydrogen need a 50 gallon tank to acheive the same range. Hydrogen also evaporates very quickly - typical tanks as used today lose about 5% of capacity per day - if you go on holiday and take your car to the airport - when you come back 3 weeks later you'd better hope that there is a fuel station in the car park, because you won't be going much further.
A lot of hype regarding hydrogen suggests that burning it produces only pure water - this is not quite true. Due to the presence of nitrogen in the air, nitric oxides are produced in combustion; these are highly toxic acidic chemicals which can in turn lead to the production of low-level ozone. Catalytic converters can go a long way to reducing these emissions but, of course, they aren't perfect.
This can be avoided by the use of fuel cell technology - clean and efficient - but with the disadvantage of cost. In todays small production quantities, a fuel cell powerful enough to power a car can cost in excess of $1 million. Even with massive scale manufacturing techniques it is not anticipated that the cost could be reduced to below $10,000.
Ethanol is, from a practical point of view, a better solution. It too has its disadvantages, especially if 'green' production methods are employed.
Producing ethanol by the fermentation of grain has been a long established technique - however, if you want to use the ethanol as a fuel, it is worth considering just how much energy it costs to produce it.
When you factor in the costs involved with modern intensive farming methods, as well as the costs involved in fermenting and distilling the resultant ethanol - you find that for every gallon of ethanol you produce, you will have needed 2 gallons equivalent of energy during its production.
Once read that scientists learned it doesn't take as long as previoiusly though for oil crude to be produced under the earth's crust and that there is enough supply for a very long time considering the production rate of crude.
Of course as is the truth with "global warming" the government doesn't want us to know the truth. It doesn't exist according to NASA who sent a letter to Congress after researching the possibilities. NASA strongly suggested that Congress cut out the "chicken little" crap. Even if it was to be true, according to NASA, it would benefit the world with longer growing seasons.
Ethanol, as with all alcohols, is highly hygroscopic. It absorbs moisture and induces it into the fuel system components of your vehicle. This encourages rust and other moisture related damages. Thus the reason for Federal Regulations limiting the percentage of alcohol in fuels.
Of course as is the truth with "global warming" the government doesn't want us to know the truth. It doesn't exist according to NASA who sent a letter to Congress after researching the possibilities. NASA strongly suggested that Congress cut out the "chicken little" crap. Even if it was to be true, according to NASA, it would benefit the world with longer growing seasons.
Ethanol, as with all alcohols, is highly hygroscopic. It absorbs moisture and induces it into the fuel system components of your vehicle. This encourages rust and other moisture related damages. Thus the reason for Federal Regulations limiting the percentage of alcohol in fuels.
In the 60's it was estimated that we only had 30 years left in the oil supply. I don't know about you, but my house is toasty warm tonight from my oil run furnace. My point is, that the "scientists" can guess, estimate and hypothesize all they want. They don't know.
"Once read that scientists learned it doesn't take as long as previoiusly though for oil crude to be produced under the earth's crust and that there is enough supply for a very long time considering the production rate of crude."
you forgot to specify if this crude is easily extracted. If its mixed in with sands or porus material.. we just can't get at it easily
I think we have quite a stock pile of useless gas in the us
you forgot to specify if this crude is easily extracted. If its mixed in with sands or porus material.. we just can't get at it easily
I think we have quite a stock pile of useless gas in the usI've read we have about 50-100 years left of oil at current guzzling rates. Consumption, of course, will rise in the future but there are also deposits of oil that we can't currently even get it but someday we'll have the know-how to consume.
So we're OK, our kids are probably OK, but the grandchildren better get in shape they'll have to ride their bikes a lot unless we find an alternative by then (and I don't see us trying very hard right now).
So we're OK, our kids are probably OK, but the grandchildren better get in shape they'll have to ride their bikes a lot unless we find an alternative by then (and I don't see us trying very hard right now).
i heard we got like 50 years left but we already have electric and solor cars they have just not caught on yet we will be fine as for our ozone layer......
We have around 50 years of EASILY extractable oil left in the world.
I just replied to a topic like this a couple of weeks ago, so I'll give you the gist:
In Saudi Arabia, you can poke holes in the sand with a stick and get oil (I'm not kidding). This is however rapidly diminishing - in other, easily extractable oil is coming to end within 50 years.
Most other oil costs a bundle to extract. Hibernia costs > $20/barrel to extract. Very expensive.
This means that oil will become more expensive. Also, most of the oil is still in the Middle East. Think OPEC has a lot of power now? Wait 20 years. They'll be bitch-slapping the Western nations so bad it won't even be funny.
I just replied to a topic like this a couple of weeks ago, so I'll give you the gist:
In Saudi Arabia, you can poke holes in the sand with a stick and get oil (I'm not kidding). This is however rapidly diminishing - in other, easily extractable oil is coming to end within 50 years.
Most other oil costs a bundle to extract. Hibernia costs > $20/barrel to extract. Very expensive.
This means that oil will become more expensive. Also, most of the oil is still in the Middle East. Think OPEC has a lot of power now? Wait 20 years. They'll be bitch-slapping the Western nations so bad it won't even be funny.
I bet the guys at OPEC didn't count on us getting midgets to ride on. I just got a '99 Fred. That's a phat ride.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter