Four words: hydrogen internal combustion engine.
As for the global warming thing, we’re actually headed for another Ice Age, so that’ll actually cancel out global warming.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Four words: hydrogen internal combustion engine.[/quote]
Hydrogen = stupidest waste of time ever.
-
like fusion, it is always going to be 20 years away
-
It explodes very easily
-
Most likely it will be produced using fossil fuels
-
It isn’t very efficient
-
It is incredibly expensive
We should go for bio-fuel use instead. The infrastructure is already here, and we can stop spending money to fund saudi terrorists.
[quote]Soco wrote:
…
We should go for bio-fuel use instead. The infrastructure is already here, and we can stop spending money to fund saudi terrorists.
[/quote]
Most of the major environmentalist groups claim it costs more energy to produce “bio-fuels” that we get when we use them. I doubt that it is true, but these “environmentalists” oppose EVERYTHING.
Battery technology improvements may be our best bet. Electric autos make a lot of sense, “if” we have the nuclear power plants to produce the electricity and batteries become a hell of a lot more efficient. I don’t personally think fuel cell vehicles will ever amount to much. Too much energy expended to extract H from water or natural gas to make the process sensable.
[quote]Soco wrote:
Hydrogen = stupidest waste of time ever.
- like fusion, it is always going to be 20 years away[/quote]
Actually fusion is more like 40 to 50 years away. But I think we can wait 20 years for hydrogen to become viable.
And gas doesn?t? Also you need to take a look at the Hindenburg. It did not explode, it just burned.
Currently we are extracting it while we extract natural gas. I dislike some of the ideas of taking it out of gasoline.
Currently this is true.
How expensive?
Also won’t it drop once we produce it in large quantities? Also I keep thinking of everyone in the country with a little box in their backyards with solar power sending electricity through water to produce hydrogen.
I do like bio-fuel, and it should be used more then it is. Trucks need no conversion to run Bio-diesel. We just need decent dedicated refineries built for this. I should mention I have a friend who?s brother works in the industry, and he has filled me in on some of this.
On a separate note Matt Savinar, whom we have debated peak oil before on this forum, is discussing it right now, (3:00 am early Sunday morning central time,) on Coast to Coast AM on the radio.
This is not true. Please review the economics of oligopolies and monopolies and come back to discuss why such producers would not maximize their production.
No, you need to go back to basic Econ, raising the amount supplied would depress prices, which would cost them money. They are content to pump just enough to fill the coffers, no more, no less. They don’t want to kill the Golden Goose.
Its seems the Times writes an article like this every five years. I scanned through the article, they find some supposed “oil insider” that comes out and claims that the music is almost over. They did this in the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties. Liberals have some sick, demented self-hate going on, it is really odd.
You should read the “Bottomless Well”, the amazing amount of energy reserves that exist in this world would make you dizzy. The Omani’s have just put online a massive Gas to Liquid fuel plant that produces 2 million barrels of oil a day. This is a technology that was invented by the NAZIs. They used to convert coal into gasoline effeciently, back in the 1930’s. They had to do so because of their lack of oil reserves in Germany.
ALmost every country has vast reserves of natural gas, capable of begin converted into gasoline. Also, who is writing off actual drilling for oil, there is so much damn oil. I just laugh when I hear someone even try to say that we are running out of energy.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Most of the major environmentalist groups claim it costs more energy to produce “bio-fuels” that we get when we use them. I doubt that it is true, but these “environmentalists” oppose EVERYTHING.
[/quote]
No they don’t. There is one recent article saying that, and a dozen refuting it.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This is not true. Please review the economics of oligopolies and monopolies and come back to discuss why such producers would not maximize their production.[/quote]
I am aware that monopolies and oligopolies have a financial incentive to sell oil at the highest price possible. To do this, it obviously makes sense to decrease the available supply.
Oil suppliers also have an incenetive to discourage the use of alternatives to fossil fuels. If energy prices get to high, they risk hurting the world economy and drastically decreasing demand. In the end, it is in their best interest to keep prices at the highest point possible that still discourages a transition to to alternative fuels and continues to mantain healthy economic growth.
If the Saudis were more willing to allow a full audit of their oil fields I might be more willing to agree with you. If they are right and there still is a massive amount of untapped oil, then they would only gain my making the data public. They however insist that we have to “trust them” and won’t release the data.
Given the facts and the actions of the parties involved, I think it is more likely that the actual recoverable reserves available in Saudi Arabia is far less than is actually reported. To prevent the adverse affects of another price shock, it would be well advised for us to look towards a new fuel source soon.
Clark Call
See my response to BostonBarrister.
This is more complicated than a econ 101 class example of monopolies and oligopolies. There are other issues involved here that complicate matters.
If Saudi Arabia gets greedy, then it destroys its own market. While it may be nice to have oil selling for $100 a barrel, this price will lead to consumers finding an alternative method for fuel.
-
My point is that hydrogen may actually turn out to be a very poor choice for fuel in personal vehicles. Fusion might also never really pan out like we would like it to. That 20 years away is never going to get here.
-
Hydrogen is far more explosive than gasoline and might prove to be too dangerous. In addition biodiesel, like regular diesel, has a very combustion temperature and would be much safer than hydrogen and gasoline to use.
-
Most of what I have read indicates that hydrogen will most likley be generated by using power from fossil fuels. While natural gas might provide some hydrogen, it doesn’t appear that it would be enough to meet our yearly energy needs.
-
Both agree here.
-
From what I have read, the costs associated with developing a hydrogen infrastrusture are massive. Given the safety requirements involved, I have heard upwards of a million dollars per gas station. That is without of course the costs of new vehicles etc., which also appear to be very very high.
As you said, you really don’t have to do much to start using biofuels. For cars it would take about $100 to make adjustments to use 85% ethanol. Diesel engines today can use biodiesel without any problems. Not only that, but both these fuels can operate within our existing infrastructure, which decreases cost and speeds up implementation.
Thanks for the infor on peak oil, sadly I missed the show.
FYI - last post was directed to the mage
[quote]Soco wrote:
Clark Call
See my response to BostonBarrister.
This is more complicated than a econ 101 class example of monopolies and oligopolies. There are other issues involved here that complicate matters.
If Saudi Arabia gets greedy, then it destroys its own market. While it may be nice to have oil selling for $100 a barrel, this price will lead to consumers finding an alternative method for fuel. [/quote]
I don’t know why we are arguing about this, I mentioned before that Saudi Arabia has an interest in keeping oil prices lower, due to the fact it wants to discourage the public outcry for alternative methods of energy productiona and efficiency. That is why the current oil price spike will come down quickly through evasive measures by OPEC and the likes. If we decrease our dependance on oil, they won’t have enough money to prop up their corrupt regimes i.e. Iran and Venezuela.
Of course it isn’t simple econ, more like a tangled web of econ and political science that leaves the American consumer confused as to what causes the increased price at the pump. My whole contention is for years the environmentalist movement has been lying, saying that we are running out of oil and energy. Thus, they can shift the entire debate by saying those who don’t suport conservation are destructive and can blame the high prices and problems on the aforementioned people.
I believe that this problem has almost been entirely caused by the envirofascist movement around the world. People like Greenpeace and Sierra CLub that use junk science and omission to prove a point. Most people don’t know any better, so they side with those who claim to be on the side of the environment, because everyone loves a clean environment.
But lets be truthful, the idea that man somehow dirties up the environment is a stretch in an of itself. Do we pollut, yes, can we cause major problems within an ecosystem, certainly. Are we the only cause of pollution, no. On this earth, there is no such thing as clean water/clean air. If man wasn’t here on earth, there would still be alot of dirty water and dirty. Basic biology teaches of the existence of living organisms within every medium of existence. Earth, water, air, they are all dirty. It is like the envirofascists are just closet OCD sufferers. They believe that somehow through massive legislation they can make the earth free of impurities
Long story short, it is a sordid story of lies and half-truths propogated by those who have no comprehension of what they are really asking for. Envirofascists want us to live a 18th century lifestyle. I refuse to regress in knowledge and understanding, that is against the human spirit. Are there problems with pollution, yes, but nothing so serious to believe we as intelligent humans can’t find a viable solution to improve our lives and expand our culture.
There are plenty of wacko environmentalists out there, but there existence doesn’t disprove the merits of environmentalism today.
In the long run, we are going to run out of oil. While this time frame might be seriously exaggerated by those on the left, it is still something that we should plan for now rather than later.
Given the possibility of price shocks, threats to national security, and a whole host of environmental problems, it makes sense to consider alternatives to oil today.
[quote]Soco wrote:
Given the possibility of price shocks, threats to national security, and a whole host of environmental problems, it makes sense to consider alternatives to oil today. [/quote]
What a reasonable and rational thing to say. Now in our search for an alternate fuel, are we going to force ourselves to stop using oil, or can we keep using it? I would think that if we ramped up the usage of oil even more, we would be more productive in general, and find that alternate energy even faster.
Or is that too counterintuitive for ya?
[quote]Soco wrote:
There are plenty of wacko environmentalists out there, but there existence doesn’t disprove the merits of environmentalism today.
In the long run, we are going to run out of oil. While this time frame might be seriously exaggerated by those on the left, it is still something that we should plan for now rather than later.
Given the possibility of price shocks, threats to national security, and a whole host of environmental problems, it makes sense to consider alternatives to oil today. [/quote]
Hey Soco,
Yes there are a lot of whacked out environmentalists out there. The problem with that is that they are putting out a lot of propaganda that makes it harder for people to get to the real facts. It is the same with the Peak Oil crowd.
For example when trying to predict the future of global warming with increases in carbon dioxide, they actually use a number showing an increase at least 3 times what is actually happening. They round up then try to say it is just the way it is done. Interestingly they are not rounding properly, which if they did would round to 0, with no increase in carbon dioxide.
Now as far as the amount of available oil, there were 1.277 trillion barrels of proved crude oil. To put this into perspective we have only used 800 billion barrels. Ever.
Now while you were correct that the Mid East might be exaggerating their amount of proved oil, but they still have lots of oil, otherwise they wouldn’t be pumping out as much as they do, so I don’t really doubt the 1.277 trillion barrel number too much. (Especially when you take a few things into account.)
Now it needs to be understood what proved means. That is the oil they know they can pump out economically. It does not include a lot of information.
There are also probable reserves, which they have very strong evidence are there, but is not added to those numbers for a variety of reasons. Then there is the unproved oil, which is oil they believe is out there. And I guarantee that is a lot of oil.
Not included in these numbers is heavy oil, estimated at 1.2 trillion barrels, tar sands with an estimate of 1.8 trillion barrels, and then the oil shale. Ignore the tar sands, the probable, and unproven oil, and this still totals 4.2 trillion barrels of oil.
Now Mike Savinar gave a ridiculous amount of 7% increase in usage each year when on the radio, if I heard him right. But that figure makes no sense because if it was true, the market would see it, because we would have to be using it.
Still taking that 7% number, and assuming there is only the 1.27 trillion in oil, then of course we will peak in 7 years. But proved oil is oil that should not be affected by such a peak, because it is the oil we know we can get to economically, so that by itself pushes us just past 20 years.
Interestingly adding in the other 3 billion barrels only ads 15 years. Wow, the power of compound interest.
But the increase is not 7% a year. On August 23 OPEC reduced their estimate of global increase to 1.9% from 2%.
http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/business/august05/23082005/b223082005.html
2% a year means 30 years. (And I am assuming that 1.27 trillion is the peak, and for good reason.) But this does not include all the alternate oil. Adding in half of the alternate oil, (so we can figure in a peak for that oil too) we end up with 54 years from now.
Remember this does not include probable, and unproven reserves.
I don?t know about you, but I really think this supposed problem will be solved by then.
Oh yeah. One thing about Hubbert, and his peak. He may have been correct about America peaking in 1970, but the drop off that was supposed to occur after that has not occurred at anything like he predicted. He never took into account new technology that has made it easier and cheaper to get at the oil that was previously impossible, or too expensive to extract.
The Mage,
As you said, we partly have to trust other people(foreign governments, oil companies) for these numbers, and they clearly have strong incentive to lie. While there could be 50 years of oil still in the ground, there is still the question about where it is located and the stability of the countries supplying it. In this respect, I think in addition to the notion of geologically recoverable reserves, you also need to think about politically recoverable reserves as well(I realize this sounds cheesy, couldn’t think of a better way to phrase it). This might drop your number considerabley or at the very least introduce the threat of occasional price shocks.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
What a reasonable and rational thing to say. Now in our search for an alternate fuel, are we going to force ourselves to stop using oil, or can we keep using it? I would think that if we ramped up the usage of oil even more, we would be more productive in general, and find that alternate energy even faster.
Or is that too counterintuitive for ya?[/quote]
Go ahead keep using it. I want to see a slow almost immediate transition. I never said that we should just stop everything that we are doing and start burning hemp.
As for ramping up oil usage…I think they are pretty much doing that already. Doesn’t seem to be working out that well…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Soco wrote:
…
We should go for bio-fuel use instead. The infrastructure is already here, and we can stop spending money to fund saudi terrorists.
Most of the major environmentalist groups claim it costs more energy to produce “bio-fuels” that we get when we use them. I doubt that it is true, but these “environmentalists” oppose EVERYTHING.
[/quote]
The Enviro-Nazis are right on this one.
More fossil fuel is used to create bio fuel per BTU created.
Just confirmed this with my energy sector analysts.
[quote]Soco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Most of the major environmentalist groups claim it costs more energy to produce “bio-fuels” that we get when we use them. I doubt that it is true, but these “environmentalists” oppose EVERYTHING.
No they don’t. There is one recent article saying that, and a dozen refuting it.
[/quote]
Perhaps I should have said many, not most.
I have heard this mantra many times. Certainly more than one article.
Biofuel is far less efficient than pumping it out of the ground, hence the cost of biofuel is currently high.