Crap, somebody better get the crud out of my eyes, I can't seem to find all those Hydrogen Gas Stations and sure don't see all those Hydrogen Cars driving down the street either
Crap, somebody better get the crud out of my eyes, I can't seem to find all those Hydrogen Gas Stations and sure don't see all those Hydrogen Cars driving down the street either
Alternatives don't get cost effective until oil hits $200 or so. Just letting you know.
Hydrogen is also a red herring. It takes more energy to get free molecular H2 than burning the H2 requires. As such, there needs to be an abundant source of energy, such as nukes or fossil fuels. Currently, nearly all hydrogen is made from the oxidation of CH4 to CO and H2. The US natural gas supply is precarious at best. At worst, we are in the beginning stages of permenant depletion.
Hydrogen is also a red herring. It takes more energy to get free molecular H2 than burning the H2 requires. As such, there needs to be an abundant source of energy, such as nukes or fossil fuels. Currently, nearly all hydrogen is made from the oxidation of CH4 to CO and H2. The US natural gas supply is precarious at best. At worst, we are in the beginning stages of permenant depletion.
Bahahahaha Texas blamed
3-2-2005 Oil Breaks Over $53 as Gas Hits New Peak
U.S. crude oil prices rose to a fresh four-month high over $53 a barrel Wednesday as refinery problems in Texas propelled gasoline up to an all-time peak.
"This market simply wants to go up," said Kyle Cooper, an analyst with Citigroup Global Markets.
===================================================
That line shopuld be in the "No sh!t sherlock thread" :roll:
3-2-2005 Oil Breaks Over $53 as Gas Hits New Peak
U.S. crude oil prices rose to a fresh four-month high over $53 a barrel Wednesday as refinery problems in Texas propelled gasoline up to an all-time peak.
"This market simply wants to go up," said Kyle Cooper, an analyst with Citigroup Global Markets.
===================================================
That line shopuld be in the "No sh!t sherlock thread" :roll:
Sure..whatever you say...
But just for grins, what is the first fuel that become cost effective when oil hits $200/barrel....just curious.
charrison,
He is correct in the idea that no alternatives will be cheaper than oil at present or even the near future. As soon as an economical alternative transporation fuel comes about, OPEC will increase capacity and pump more. They have the resources and oil companies have the capital to pull this off. I don't know the exact price point; it's irrelevant for now anyway. Oil will always be priced cheaper than anything else; until the "real" decline begins. Once this real decline begins, the world will be in deep sh!t. There will be no alliances, each country for itself trying to secure the last drops.
Preparing for the next primary energy source is like preparing for retirement. At what point and what method do we use to force investment? Early adopters will be penalized on the global market. Do we want that penalty?
My poinst was, there are alternative energy sources that will exists well below $200/barrel of oil.
Burning wood is not going to work in an urban or suburban setting. You'd choke on the pollution if everyone started burning wood in such close proximity of each other.
They don't return profits if that same work was done using oil.
This is what the DoE says in the latest ASPO newsletter.
coal gasification for one.
shale
biofuels
electricity(via nuclear power)
TDP(waste recycling)
methane hydrates
hydrogen(via nuclear)
Off the top of my head
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
mmmhhmmm, all of which will help as oil price gets high enough to economically warrent these new technologies. They will be phased in as oil is depleted and oil costs skyrocket.
So much doom and gloom over nothing but adapting to our environment.
All one can do at this point is invest in the only economically viable fuel source (oil and gas), ride the gravy train until it hits these insane values. I've started investing already and i'm a university student
Originally posted by: Stunt
mmmhhmmm, all of which will help as oil price gets high enough to economically warrent these new technologies. They will be phased in as oil is depleted and oil costs skyrocket.
So much doom and gloom over nothing but adapting to our environment.
All one can do at this point is invest in the only economically viable fuel source (oil and gas), ride the gravy train until it hits these insane values. I've started investing already and i'm a university student
The problem with all alternatives is that they need oil to get started. As oil increases in price, these too will increase in price.
Oil mines the raw materials needed for construction, transports the raw materials needed for construction, works in construction and acts as solvents for materials needed in nuke plants, solar, wind, biofuels etc etc. None of these are really independant of oil.
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: charrison
Coal needs oil to be mined. Coal is a dirty fuel that messes up the environment. Miners are 45 years old on average, so we need a whole new generation of miners. Coal is mined not pumped, so it is much more difficult to ramp up production. In fact, I think coal demand is damn near pushed to the wall with supply.
Convert electric to nuclear power, leave coals available for gassification. More mines can be opened. Coal mining requires far fewere workers than it did in the past. No insurmountable problems here
Energy loser. It takes more energy to make oil from shale than the shale oil will provide. Of absolute no use as an energy source
That is false, It does require energy to get it into a usable format, but it is a net positive in the end.
Difficult to ramp up production. Dr. Pimental has done calculations that show that it would take 97% of the US land mass (not just arable land) to supply all the cars with ethanol. Biodiesals are better, but no where near the productivity as oil. Most biofuels also are depended on pesticides and fertilizers, which are derived from oil and natural gas. Both of which are non-renewable.
while no doubt it would take much farmland to produce biofuels, it is not an impossible task to produce net positive energy this way. Iwould be curious to know how many barrels of grain alcohol is produced every year
Oil is not used for electric generation nowadays. It is simply inefficent to burn oil to turn turbines. This is a non-issue. Also, we haven't even been renewing nuclear power plants, we simply decomission them.
If you have not noticed there is a new movement for new nuke plants happening in this country. Imagine hybrid cars getting plugged in to keep their batteries charged so they start the day off with a full charge.
It not a source of energy. It takes more energy to make petrol products than the feed provides. It is also less than a drip compared to demand. Ramping up production would take the largest building project ever. Also, the oil-equivalent costs ~80 dollars a barrel.
It is not an energy sourcem, but it takes what would other wise be waste and converts it back into usable energy. It produces a net positive energy gain(it it takes 15 units of energy to produce 85 units of energy from 100 units of waste). If oil was $80 there would be massive construction of such plants. This technology has a bright future.
We get ZERO energy from hydrates. We just now comissioned a study to study the viability. Most geologists say this is a no starter because of how the hydrates are arrayed.
http://www.dieoff.org/page225.htm
quoting die off....how about a more reputable source
Do you mean fusion? That is the only way hydrogen can be an energy source. Fusion is at least 15 years away.
no, I mean gas. Todays cars can on hydrogen gas with only very minimal retrofit. Producing such gas required does require energy to do so. Nuclear/solar/turbines are a natural fit to produce such gas economically.
Nothing can replace the versatility of oil. Some of these alternatives are technically viable, but can not be scaled up to meet oil's decline (3-5% yearly after the peak). The DoE letter also says it will take 10-20 years to mobilize anything at tremendous cost.
You really need to come back to reallty. There is still going to be plenty of oil in the ground when we stop using it. The stone age did not end for lack of stones.
Converting the US's electricity to nuclear power would take at least a generation. A single nuclear power plant takes several billion dollars and 10 years to build. You still haven't addressed the point that coal requires oil to dig up (up to 50% of coal production comes from oil based machines in many mines). As the cost of oil goes up so does coal.
Shale has never produced a usable form of energy. Exxon, Occidental, ChevronTexaco etc etc have tried their hands at the Colorado oil shales and haven't been able to make a profit. The Alberta oil sands are different. If we have such a huge reserve of oil shale, why do we import oil from dangerous regimes? Why not simply take the money hit and not lay in bed with snakes?
About biofuels, ethanol is a plain loser. Look at some of Pimental's work. Biodiesal is better but no where near as much as oil can provide. I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels.
The DoE article I showed you shows that it would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit half of our car fleet. It is not at no cost and it will take a lot of time. There is a push for nukes yes, but remember, nuke plants take billions of dollars and 10 years to make.
The TDP energy efficency is said in a roundabout way. The 85% efficency means that you put in 100 units of energy to get 85. Otherwise they would be violating the second law of thermodynamics. It is a good technology, but it won't replace oil. You need 13,000 plants today to meet US imports only.
The dieoff article is written by Jean Laherre, it is only linked. He is a reputadble geologist with decades of experience with the oil Majors. Look at the authors.
Again, reference the DoE article. It would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit our car fleet. This is "at little cost" and "minimal retrofit." Again, nuclear power plants take 10 years and billions of dollars. Not to mention construction takes oil at every single level.
Solar, wind and nuclear power plants all need materials that are mined from oil, transported with oil and constructed with oil. This doesn't even touch on the things that oil provides in other aspects, such as solvents and catalysts.
We will stop using oil, the last barrels will cost so much that it will not be economical to use. What will happen is we will resort to a less energy intensive way of life. Alternatives will play a role post-oil, but they won't allow us to live with the luxuries oil provides.
Shale has never produced a usable form of energy. Exxon, Occidental, ChevronTexaco etc etc have tried their hands at the Colorado oil shales and haven't been able to make a profit. The Alberta oil sands are different. If we have such a huge reserve of oil shale, why do we import oil from dangerous regimes? Why not simply take the money hit and not lay in bed with snakes?
About biofuels, ethanol is a plain loser. Look at some of Pimental's work. Biodiesal is better but no where near as much as oil can provide. I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels.
The DoE article I showed you shows that it would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit half of our car fleet. It is not at no cost and it will take a lot of time. There is a push for nukes yes, but remember, nuke plants take billions of dollars and 10 years to make.
The TDP energy efficency is said in a roundabout way. The 85% efficency means that you put in 100 units of energy to get 85. Otherwise they would be violating the second law of thermodynamics. It is a good technology, but it won't replace oil. You need 13,000 plants today to meet US imports only.
The dieoff article is written by Jean Laherre, it is only linked. He is a reputadble geologist with decades of experience with the oil Majors. Look at the authors.
Again, reference the DoE article. It would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit our car fleet. This is "at little cost" and "minimal retrofit." Again, nuclear power plants take 10 years and billions of dollars. Not to mention construction takes oil at every single level.
Solar, wind and nuclear power plants all need materials that are mined from oil, transported with oil and constructed with oil. This doesn't even touch on the things that oil provides in other aspects, such as solvents and catalysts.
We will stop using oil, the last barrels will cost so much that it will not be economical to use. What will happen is we will resort to a less energy intensive way of life. Alternatives will play a role post-oil, but they won't allow us to live with the luxuries oil provides.
3-3-2005 Oil Charges Above $55 as Funds Pile In
$80?
Talk in OPEC of even higher prices could stir fresh speculative buying.
OPEC's acting Secretary-General said on Thursday that crude could spike as high as $80
$80?
Talk in OPEC of even higher prices could stir fresh speculative buying.
OPEC's acting Secretary-General said on Thursday that crude could spike as high as $80
Originally posted by: conjur
Time to tax the windfall profits of the oil companies?
What say you? 80% tax rate?
or other energy will be cheap enough for us not too chase what is left in the ground. There will be plenty of energy in the future, but it will not be oil.
3-4-2005 Gas prices might increase 24 cents
"It's going to be brutal, horrendous," says Peter Beutel, president of energy-price tracker Cameron Hanover. He has followed energy markets for nearly three decades.
"Petronoia is in full flower. Retail gasoline has some 25 to 28 cents a gallon in increases ahead just to catch up to what has happened with wholesale (gas prices) since Christmas week," says Tom Kloza, senior analyst at the Oil Price Information Service.
Petronoia is Kloza's description of when petroleum traders become irrationally afraid there won't be enough oil and gasoline later, so they buy now, bidding up prices.
The U.S. dollar has fallen in value recently, also, and foreign oil sellers, who control most supplies, want more dollars per barrel to compensate.
Adjusted for inflation, gas would have to hit about $2.95 for a record.
"It's going to be brutal, horrendous," says Peter Beutel, president of energy-price tracker Cameron Hanover. He has followed energy markets for nearly three decades.
"Petronoia is in full flower. Retail gasoline has some 25 to 28 cents a gallon in increases ahead just to catch up to what has happened with wholesale (gas prices) since Christmas week," says Tom Kloza, senior analyst at the Oil Price Information Service.
Petronoia is Kloza's description of when petroleum traders become irrationally afraid there won't be enough oil and gasoline later, so they buy now, bidding up prices.
The U.S. dollar has fallen in value recently, also, and foreign oil sellers, who control most supplies, want more dollars per barrel to compensate.
Adjusted for inflation, gas would have to hit about $2.95 for a record.
$80/barrel, eh?
Hmm...perhaps it's time to invest in these oil companies and use the profits for good.
Hmm...perhaps it's time to invest in these oil companies and use the profits for good.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter