Declining oil reserves

Off Topic
61

Nuclear power, at least fission, isn’t a way forward. Many countries are decommisoning plants and not replacing them; they must have good reason.

Also with uranium aren’t we replacing one finite fuel source with another?

i believe the isotope used in fission is U-235 which accounts for 0.7% of naturally occuring ore with the majority being U-238 (although this can be enriched to 3-5%) Seems like a lot of waste.

Where is all the radioactive waste going to go? There are only so many holes you can dig in the ground. I don’t want to be eating a “blinky” any time soon.

-Ronnie

62

Im going to read up on the black light thing and give some insight from an educated pov. not saying ppl here arent educated, but I am VERY educated in physics. better yet, maybe there is a physicist here that can give us a rundown!

but right away I notice it is energy liberated from hydrogen (at least that is the claim). Guess what the main source of hydrogen is- thats right NATURAL GAS IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF HYDROGEN. so, going from one non renewable to another. not to swift if you ask me. that, and why not just use the natural gas…

side note about that- it always cracks me up w/ fuel cell stuff. Hydrogen fuel cells are great, in theory. if we had an endless supply of pure hydrogen, that is. instead, at least as of right now, it is derived from natural gas. So, we take a nonrenewable source (nat. gas)- this takes energy, then process it to yield the hydrogen- this takes energy, then we process the hydrogen into the fuel cells- this takes energy. Then the fuel cells are used for a fuel source. I have yet to run the numbers, but on the surface it doesnt look like you end up with a positive net energy here- more energy from the fuel cell than it takes to create it. That, and the hydrogen source is, again, nonrenewable (at least for the time being).

63

The hydrogen is stripped from a water molecule, Initially it takes a small amount of energy to strip the first hydrogen molecules and begin to use them but the energy output is 100 fold enough to continue stripping hydrogen from water and still using 99% of the energy to power somehting. Some of the projections are that you will be able to run an electric car for a year on a gallon of water. Or power your home for a year on a couple gallons of water. That sound like a viable alternative to me. And since our planet has a whole lot of water, I don’t see hydrogen as a finite resource.

64

Regarding wind and solar:

They’re great, but they cannot produce net energy the way oil can.

On CSPAN 2 the other day, there was an all day conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studdies on Peak Oil. Every speaker (industry, governmental and NGO)agreed - renewables will never account for more than 2 percent of our energy supply.

(They had folks from the IEA, from the major oil companies, the World Bank, etc. . )

So let’s take their estimates and quadruple them for the sake of optimism and faith in technology. That still leaves us with less than 10 percent of our energy coming from those sources.

Wind and solar account each account for less than 1/10th of 1 percent of our current energy supply.

Our energy demand (worldwide) is projected to increase by 50% in the next 15 years.

Do the math - you’d have to upgrade wind (the most promising of all the renewables) by something like 250,000- 1,000,000 percent to make a significant difference!

That is just not feasible, especially as the abundance of cheap oil begins to diminsh.

Regarding the casualties:

In the most recent issue of Newsweek, an article stated that as of April 15th, there had been 800 plus wounded in the last month alone. Coupled with the number of dead (I don’t remember) that comes to about 1000 casualties in the month leading up to April 15th. Of course, the last two weeks, things have gotten even worse.

I’d have to go look up the exact numbers for the entire conflict, but you can see that 10,000 is not that far off the mark.

Keep in mind about 10 percent of Coaltiion troops are private contractors. So those 4 guys who got brutalized in Fallujah, for instance, aren’t factored in. (Nor are other private contractor casualties.

I’d have to go look up the exact number of casualties, but the point is this: 10K is not the far off.

BB - I will post more on the problems with nuclear and the government issue later.

Matt

65

The hydrogen is stripped from a water molecule, Initially it takes a small amount of energy to strip the first hydrogen molecules and begin to use them but the energy output is 100 fold enough to continue stripping hydrogen from water and still using 99% of the energy to power somehting. Some of the projections are that you will be able to run an electric car for a year on a gallon of water. Or power your home for a year on a couple gallons of water. That sound like a viable alternative to me. And since our planet has a whole lot of water, I don’t see hydrogen as a finite resource.

have an entire website on this issue:http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Regarding Hydrogen - yes you can get it from water, but it is a net energy loss. The process requires 1.3 units of energy to get 1 unit of energy.

Oil (as it is stored energy) requires 1 unit of energy to get 10 units of energy.

You must learn about Energy Profit Ratio to understand why the so called, “alternatives” aren’t really alternatives at all.

Vegita-
go back and get your chemistry or physics book. You supply energy to water, break the H2O molecule into H2 and O2. Then you get a fuel cell, with H2 and O2, let them combine, yielding energy. The thing is, the energy you yield is (theoretically, in perfect settings) the same amount that you put in. it looks a little something like this:
liberating hydrogen:
H2O + energy = H2 + O2
then in a fuel cell:
H2 + O2 = H2O + energy

Those two equations look alike? they should, because they are the same one- simply forward and backward. See where the amount of energy isnt anymore in making water than in breaking water (in ideal conditions/ theoretically)? The energy required to break the bond is the energy contained by the bond. the energy you get from making the bond is the energy it took to break the bond (in ideal conditions/ theoretically). Then you have to consider the costs of the cell itself, the storage and transportation of the H2.

My favorite prof. at OU was into fuel cell research very heavy until he got tired of the idiocy concerning hydrogen resources. He still follows it, which is where i found out that natural gas is the preferred source - for economical reasons, I suppose, really dunno. But he saw that it was a losing proposition and got out.

66

crap- neglect the top part of my prior post- i cut and paste others post that i reply to, and I forgot to erase them.

67

DA MAN,

There would be a net energy loss if you used the hydrogen as a combustable fuel source yes. However from when I understand about the blacklight process it is basicall cold fusion and therefore there is no net energy loss as the fusion of a hydrogen atom emits about 100 times the energy or more than the combustion of the same atom.

I agree that using hydrogen for a combustible fule source is not feasable.

68

vegita

and no matter how you cut it, there is only so much energy to be drained from a hydrogen bond. I was not speaking of combustion, simply the chemical combination of hydrogen and water- which i suppose could be called “cold fusion” in a sense, but would be so inaccurate. The concepts of fusion and fission involve the nuclei of atoms- not the entire atom. otherwise what you did in chemistry class in high school with baking soda and water liberating CO2 would be “fusion,” only it isnt. Combining hydrogen and oxygen to get water is not cold fusion of any kind, simply an exothermic reaction.

Last time I checked, cold fusion hadnt been achieved on any viable level.

69

DA MAN,

you need to check out blaclightpower.com to see what I am talking about.

They are not combining hydrogen and water, They are separating the hydrogen out and oh hell wait…

http://www.blacklightpower.com/process.shtml

This is the best summary they give, it is short and sweet and there is even a little animation to help depict what happens, check it out and then tell me what you think.

From what they say, they have already acheived the blacklight process, they are now working on the converters to transfer the plasma energy into electrical energy.

70

Matt:

Re: Casualties –

That is quite an extrapolation. You took one data point – one which I haven’t seen before, BTW – and went backward and assumed that it was a constant rate to get near your earlier estimate. That reminds me of global warming models… =-)

71


Hydrogen power

72

Hydrogen powered

73

Boston Barrister:

Here’s the deal - When I first said “10,000” I was doing it off the basis of stats that I remember but to which I did not have any links.

I happened to have a newsweek next to my desk here - read the stat and put it up.

Here is a link - As of 12/2003 there had been 9000 American casualties.

There have been more in the past 4 months, as I’m sure you know. April alone there were over 1,000.

So were probably closer to 12,000 than 10,000 now.

Happy?

74

Matt. I love listening to experts. They always seem to be wrong. I knew the last downturn of the economy was coming (the recession before 911) just because I heard that some economists had come around and realized that the “new economy” was real, and that the economy could keep growing.

I am also reminded of Bill Gates stating that he didn’t think there was any reason for a computer to ever need more then 640 K of memory.

Also I would be careful of any statement made by psudo-experts who are actually politicians in disguise. (Or salesmen in disguise.)

This is what really will happen. Prices will fluctuate as people attempt to manipulate prices, i.e. OPEC and the oil companies. As oil prices increase, they will pump more, but when there is a drop, they will cut production. More locations will be found with oil, and newer, cheaper methods of getting at oil will become available. Oh yeah, taxes will go up.

Efficiency in appliances, lights, and cars will help stretch available energy. Every major bump will fuel more and more people into living more efficiently. Oh yeah, taxes will go up.

Renewable will keep plodding along, slowly increasing in power output, and will continue to be built. Mostly as a supplement to other forms of energy, helping to stretch that energy even further. Oh yeah, taxes will go up.

50 years from now, the oil needed at that time will finally be in a true decline, but 50 years of innovation provides more forms of energy production then we ever dreamed about, so oil is suddenly becoming obsolete. As its production drops, its price is actually more stable because it is being replaced by newer forms of energy. Not to mention the super efficient cars using a variety of energy, producing a competition forcing an abundance of cheap energy. Oh yeah, taxes will go up.

One more thing. A new book will be written talking about the coming shortage of (insert energy form here), causing a global economic depression. Oh yeah, you won’t believe the tax on the book.

75

Clearly you have not done the math.

Even if we cut our use by 66 percent, we would only put the peak off by 25 years.

You think a few tweaks in fuel and energy efficiency devices is going to do that, especially when over 50 percent of oil use is by industry and military?

Matt

76

I know a guy who has spent the last 3 years in Venuzualla - hot damn i butchered that poor countries name - and they have huge reserves not even touched yet- reserves much larger than the whole of the middle east, if I remember correctly. which brings me to the notion the issue in iraq is about oil- if we simply wanted oil, we would roll into Ven. town and take over and tap that source- not chase after a smaller source in the middle east… but that is neither here nor there…

77

What math? How do you figure the future? 5 years out is getting into an estimate. 10 years is an educated guess. And 25 years is pure fantasy.

Besides, there are things that are not mathematical. How people will react to events is very important. I have seen this simplistic math before. When we were supposed to have hit that peak in the at least ten times now, but it hasn’t happened yet.

Also how do you figure the inventions of the next decade? What is going to be the next great invention, or development? Who thought that people around the world would be debating online years ago? Or who thought of ebay before it existed? ebay was an accident if you care. (“Oops, I’m a billionaire.”)

Not only are you ignoring what I am trying to say, but you don’t seem to understand that I do not believe you are correct. And guessing at how much oil is going to be used over the next 25 years, and just throwing in a 66% improved efficiency doesn’t mean a thing.

I know all this information is based on estimates. And when you take one estimate, add it to another estimate, then plug in another estimate, the math really begins to fall apart. But you don’t even acknowledge that you are using estimates. All you are doing is plugging in worst case scenario numbers (even if you think they are not worst case) and multiplying them together, not realizing that the best case scenario numbers might lead to hundreds of years of oil being left. Personally I don’t believe either.

Now to answer your question:

“You think a few tweaks in fuel and energy efficiency devices is going to do that, especially when over 50 percent of oil use is by industry and military?”

Yes I do. Energy prices start going up, and companies will suddenly start doing whatever they can to reduce their energy use. You are looking at it like a hard science, when you should look at it like a social science. Sure there is a fixed amount of oil in the ground, but how it is used is affected by price. Much of what people can do is not done only because they don’t need to right now.

I recently read that adjusted for inflation, the price of a gallon of gas in the early 80’s, (sorry, I cannot remember what year they used,) was equivalent to $2.80 today. This is a result of technology. Obviously the supply to demand has improved.

78

Do the math:

We have a 1000 billion barrels left.

According to the Bush Administration we are at the peak of production - they have stated there may be only 2 million more barrels per day we can get at.

We use 80 million barrels per day.

We need 2-4 percent more per year to develop new technology, new industry, new jobs, feed more people etc… .

By 2020, we are going to need 120 million barrels a day.

Lets say the oil reserves were tripled -3000 billion left instead of 1000 billion left.

Do the freakin math:

What we estimate right now: 2000 billion barrels originally. We’ve used 1000. That leaves 1000 more.

What happens if resrves are magickally tripled: 4000 billion originally. We’ve used 1000. Means we’ve got 3000 billion barrels.

At 80 million barrels a day, with a 2-4 percent increase per year, we will be back at the peak (half way point) in 25-30 years.

As far as estimates, have you been keeping track of all the scandals in the oil industry? Turns out the major companies have been drastically overestimating their reserves.

So the situation is probably worse than it seems, not better.

As far as technology - what do you need for research, development,construction, transportation of this yet unknown technology?

That’s right - oil.

Average desktop computer requires 10X its weight in fossil fuels to be constructed.

We wouln’t be online if it wasn’t for abundant fossil fuel energy.

BTW, did you hear - oil prices at highest since 1990. Also, the director of the Selective Service just presented a report to the Pentagon in which he recommends expanding the draft to include all men and women, ages 18-34.

Where the heck is your precious conservation and technology? Where is your supply and demand that was suppossed to save use?

It better show up fast. Because if it doesn’t, alot of T-Mag readers are going to find themselves shipped out to the Middle East very soon.

79

Matt:

No, I’m not happy.

Here’s the story to which you linked. I think you mischaracterized it completely. Of that number in the story, only 397 people were killed in combat. Now, I think the number is closer to 800.

By Mark Benjamin
Published 11/14/2003 2:06 PM

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 (UPI) – The number of U.S. casualties from Operation Iraqi Freedom – troops killed, wounded or evacuated due to injury or illness – has passed 9,000, according to new Pentagon data.

In addition to the 397 service members who have died and the 1,967 wounded, 6,861 troops were medically evacuated for non-combat conditions between March 19 and Oct. 30, the Army Surgeon General’s office said.

That brings total casualties among all services to more than 9,200, and represents an increase of nearly 3,000 non-combat medical evacuations reported since the first week of October. The Army offered no immediate explanation for the increase.

A leading veterans’ advocate expressed concern.

“We are shocked at the dramatic increase in casualties,” said Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center.

Of the non-combat medical evacuations:

– 2,464 were for injuries, such as those sustained in vehicle accidents.

– 4,397 were due to illness; 504 of those were classified as psychiatric, 378 as neurological, and another 150 as neurosurgery.

“We are especially concerned about the psychological and neurological evacuations from this war,” Robinson said. “We request a clarification of the types of illnesses people are suffering from so we do not have a repeat of the first Gulf War. We need to understand the nature and types of illnesses so scientists can determine if significant trends are occurring.”

Army Surgeon General’s Office spokeswoman Virginia Stephanakis told United Press International Thursday that it is misleading to combine psychiatric and neurological problems. Some of the neurosurgery might be operations on the spinal cord, for example.

“Those are apples and oranges,” she said.

She also said that some troops evacuated for psychiatric reasons later returned after getting a rest.

In early October, the Army Surgeon General’s office said 3,915 soldiers had been evacuated from Operation Iraqi Freedom for non-combat injuries and illnesses, including 478 with psychological problems and 387 for neurological reasons.

The new total of 6,861 reported non-combat evacuations is a rise of 57 percent since then.

The latest data on non-combat evacuations includes 1,628 orthopedic (bone) injuries. Other leading causes for evacuations include:

– 831 surgeries for injuries;

– 289 cardiology cases;

– 249, gastrointestinal;

– 242, pulmonary (lung);

– 634, general surgery;

– 319, gynecological;

– 290, urological;

– 37, dental.

Stephanakis said the pulmonary problems included soldiers who suffered from pneumonia as part of a cluster investigated by the Army in August.

The numbers don’t include service members treated in theater or those whose illnesses – such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder – were not apparent until after they returned to the United States.

-0-

Copyright 2001-2004 United Press International

80

Casualties = dead and injured combined.

First sentence of the article says 9000 causalties. (that was in Nov/Dec)