Matt,
I did a search, and the peak in 1988 occurred not because of a lack of oil or oil finds, but due to lack of funding in the financial collapse. Their production is increasing over the past years with the rapidity in which it declined in the late 80’s, early 90’s. Their problem does not lie in lack of oil but lack of markets to export to. Their domestic needs are not rising, so they are not increasing production too much. They are not worried about their reserves but rather about the United States pushing oil prices down by sucking Iraq dry, and destroying their profit margin.
Also, You are going to have to provide a better resource against abiotic oil than just the opinion of some random geologist. I would like to be sure that peak oil is in the immediate future, rather than in 25 years.
google “matt simmons” - bush’s main man. He’s got a site, but its got a funky address that I can’t remember off the top of my head. Its got dozens and dozens of his essays on it.
I’m good to go. I have 2 bicycles and between my wife and I we have 5 horses. I can feed myself with my bow but if things get tough I can always dust off the blackpowder .54.
Even if the peak was in 25 years, we’d still be in some serious, serious sh_t.
One thing I encourage everybody to do is go to those sites - look at the numbers and then substitute in delusionally optimistic numbers and look what happens.
No matter how you cut it, we have a crisis on our hands.
And yet very intelligent people refuse to see the writing on the wall.
Folks, you know why bad things happen? Its not because of evil dictators - its because the smart people in the society refused to read the writing on the wall.
That’s why every great civilization has collapsed and it’s why ours is about to as well.
Matt. Your site just looks like a simple advertisement for a book. You have links supporting your ideas, but avoid any that might not support your conclusions.
Google searches are nice, but you have to realize that you are dealing with the internet. All the doom and gloom sites come to the top. But then again they always do, except when the porn sites pop up everywhere.
You try to tell me that I am not understanding some basic concepts, but it look to me like you are completely ignoring basic concepts that do not mesh with your view of the world.
I am not saying that there is an unlimited supply of oil, but I know that it is not the only energy source. Once of the biggest reasons oil is involved with all the production right now is because it is the cheapest energy source. The most bang for your buck.
You mention that we are running out oil for energy, but when efficiency is mentioned, suddenly you change the subject to the manufacturing side. For example if anyone mentions solar, you mention that it takes 12 years (best estimate to annoy you,) to have produced enough energy to recover it’s use in production of the solar panel. But you never mention anything about the 13th year. Then we will be ahead. And in a few years, it will be 10, or 8 years till recovery. You said yourself that it is 4 for the windmills. But that means that after 8 years, you get a second windmill, and have effectively used no oil.
I agree that oil pumped out of the ground won’t be available forever, but I disagree with your belief of how soon it will happen, and that there will be absolutely nothing to replace it with. Technology will step up when it needs to, regardless of your reverse understanding of it.
Also when I answered you question of a technological improvement in a time of gas shortage, you completely ignored my answer.
Also why does you site have no mention of natural gas hydrates? What I have seen so far looks promising. One estimate is that there is more energy stored in hydrates then all the oil, coal, and normal natural gas combined. I believe this was only referring to a field in Canada also.
I don’t doubt you believe in everything you are stating, but I also believe you have put blinders on. I have listened to your arguments, and have asked myself what if they were true. And I keep coming to the same conclusion. That humans are so resilient that they will change, and come up with new ways of dealing with the situation, and new innovations that will work, and maybe even better then oil. It might take more then one innovation, but it will come.
Personally I believe that Biotest is a great example of this innovation. (No I am not kissing their asses, unless it involves getting free shit.) The government asked that they not produce T2, so they brought out T2 pro. L-norephedrine was knocked out, so they used ephedra sinica. That got knocked out, so they now produce their Hot Rox. (Which probably made the T2 pro obsolete.) Now Mag-10 is gone, and they already have
Why? Because they don’t give up. If you truly believe this, then what is the answer? What is the remedy?
Y2K might have been averted because people did something about the problem. I won?t call it a hoax, or ignorance, just because so many people worked on it that it is entirely possible that for the most part, it was solved. I believe your scenario is just as solvable, even at it’s worst.
Did you know that having available money, and credit, actually can make a business less likely to succeed? Many companies have become successful because they didn’t have any money. They had to solve their problems creatively. Whereas someone with plenty of cash available can just finance out their problems, until their cash runs out that is.
People show that creativity all the time. A major manufacturer of peanut butter could always tell when the economy was going into a recession because peanut butter sales would go up. This is a result of people responding to their situation. Reducing their expensive meat consumption, and increasing the use of cheaper peanut butter.
You might remember the temporary use of the peanut butter index a few years back, after the exec’s knowledge became well known.
So what is your opinion of hydrates? And what is the solution for your bleak future?
Methane hydrates I cover these in the book, I can post an excerpt when I have a bit more time.
Adapatation for millions does not equal survival for billions.
There are many instances, where we don’t find a solution. Where technology fails us. AIDS, the commond cold, etc. . .
My solution:
Guns, gold, seeds, and sun.
Guns: you are going to have to be prepared to be your own police officer.
Gold: holds its value much better than fiat currency as things collapse.
Seeds: you have to learn to grow your own food.
Sun: invest in solar if you’ve got the money, but realize that a few years after production begins to decline, there won’t be enough fossil fuels to manufacture the raw materials. Its just a way of keeping your lights on a bit longer than everybody else.
Basically, we have to learn to live like folks did 100’s if not 1000’s of years ago.
Your t-mag analogy is a good one. In the years to come, it will be those who can adapt who will survive.
Not those who can adapt via technoloogy - because again fossil fuels aren’t just used as fuel. They are the raw materials for pretty much everything in our society. You can’t construct a computer, a moped, a windmill without the materials necessary for the construction - those materials come from petrochemicals.
It will be those who can adapt to a much more “primitive” lifestyle.
As far as my site, make sure to read the book excerpts, not just the intro page.
Well, there are other sources of oils than digging it out of the ground. Sure, they aren’t commercially feasible today because they are too expensive, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t feasible under a different pricing scheme.
Get this, when oil is $15/gallon people might finally be incented to live within walking distance or biking distance to work. God forbid! Oh the horror! Imagine the fitness and health consequences!
Whoa, perhaps when electricity is $10/kwh we’ll decide to turn the air-conditioning down a little bit. Maybe we’ll let our clothes air-dry in the sunshine again? Maybe we’ll go outside and throw a frisbee around instead of glueing our asses to electricity sucking entertainment devices. Omg, the consequences!
You are ignoring basic economic laws when you assume consumption patterns will remain the same as prices increase. This is partially due to ignoring the fact that alternatives become more feasible as prices increase. While it might be necessary for people to find alternatives to the consumption lifestyle that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Wow… Too bad we can’t use testosterone as a fuel, as it seems in infinite supply here. (lol) It may be interesting for you guys to hear from a different vantage point. I apologize in advance for the length of this post? but it reflects the length of this thread. This thread got referenced on a peak oil forum, (which is how I found it), and although it?s a little weird to be discussing peak oil theory on a BB website? what the hell?
First, it is important to note that Matt is not a geophysicist or oil industry insider that I am aware of. Rather, he is compiling information from industry experts to form a cohesive statement about global oil production and the future. The peak oil theory won?t fit in a CNN news crawl? as is evident from the diversity of opinion in this thread.
Rather, peak oil theory is a complex and evolving understanding of the realities of our oil based economy. So, as Matt points out many times, to get the thrust of peak oil concepts requires an investment in time and attention by the reader. But maybe attention span isn?t renewable either?
Next, I don?t know Matt by anything other than his writing. But I?ll hazard a guess that if he could wave his magic wand, and change anything about oil peak and its implications, it would be that peak oil theorists have missed an important, elemental portion of the concept, and that peak oil is in fact wrong. I hope the same thing myself? But as more attention is paid to oil production and the future, and greater transparency into oil industry numbers and practices emerge, we should all question and explore our future in the light of this new information. It is difficult to stand virtually alone among your peers, and posit unpopular points of view. Perhaps we should be more sanguine when responding to Matt?s arguments; after all, websites by Matt = 1, books by Matt = 1, webs and books by all of us = 0.
Perhaps in fairness, the, ?do the math?, suggestion is a little aggressive, since most of us are not energy industry experts, much less mathematicians. What I think Matt is implying more than doing math, is reading and comparing the published results of the folks who are energy and statistics experts, and comparing their methods and results to one another. It?s like the old Tarzan movies, where everyone speaks English, if you just say it slowly & loudly enough. To really get this peak thing, some underlying knowledge is essential for clarity; like knowing that measuring oil in millions of barrels is a common industry practice, even when discussing billions and even trillions of barrels, for example.
The real core of the peak argument hinges on a very basic concept which none of us would dispute. Net energy return for any given energy carrier describes its usefulness. Any return 1:1 or below is of course not supportable. Everything beyond 1:1.1 and above is more useful the higher the returned energy; simple, basic and obvious.
Comparing energy carriers then becomes a question of efficiency of that carrier. If we accept the idea that oil returns 10 times as much energy, as it takes to produce and distribute it, then to replace oil as an energy carrier requires the same ratio. So absent some unknown breakthrough in energy technology, oil’s replacement will be less efficient as a carrier, producing less net energy available for consumption. This is the key-stone for peak arguments. Less available energy means, less economic growth. Slow economic growth is called recession. Zero or negative growth is a depression. Got oil?
Finally, it is widely accepted that Saudi Arabia has the only known, meaningful additional production capacity in the global crude market. Suggestions that ?vast? reserves of medium or heavy crude, equates to sweet-light crude reserves is to misunderstand the nature of petroleum production. Let?s view it this way? is there any doubt that every oil producer in the world is selling every possible barrel at $40 each? Of course they are, given the market forces involved. It?s not much of a stretch to then postulate that if world demand for oil rises, (which is a statistical certainty), the barrel price will climb against supply unless more oil hits the market. If world producers are selling all they can today, then where does the oil come from to meet the new demand? Saying that less attractive oil will then be produced to meet growing demand is a tacit admission that oil prices will continue to grow apace. And that? is the whole point.
I ask everyone to read the growing body of ?scientific? evidence on global oil production. There is a ton of urban legend quality stuff out there, so be cautious, but if you can get past the nonsense, you will also find serious researchers and scientists publishing their findings for peer review, as is customary in scientific communities. In addition to Matt?s work I suggest you look at the work of Mathew Simmons, Colin Campbell, Robert Bentley, J. H. Laherr?re, Kenneth Deffeyes, and many others who have all published on this topic, and presented credible thesis, Google them.
Addendum ? Be nice to Matt? he?s only trying to help. And if he sells some books which make some money by illuminating ideas important to all of us, good for him. I?ll be telling tales out of school here, but I think Matt was feeling frustrated by this thread, and referenced it in an energy forum as an example to all of us crazy, nut-ball, and radical, knee-jerk, peak types, about how difficult it is to discuss peak oil issues. Without knowing Matt personally, I feel certain he would be among the first and loudest voices, were a realistic solution to an oil crisis available, to shout it from the mountain tops. I myself? am all ears.
I really doubt that billions are going to die, as you state. Mostly because much of the world is just steps away from the stone age anyway.
If your scenario were to play out, America would be hurt the worst, just because we are the most spoiled. (Yes, I said that.) Other “developed” countries will also have a problem. But the less technology a country has, the less of a shock it will be.
But I still believe there are flaws in your argument. The first being that nobody actually knows how much oil there is. The USGS mentions 2.12 Trillion recoverable Barrels in a news release.
There is an argument online using these figures here:
www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/index.html
I am not sure if this is just a student, but I mention the link because he comments about ?unconventional? sources of oil not included in estimates.
“It is “unconventional” only because the cost of refining is significantly higher – from $10 to $20 per barrel higher than “sweet light” Saudi crude oil. It could translate into anywhere from 25 to 50 cents more at the pump for consumers.”
He refers to a book in another quote:
“In their book, The Future of Oil, Odell and Rosing note that estimates of the world oil resource base ranged from two trillion to 11 trillion, with three trillion barrels of oil being “the more realistic figure” for conventional oil, while another two trillion could be added as a conservative estimate for unconventional oil. This total of five trillion should be compared to total world oil reserve estimates around one trillion (oil industry proven and USGS identified reserves) and 2.2 trillion (USGS ultimately recoverable reserves)”
I would call this a good possibility of there being access to 5 trillion barrels of oil.
Also why do you dismiss any advance if it does not do everything that oil does. If it only does part, then part of the problem is solved. Something else can solve the other problems. Such as plastic.
I have a good friend who is a biochemist, who almost worked on a project to genetically engineer corn to produce plastic. The plastic would just grow. He said it is actually quite simple. (In a relative sense.)
I have read of an artificial plastic made from conventional corn. It is also biodegradable, but does not work in the microwave as it is not stable at high temperatures.
Now while we are not using solar, wind, geothermal, nuke, and other alternative sources right now, (don’t forget Hoover Dam,) that does not mean they won’t work, or that they won’t achieve some sort of improvement.
A great example of this improvement is wind. A windmill costs 20 times more then in 1981, but produces 120 times more energy. U.S. News and World Report put out a special energy issue. It said it produced energy at 4 cents a kilowatt. What will that be in 10 - 20 years? Another 120 fold increase?
And why hasn’t anyone thought of wrapping solar powered sheets around the shaft of the windmill? How do these solar panels look?
Sure it’s an attempt to promote a product, but this is a “low-cost, flexible solar technology.” They are talking about making shingles out of these things. People can have them on their houses, and it is possible that nobody would even know. Unlike the big bulky panels common years ago.
This stuff is made out of aluminum, and silicon.
Is it going to replace oil? No, but as prices drop, or technology improves, it will slow down the depletion of oil.
I will admit that there will be a peak in production, though it doesn’t have to be at the middle. And I will admit that the amount of oil available is reduced every day. But again I disagree with your assessment. You don’t seem to understand this adaptation that will occur. A good example is that scooter sales are up 21%. People are already adapting to the current temporary price increase. (Unfortunately I don’t see a major drop anytime soon.)
Locally 3% more people are riding the busses. If there is a true problem, and the prices go up, the busses will be packed, and scooters will take over the roads.
Back to supply, if the prices are low, then the interest in finding more oil is not there. Increased prices mean it is worth it to look for oil. I believe that this is the biggest reason for so few finds in recent years. And I know this is true. I remember a little news story where oil companies were not looking for oil, and were reducing their production because the value was not there. If the current prices stay where they are, they will be looking for oil, and to the surprise of many people, I believe they will find it.
Why? Because it will be worth it.
The biggest reason that oil is used in the production of everything is because of how cheap it is. Substitutions for oil may start out cheap, but will quickly drop. Maybe it won’t take just one product, but there will be replacements. This is a result of technology. Not your inverse view of it. Remember the old quote, “Necessity is the mother of invention.”
Maybe all of the fat extracted from liposuction surgeries will result in a new lubricant.
Also the world’s population is either going to be stable, or decline. This is not what people are being told, but I believe it to be true.
China’s one child per couple is a good reason to believe this. They had about 1 billion people when the rule was implemented. Which meant the possibility of half a billion children. Though should be much less due to the people who already had children when the policy was introduced.
Those children should produce another 250 million children, but this will not be the case. The biggest reason is that since only one child is allowed, parents want to have sons, not daughters. So they are aborting a very large number of female fetuses. In fact the biggest reason in the world for an abortion to occur is because it is female.
This has resulted in an unbalanced population in China’s teens and young adults. In 2002 the ratio of male to female births was 116.9 for every 100 females. This ratio means 20 million less births, so instead of 250 mil, now it becomes 230 mil for the generation. Unfortunately it also means 230 million young are supporting a billion older people.
A similar situation is occurring in India. Females are aborted because parents don’t want to provide dowry for their child’s wedding, which the parents of the wife are supposed to do. The rate is about 90 girls for every 100 boys in the 0 to 6 age range.
The world population growth has slowed. It hasn’t been above 2% annually since 1971, and hasn’t been above 1.5% since 1991. This year it is supposed to be 1.13%.
Future estimates show a decline, but I believe it will drop quicker then projected.
But even if the estimates are correct, the slowing population growth will result in a reduction in the needed increase in energy output.
Here is my little summary:
Oil will last longer then you think. Obviously not forever, but we will not run out overnight either.
Alternative energy will improve to the point that they produce energy more efficiently then oil.
Efficiency will slow the growth of oil consumption. (For example, GE has a new turbine that saves $2 million a year in natural gas. And Japan just bought three of them.)
When oil prices reach a level that they start affecting production costs, alternates to oil will start popping up in various industries.
Fusion reactors will be built. (They have already produced more energy out then in with a test fire of a fusion reactor, for just seconds, so it is viable.) And unlike fission reactors, the waste is only radioactive for about 10 years. (I cannot remember where I read this.) And fusion reactors have very little danger because of the way they produce energy. Just stop the flow of hydrogen in, and it stops.
I doubt there is anything more I can add to this, and I think this has just been debated to death. I say we have a stupid little pole and ask people which side they believe is correct.
Colin Campbell recently presented this graph from the USGS which pretty much sums up their position on reserves estimates. To understand this graph, you need to know how reserves are calculated. We see the actual cumulative world oil production since 1950 expressed in billions of barrels (Gb). Then on the right are the USGS estimated reserve figures expressed in Gb. P5 means a 5% chance of recovering that amount of oil, P50 a 50% chance of recovering that amount, and P95, or almost certainly recovering that much. Notice which one fits into the actual production curve. Only the P95 number is consistent with reality. So be careful of assuming the federally funded USGS numbers are defeating peak theories. Many geologists question their methods where energy resources are concerned, but even absent outright tampering, the graph speaks for itself.
No one disputes that there exists plenty of oil, just that the production of sweet crude will, or has peaked, and afterwards replacing it will be through less efficient means. All of the alternative energy source arguments are valid, and will no doubt be exploited, they just won?t be as efficient as oil and thus offer less net energy return.
Fusion provides exactly 0% of the world?s energy today. Even if fusion could be coaxed into working, how long a time period, and how much investment of energy would really be required to replace our entire energy infrastructure. You see the problem I?m sure; it?s a foot-race between possible alternatives and peak oil. That?s why it?s so critical to understand if OPEC and especially Saudi Arabia can really increase their production to any great degree. Before responding, everyone should take a look at what?s already been put out there, and decide for themselves. More and more smart people are giving this issue real attention around the world and publishing. To suggest that permanent $40 per barrel oil would do anything other than to devastate global economics may be a stretch, but not that far of one either. There is little doubt that expensive oil will cause inflation unemployment and wide spread social unrest globally. Indeed the only places not affected will be those which are already experiencing severe economic disruptions, starvation and other effects of social upheaval. Hardly a ringing endorsement?
Slow economic growth is called recession. Zero or negative growth is a depression. Got oil?
I hate to nit-pick, but slow economic growth is in fact desirable. Negative growth is a recession – long term negative growth is a depression.
Anyhow, it is okay if oil production declines and eventually drops down to a level supported only by alternative means of production. In fact, this is bound to happen eventually.
The amount of adjustment available to us is tremendous. However, it is currently inconvenient or expensive to make use of these adjustments:
I could walk to work every day, but it would eat a couple of hours out of my day.
I could telecommute, but that isn’t truly the way things are done yet.
I could take public transit. It isn’t free and it isn’t convenient, but it is at least viable.
So, yes, I know reductions in use don’t change the theory about energy return. However, as the availability of oil declines and prices rise, these reductions will happen and the remaining oil will last longer because of it. At the same time other now laughable adjustments will occur:
Expensive alternative oils and synthetics will start to compete.
Plants of all kinds produce various types of oils.
The latex from milkweed plants has been converted to diesel fuel.
As a funny example, there is a car in my city which runs off fast food deep frying grease waste.
Maturing fuel cell technology will become cost competitive with gasoline engines. Use solar energy to split water and then burn hydrogen to produce power.
Did you know that oil companies can squeeze extra oil out of a “dry” well but that it costs money? Higher prices will free up expensive sources of oil here and there.
At the same time, while I’m not overly worried about it, I won’t argue that the transition will be painless. How much lead time will we get? How hard is it to convert existing equipment to use alternative sources? Cars run on propane, they run on alcohol, gasoline, diesel and there are even commercial hybrid cars on the road now… consumption of petrochemicals can be fairly flexible when a real price crunch arrives (due to conservation and retrofitting).
Don’t forget, oil is simply a very convenient source of stored solar energy. The energy was collected by simple plant products and we are harvesting it. Last time I checked the sun wasn’t planning on going away any time soon.
Finally, the worst thing we can do is artifically keep the price of oil low for the sake of convenience. This causes overconsumption and lack of alternative development. Let the price rise and we’ll see how the world adapts to the change.
I’m not buying the gloom and doom just yet. The world was supposed to end due to the Y2K transition too. Don’t underestimate the flexibility of humankind or its ability to react to adversity of almost any kind.
Let’s not argue about definitions in economics, and I’m willing to concede all the points in your post.
In fact, what is known as "Flat-Earth Economics? is exactly what you described. That is, the market will shift from existing sources to alternatives if prices rise high enough. Agreed…
This is the point of peak oil theory; that our future energy supply is going to be more expensive. Just how expensive & how soon is the question.
Conservation and increases in efficiency are also a given. History shows us however, that energy consumption closely follows production. In other words, we tend to use what energy is available. The conservation and efficiency gains spurred by the 1970?s OPEC embargo did not create surplus energy supplies, although it did extend the timeline for oil depletion. Your conservation point is well taken though, since we will either choose to conserve, or be forced to eventually. In fact, many people, myself included, think conservation is the only solution, (or outcome) of oil depletion.
Think of energy sources as extra hands to help with your work. By harnessing an energy source, you can accomplish more than you could by yourself. For oil, it?s like having 10 people to assist you. What if 5 of them suddenly quit? You replace them with 5 new workers, who are half as productive as the 5 who quit. You just lost 25% of your capability. Or, seen another way, you have increased the cost of your work by 25%, which you are forced to pass to your customers.
These issues are covered by Matt on his site, as well as many others linked from there.
I am not arguing that the price of oil is not going to go up, or that energy prices won’t increase. I am arguing mostly against the idea that our society will completely collapse, and we will end up living like they did 100 to 1000 years ago. Or that billions of people will die worldwide just because we ran out of oil.
I agree with you that oil is not an infinite resource, even if it is continuously being produced. (Our ancestors will be finding oil under old Indian burial grounds.) But it is my contention that there is a lot more oil out there then anyone wants to admit. And with about a decade of a price drop, and about a decade of relatively flat prices, nobody had any financial incentive to find more oil.
Now I don’t see prices staying where they are right now, but I don’t really see them making a major drop to where they were a few years ago. The market has changed, and environmentalists are making things worse.
The price of natural gas is going to hit a record the winter of 04-05. The environmentalists are mostly to blame for this price increase, not the Earth running out. But the oil and gas industries actually like the environmentalists to get in the way, because it artificially inflates prices. You don’t think the oil companies would fight more to get their refineries built if they thought it would make them money?
Take a look at the chart you posted, “Delivering the USGS Estimates” and compare it to the chart posted by bluey on 05/06/04.
You have to take a close look, because the charts aren’t designed the exact same way. Anyway you will notice a trend that seems a little different then what you would think supply and demand would cause. It is a little counter intuitive, but what is happening is that as the pieces dropped, seemingly the supply dropped.
In 1982 the prices peaked, while on your chart, there was a little spike in the available gas. Then prices dropped until about 1988. On your chart you can see a little V dip. Then about 1990 prices take a little jump, and so does production.
But that price jump was very short lived, and interestingly so were the available resources.
If you don’t understand what that means, supply is following demand. The price of oil has been flat, or dropping for the most part since 1982. And the available resources have dropped in response.
Right now the prices are up, so you will see another increase.
If the price seems stable enough at a higher level, then you will see an increase in available oil, and new oil finds. In fact I believe that some in the industry actually have some ides where to look, but are waiting right not just to make sure there is a real price jump.
I guarantee oil companies want people to believe in this peak oil scare.
As far as fusion, to tell you the truth, all energy on earth comes from fusion. But I believe that what you mean is that we are not getting any energy from fusion right now, equaling 0%. Well we have a new restaurant being built near where I live. Guess what. They supply 0% of all dining here right now, so maybe they should quit building the restaurant.
The reason there is no energy from fusion is because there are no fusion reactors, and they won’t be producing energy commercially until about 2050. Although a Demo reactor is expected to be working by 2035, which should produce energy, but not at the level of a full reactor.
Why is this important? Because there is enough deuterium in a gallon of water to produce the same amount of energy as 300 gallons of gas.
About one out of every 6500 atoms of water is deuterium. Or you could say that a teaspoon of deuterium is equal to 2500 gallons of gas.
Right now it is planned to build the next step reactor, the one before the Demo reactor. There is only one thing that is really holding it back though. Politics. They can’t decide where to build it, and had to reduce its cost (which they did) before they could build it.
The only thing we nee to do is keep oil supply’s available until then, and I don’t think that is going to be a hard thing.
Here is a quote from an MIT website developing what they call a plasmatron:
“‘If widespread use of plasmatron hydrogen-enhanced gasoline engines could eventually increase the average efficiency of cars and other light-duty vehicles by 20 percent, the amount of gasoline that could be saved would be around 25 billion gallons a year,’” Cohn said. “‘That corresponds to around 70 percent of the oil that is currently imported by the United States from the Middle East.’”
Do you think a reduction of 25 billion gallons a year is enough to stretch out oil reserves? I am fairly sure that means more oil left for production, which Matt keeps mentioning.
Is this years from being implemented? A far future invention? Another quote:
“'Our objective is to have the plasmatron in production-and in vehicles-by 2010,'Smaling said.”
Years ago I found out a little fact of life. There is no good news. If you ever hear good news on tv, there is some ulterior bad news. Every silver lining is tarnished.
They have been talking about the terrible economy, but now that there is proof that the economy is improving, suddenly the interest rates are going to go up, and inflation will come back. Why? Because the economy is expanding.
What is real interesting is an article I have mentioned earlier. It has a little chart in it from the Department of Energy. It shows all of 2004 with an estimate of the price of gas. It has a peak before the middle of the year, and then a drop to about $1.50 by years end. It shows that while they didn’t predict a rise as high as the prices actually went, they knew it was coming. But they also know that the prices are going to drop.
This recent increase in prices has caused people to jump on this peak oil bandwagon, but when the prices subside, it will lose all the emotional converts.
There’s lots of oil left, but unfortunately most of the easy to extract stuff has been used up already.
It’s been estimated that Canada has 4x the oil deposits of Saudi Arabia in the tar sands of northern Alberta, but getting it out is an expensive process. A friend of mine works out there and says that the oil companies are dumping hundreds of millions into developing them and bringing in new workers, probably because they anticipate that with the way oil prices are going, oil from tar sand is going to become ecomoically viable within a few years.
Won’t be the best thing for consumers, but hey Canada will be rich and maybe the apocalypse will be prevented for a few years until someone gets that cold fusion thing down.
There’s a great article on energy inflation by one of the Fed commissioners today in the WSJ – can’t link it, but I suggest it for reading. I’m not worrying about running out of oil anytime soon.
