Time to start preparing for Life after the Oil Crash

[burnedout]

Scientists develop hydrogen reactor

MINNEAPOLIS - Researchers said Thursday that for the first time, they have produced hydrogen from ethanol in a prototype reactor small enough and efficient enough to heat small homes and power cars

 

[rudder]

Ever heard of biodeisel?

 

[Nietzscheusw]

From what I read elsewhere even if every acre in the US was used to grow plants to produce ethanol there would not be enough.

 

[rudder]

Researchers have also created diesel fuels from other oganic materials such as chicken factory waste. You can relax now.

Quick link

 

[Nietzscheusw]

From the first link at the top:

Non-Conventional Sources Such as Shale, Tar Sand, & Coalbed Methane

These non-conventional sources currently account for 6% of US gas supply. Each of these alternatives would require a huge investment in research and infrastructure to exploit them, plus large amounts of now-expiring oil, before they could be brought online.

For example, in Canada about 200 thousand barrels a day are being produced in Alberta of non-conventional oil, but it takes about 2 barrels of oil in energy investment to produce 3 barrels of oil equivalent from those resources. Additionally, the environmental costs are horrendous and the process uses a tremendous amount of fresh water and also natural gas, both of which are in limited supply.

The major problem with non-conventional oil is that they cannot be exploited before the oil shocks cripple attempts to bring them on line, and the rate of extraction is far too slow to meet the huge global energy demand.

You're forgetting about biomass and ethanol. We can just grow our fuel.

In an article entitled The Post Petroleum Paradigm, retired Professor of Geology at the University of Oregon, Dr. Walter Youngquist addresses the severe limitations of biomass and ethanol. The following is an excerpt from that article:

Oil derived from plants is sometimes promoted as a fuel source to replace petroleum.

The facts and experience with ethanol are an example. Ethanol is a plant-derived alcohol (usually from corn) which is used today, chiefly in the form of gasohol, a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. Because it is used to some extent,it is commonly thought that ethanol is a partially acceptable solution to the fuel problem for machines.

However, ethanol is an energy negative ? it takes more energy to produce it than is obtained from ethanol.

Ethanol production is wasteful of fossil energy resources. About 71% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy contained in a gallon of ethanol.

Ethanol production survives by the grace of a subsidy by the U.S. government from taxpayer dollars. Continuing the production of ethanol is purely a device for buying the Midwest U.S. farm vote, and may also be related to the fact that the company which makes 60% of U.S. ethanol is also one of the largest contributors of campaign money to the Congress ? a distressing example of politics overriding logic.

What about that new technology that can turn anything into oil?

"Thermal depolymerization" which can transform many kinds of waste into oil, could help us raise our energy efficiency as we lose power due to oil depletion. While it could help us ameliorate the crash, it is not a true solution.

Like all other forms of alternative energy, we have run out of time to implement it before the crash. Currently, only one thermal depolymerization plant is operational. Thousands of such plants would need to come online before this technology would make even a small difference in our situation.

Furthermore, whatever comes out of the process must carry less useful energy than what went into the process, as required by the laws of thermodynamics. Finally, most of the waste input (such as plastics and tires) requires high grade oil to make in the first place.

The biggest problem with thermal depolymerization is that it is being advertised as a means to maintain business as usual. Such advertising promotes further consumption, provides us with a dangerously false sense of security, and encourages us to continue thinking that we don't need to make this issue a priority.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Time to start preparing for Life after the Oil Crash

We are

Not to sound negative, but that is nothing new - sounds like a reformer where fuels are split up into hydrogen and CO2, The hydrogen then is burned in the fuel cell.

I like this one: 1kW is hardly enough to power a small single person household with few appliances let alone an average american home. And when u start to factor in heating, then 1 kW might be enough to power a small room...

"The Minnesota researchers envision people buying ethanol to power the small fuel cell in their basements. The cell could produce 1 kilowatt of power, nearly enough for an average home."

But as I said, I dont want to sound negative: things will improve

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
From what I read elsewhere even if every acre in the US was used to grow plants to produce ethanol there would not be enough.

Ethanol isn't the only alternative. TDP takes advantage of organic waste. The problem with both is COST.

Some have toyed with the idea of growing bamboo and processing it into petroleum using TDP. If bamboo, one of the fastest growing plants in the world, were planted on a plot the size of Rhode Island, harvested and processed via the TDP method, the resulting petroleum would be enough to compensate for imported, Middle Eastern oil.

For example, one analyst argued that if 2,000 square miles worth of bamboo were cultivated, harvested and processed, the resulting output could conservatively equal 120 million barrels every 90 days. Obviously there are other factors to consider such as growth rates, capital investment, harvesting, R&D, land purchase, labor, etc., etc., etc.

The bottom line is this: TDP is not profitable. The ONLY reason ethanol, TDP, biodiesel, hydrogen or other alternative solutions haven't already received widespread implementation and utilization is cost - period. Supply and demand economics dictate the market. If ME oil, or any oil for that matter, becomes too expensive because of demand, somebody else will introduce an alternative to gain wealth and therefore increase supply.

Simple concept, eh?

 

[Nietzscheusw]

Peak Oil coming fast in Saudi Arabia!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

bumping a month old post about a Green-peace wacko's web sight that's been re-posted sense.

nice.

 

[Cerb]

Hmmm...you mean it will get so expensive and scarce that we will have to move to cleaner fuels?
Sounds good to me. I might be able to take full breathes downtown...or even downtown Atlanta even. That'd be awesome.
Unfortunately I believe in mass human stupidity more than I do in conspiracy theorists, so...

 

[Zipp]

OIL !!!

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Zipp
OIL !!!

shhhh! We are running out of oil! In 10 years to 20 years, all of it will be GONE! No matter what you say!
(ouch, flashbacks to the 60's, 70's and 80's)

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Zipp
OIL !!!

That covers 6 months supply.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

That covers 6 months supply.

good thing we won't be giving oil away for 6 moths, but rather increasing availability of over a good number of years generally reducing the cost of oil across to board.

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Zipp
OIL !!!

shhhh! We are running out of oil! In 10 years to 20 years, all of it will be GONE! No matter what you say!
(ouch, flashbacks to the 60's, 70's and 80's)

/delay 30 years

/say "We are running out of Oil! in 10 to 20 years all, of it will be GONE!"

 

[ReiAyanami]

Let's just hope that those more expensive alternative fuels exist when we run out.

that'd be awesome if we found a fossil of an SUV on mars...

i mean if they had water, they had to have water slides, right?

 

[Nietzscheusw]

Peak Oil at Royal Dutch/Shell !

<< Shell cuts oil reserve figures for second time

By Carola Hoyos and Clay Harris in London and Ian Bickerton in Amsterdam
Financial Times, March 18, 2004

Royal Dutch/Shell on Thursday said "disappointing and embarrassing" mistakes would force it to cut its reserves for the second time since January and delay its annual report and shareholder meetings by two months.
The surprise announcement came only a day before Shell had been due to file details of its 2003 reserves with the US Securities and Exchange Commission - one of five authorities in the US and Europe investigating the group.

The Anglo-Dutch company, which two weeks ago forced the resignation of Sir Philip Watts as chairman, admitted it was now vital to restore "confidence and credibility in reserves reporting practices". But one analyst called the latest cut "staggering".

Following allegations that it had been aware long before January of doubts over its reserves, Shell on Thursday provided its most detailed account yet of its reserves review, the investigations it faces from authorities in the US and Europe, and the actions it was taking to improve corporate governance.

Jeroen van der Veer, Shell's new chairman, on Thursday denied for the first time that he had known about incorrect reserves bookings, saying: "The underlying question which you always get is did you know about incorrect bookings in SEC returns? The answer is no."

Thursday's announcement cuts Shell's proved oil and natural gas reserves for 2002 by a further 250m barrels of oil equivalent, bringing the total reserves that had been erroneously booked with the SEC to 4.15bn, or more than 20 per cent of the originally reported figure.

It also reduces Shell's planned 2003 bookings by 220m barrels. This means the company - which has struggled compared with its peers to find new reserves - will now have replaced only 82 per cent of its depleted stocks in 2003 rather than the 98 per cent it announced in February. >>

The end here:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1079419747350&p=1012571727310

 

[ReiAyanami]

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/reports/rex72901.htm

according to these statistics, we have roughly 50 years worth of oil left, that is 140 billion tonnes in proven reserves divided by 3.3billion tonnes (1997 figures)

i'm assuming the 140 billion tonne figure is correct since another google'd page for 2002 figure lists 1.025 trillion barrels which converts to ~140 billion tonnes at a rate of 7.2 barrels per ton.

note 1999 oil usage is 3.5b which means 6% growth in oil demand in just two years. i haven't been able to find more recent figures for oil usage but even at 1999's oil demand, we only have 40 years of *cheap* oil left. also note china's GDP is expected to grow 30% in the next three years alone. so ummm as little as 30 years left of oil?

so get ready for $10/gallon gas in a few decades

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/reports/rex72901.htm

according to these statistics, we have roughly 50 years worth of oil left, that is 140 billion tonnes in proven reserves divided by 3.3billion tonnes (1997 figures)

i'm assuming the 140 billion tonne figure is correct since another google'd page for 2002 figure lists 1.025 trillion barrels which converts to ~140 billion tonnes at a rate of 7.2 barrels per ton.

note 1999 oil usage is 3.5b which means 6% growth in oil demand in just two years. i haven't been able to find more recent figures for oil usage but even at 1999's oil demand, we only have 40 years of *cheap* oil left. also note china's GDP is expected to grow 30% in the next three years alone. so ummm as little as 30 years left of oil?

so get ready for $10/gallon gas in a few decades

That is assuming we are still only relying on gas for transport. ANd that is a big assumption.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/reports/rex72901.htm

according to these statistics, we have roughly 50 years worth of oil left, that is 140 billion tonnes in proven reserves divided by 3.3billion tonnes (1997 figures)

i'm assuming the 140 billion tonne figure is correct since another google'd page for 2002 figure lists 1.025 trillion barrels which converts to ~140 billion tonnes at a rate of 7.2 barrels per ton.

note 1999 oil usage is 3.5b which means 6% growth in oil demand in just two years. i haven't been able to find more recent figures for oil usage but even at 1999's oil demand, we only have 40 years of *cheap* oil left. also note china's GDP is expected to grow 30% in the next three years alone. so ummm as little as 30 years left of oil?

so get ready for $10/gallon gas in a few decades

That is assuming we are still only relying on gas for transport. ANd that is a big assumption.

Yeah like the Oil and Auto Corp Exec Mobsters in bed with the Saudi's will change anytime soon.

Wow, you're really blowing stuff out your........ last few posts

Unbecoming of you. What's with the desperation???

Edit: For crying out loud in the Oil thread you just boasted about Huge Fuggin Expedition and trying to claim the Mamoth thing is actually conservative on Gas. :|

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/reports/rex72901.htm

according to these statistics, we have roughly 50 years worth of oil left, that is 140 billion tonnes in proven reserves divided by 3.3billion tonnes (1997 figures)

i'm assuming the 140 billion tonne figure is correct since another google'd page for 2002 figure lists 1.025 trillion barrels which converts to ~140 billion tonnes at a rate of 7.2 barrels per ton.

note 1999 oil usage is 3.5b which means 6% growth in oil demand in just two years. i haven't been able to find more recent figures for oil usage but even at 1999's oil demand, we only have 40 years of *cheap* oil left. also note china's GDP is expected to grow 30% in the next three years alone. so ummm as little as 30 years left of oil?

so get ready for $10/gallon gas in a few decades

That is assuming we are still only relying on gas for transport. ANd that is a big assumption.

Yeah like the Oil and Auto Corp Exec Mobsters in bed with the Saudi's will change anytime soon.

Wow, you're really blowing stuff out your........ last few posts

Unbecoming of you. What's with the desperation???

Edit: For crying out loud in the Oil thread you just boasted about Huge Fuggin Expedition and trying to claim the Mamoth thing is actually conservative on Gas. :|

shell solar....big oil to big sun?

Not saying expedition are easy at the pump, but they are no where near your claim.

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
From what I read elsewhere even if every acre in the US was used to grow plants to produce ethanol there would not be enough.

Ethanol isn't the only alternative. TDP takes advantage of organic waste. The problem with both is COST.

Some have toyed with the idea of growing bamboo and processing it into petroleum using TDP. If bamboo, one of the fastest growing plants in the world, were planted on a plot the size of Rhode Island, harvested and processed via the TDP method, the resulting petroleum would be enough to compensate for imported, Middle Eastern oil.

For example, one analyst argued that if 2,000 square miles worth of bamboo were cultivated, harvested and processed, the resulting output could conservatively equal 120 million barrels every 90 days. Obviously there are other factors to consider such as growth rates, capital investment, harvesting, R&D, land purchase, labor, etc., etc., etc.

The bottom line is this: TDP is not profitable. The ONLY reason ethanol, TDP, biodiesel, hydrogen or other alternative solutions haven't already received widespread implementation and utilization is cost - period. Supply and demand economics dictate the market. If ME oil, or any oil for that matter, becomes too expensive because of demand, somebody else will introduce an alternative to gain wealth and therefore increase supply.

Simple concept, eh?

Note, TDP is not confined to taking advantage of organic waste. It can definately be used on items such as plastic and rubber. Since many of these items currently have to be disposed on in a landfill when thown away, it makes enourmous sense to use TDP on them instead. The "not profitable" comment is by no means so clear. Not only do you have the costs involved with the actual opperations of TDP, you also have the consideration that unless the waste is consumed in the TDP process, it costs money to dispose of in many instances. The actual costs appear to be as follows.

And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing
in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out
plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five
years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and
production company.

http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=829
With oil per barrel future options prices currently rising to 38$ per barrel for April, these sort of production costs actually lead a substancial profit. At the very least, if oil prices rise further, thermal depolymerization becomes increasingly potentially profitable.

As far as the supply of agricultural waste goes...

Just converting all the U.S.
agricultural waste into oil and gas would yield the energy equivalent of 4
billion barrels of oil annually. In 2001 the United States imported 4.2
billion barrels of oil.

http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=829

When you start considering things such as converting human waste to oil, you're suddenly accounting for all the oil and gas needs in the US.

 

[Rogue]

Man! Some of you people buy in to some really slanted, single-sided $hit that's out there for the taking. If there's one thing I'm fully confident of, it's that Americans will ALWAYS be there to devise ingenious solutions to some of the most doggedly difficult issues humanity can encounter. I have absolutely no doubt that I will EVER see the collapse of the world as we know it for as long as I live. Some of you people really, REALLY need to get a grip and do a lot more research and reading before posting some of this slanted drivel.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Rogue
Man! Some of you people buy in to some really slanted, single-sided $hit that's out there for the taking. If there's one thing I'm fully confident of, it's that Americans will ALWAYS be there to devise ingenious solutions to some of the most doggedly difficult issues humanity can encounter. I have absolutely no doubt that I will EVER see the collapse of the world as we know it for as long as I live. Some of you people really, REALLY need to get a grip and do a lot more research and reading before posting some of this slanted drivel.

Yea, like building bigger and bigger SUV Mamoths that suck down more and more Saudi Oil

 

[Nietzscheusw]

THE GLOBE AND MAIL: Report on Business

Oil market tightness is likely long term

By JEFFREY RUBIN
Monday, March 15, 2004
The Globe and Mail ( www.globeandmail.com )

If the depletionists are right, global production of conventional crude oil should be peaking within the next couple of years, at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65 million barrels a day.

Recent production estimates from the International Energy Agency show global oil production in January is already well through that mark at 82 million barrels. But the IEA numbers include eight million barrels a day of non-conventional production such as oil sands and deep-water oil, and another eight million to nine million barrels of liquefied natural gas.

Strip out unconventional sources of supply, and crude production is hovering around 65 million barrels, where it has been for the past four years. Has the world already seen the peak in conventional crude production?

Not only has conventional production not grown over the past four years, but there is virtually no spare capacity left among producers belonging to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Excluding the brief period when Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil wells were ablaze during the Persian Gulf war, OPEC has not operated with such spare capacity -- 2.7 million barrels a day at present -- in nearly 30 years.

You can call it just-in-time inventories or you can call it what it really is -- Saudi Arabia running out of reserves. In fact, some commentators such as Matt Simmons of Simmons Associates believes the giant Ghawar field, home to one-eighth of the world's known oil supply, may be 80 per cent to 90 per cent depleted. Moreover, Mr. Simmons notes that depletion from Ghawar, whose production has already slowed despite massive injections of salt water to maintain well pressure, is far exceeding the discovery of replacement oil elsewhere in the kingdom.

The tightness in today's crude market is unlikely to change unless there are major supply discoveries. Production in most of the world's major oil fields has already peaked and is now declining. For example, the United States, which is still the third-largest crude producer in the world, pumps out 25 per cent less oil than it did 30 years ago. And even the remaining reserves in the Middle East may be substantially smaller than currently believed. Just last month, Royal Dutch/Shell, the world's third-largest oil company, cut its estimate of its global proven reserves by a whopping 20 per cent.

Of course there is always the chance of finding another Ghawar, and billions of dollars of investment go chasing it every year. Considering that half of the world's oil supply comes from the 100 largest fields, the challenge of discovery is in the words of one geologist "a chase for elephants, not squirrels." But it is more than disconcerting that all 35 of the one-billion-barrel-plus oil fields in Iran and Iraq were found between 1906-1979.

New discoveries are made, but newly found sources of supply are trivial compared with the major finds made 60 or 70 years ago. For example, the much-anticipated Arctic gas reserves are no more than the equivalent of a medium-sized oil field. There have been no giant oil field discoveries since the late 1960s and early seventies, when the North Sea and Prudhoe Bay in Alaska were found. Both are now well past their production peaks.

Economists will argue that higher prices will elicit greater supply, but they are only partly right. Higher prices cannot bring forth greater supply, if the supply of cheap available oil no longer exists as it once did. But economists are right to believe that as oil prices rise, previously uneconomic sources of oil supply will suddenly become economic to exploit. And if the depletionists are right about a pending production peak for conventional supply, it will be precisely the growth of non-conventional oil production that will meet future energy demand.

It already has, having risen from just 2 per cent of global crude production a decade ago to 11 per cent. Nowhere has that growth been more dramatic than in Canada's oil patch. Crude extraction from the Athabasca and Cold Lake oil sands already accounts for one-third of Canada's total crude production, and will soon account for more than half. Similarly, the tar sands in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela currently yield 400,000 barrels a day in production. Since Venezuela's conventional crude production has already peaked, tar sands represent a growing share of that country's oil production as well.

However, non-conventional supply does not flow cheaply, as the recent $2.1-billion cost overrun in the Syncrude oil sands project attests. It requires steadily rising energy prices to make its problematic economics work. All the same, Syncrude's cost overruns are a lot easier to swallow if conventional crude production begins turning south. Based on the production numbers of the past half decade, there is a good chance of that starting to happen right about now.

Next week's column: How high will energy prices and energy stocks rise?

Jeffrey Rubin is chief economist and chief strategist at CIBC World Markets Inc.

 

[Napalm]

Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw

Originally posted by: alchemize
Tin foil crew got a weekend pass from the assylum. Fromthewilderness.com


You use the word tinfoil because you refuse to face the simple fact that the powers that be lie to you, little child. Why can't you grow up? Too fragile to face reality?

yes, he is...