Here I am

After The Oil Runs Out - Then What?

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Tadaaa It's on the Jeep Website now

Trouble for Diesels NOW!

Caught this in today's paper.

---///---

Jordan & Powell: After the oil runs out :(



If you're wondering about the direction of gasoline prices over the long term, forget for a moment about OPEC quotas and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and consider instead the matter of Hubbert's Peak.



That's not a place, it's a concept developed a half-century ago by geologist M. King Hubbert, and it explains much about what's going on today at the gas pump. Hubbert argued that at a certain point oil production peaks, and thereafter steadily declines regardless of demand. In 1956 he predicted that U. S. oil production would peak about 1970 and decline thereafter. Skeptics scoffed, but he was right.



It now appears that world oil production, about 80 million barrels a day, will soon peak. In fact, conventional oil production has already peaked and is declining. For every 10 barrels of conventional oil consumed, only four new barrels are discovered. Without the unconventional oil from tar sands, liquefied natural gas and other deposits, world production would have peaked several years ago.



Oil experts agree that hitting Hubbert's Peak is inevitable. The oil laid down by nature is finite, and almost half of it has already been extracted. The only uncertainty is when we hit the peak. Pessimists predict by 2010. Optimists say not for 30 to 40 years. Most experts expect it in 10 to 20 years. Lost in the debate are three much bigger issues: the impact of declining oil production on society, the ways to minimize its effects and when we should act. Unfortunately, politicians and policymakers have ignored Hubbert's Peak and have no plans to deal with it: If it's beyond the next election, forget it.



To appreciate how vital oil is, imagine it suddenly vanished. Virtually all transport -- autos, trucks, airplanes, ships and trains -- would stop. Without the fertilizers and insecticide made from oil, food output would plunge. Manufacturing output would also drop. Millions in colder regions would freeze.



Fortunately, oil production does not suddenly stop at Hubbert's Peak; rather, it declines steadily over time. But because production cannot meet demand, the price of oil will rapidly and continuously escalate, degrading economies and living standards. People complain now about gasoline at $3 per gallon. After Hubbert's Peak, $7 per gallon will seem cheap. Spending $150 to fill up the SUV? Ouch!



How to minimize the impact of declining oil production? Conservation and new finds can help. Higher mileage standards for autos and trucks could cut U. S. oil use by 20 percent or more. New oil fields continue to be discovered, but they are small. No giant Saudi Arabia-type fields have been found in 30 years. The small fields contribute ever diminishing amounts of oil. But while conservation and new oil can delay Hubbert's Peak and ease its impact, they cannot prevent it. Moreover, even if the United States conserves oil, other countries might not. A practical long-term, non-oil solution to the problem of Hubbert's Peak is needed.



We need new technologies, especially for transportation, which accounts for two-thirds of U. S. oil consumption. Possible options are synthetic fuels from coal, hydrogen fuel from nuclear and renewable power sources, and electrified transport: light rail, rail and maglev. Processes for synthetic gasoline, diesel and jet fuel are well developed but expensive. The environmental problems from coal -- mining, carbon dioxide emissions and other pollutants -- are serious and require more attention. Hydrogen fuel produced by electrolysis from renewable power sources is environmentally clean, but it has serious technical problems. Producing the hydrogen equivalent in energy to the oil now used in U. S. transport would require 10 trillion kilowatt hours of electric energy; we would have to triple our electric generation capacity.



A more practical approach would be the electrification of transport. Switching half the truck and personal auto miles to electrified transport would require an increase in electric generation capacity of only 10 percent. Electrified transport is clean, non-polluting and energy-efficient. Light rail and rail systems are already in wide use. First- generation maglev systems are operating, and lower-cost second-generation systems are being developed.



As oil production declines, the combination of electrified transport and synthetic fuels from coal can meet the challenge. Hydrogen fuel is probably not practical, but research and development on it should continue in the hope of a breakthrough.



Whatever non-oil transport technologies prove best, making the transition from our present systems will take many years. It took decades for the first automobiles and airplanes to evolve into effective systems, and decades to build the interstate highway network. We can't afford to wait until Hubbert's Peak occurs. We should begin now to plan and implement the new, non-oil technologies. If we don't, our economy and living standard will be in serious trouble.



---///---

Jordan is an energy and environment policy consultant and a former energy program director for the Navy. Powell, a former senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, was a co-recipient, with Gordon Danby, of the 2000 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Engineering, for their invention of superconducting maglev technology. He is a director of Maglev 2000 of Florida Corp.
 
Makes me wonder if we will still be scared of Nuclear Power after everything else is gone.



I say lets do all we can to become more efficient. This takes a National change of mind set though, and we are to arrogant to do it.



A Johnson (Next to Trojan, with all my fingers and toes as normal, teenager is acting weird but I don't think its from gama rays. )
 
A tremendous amount of our world, society is based on petroleum energy. For many many decades it's been easy to get, cheap, and provides a lot of energy content per gallon. No matter what technologies we come up with it will be hard to replace.



Complicating matters is exploding world population. It increases demand and also puts us on an even faster track to human disaster, because the ability to support the existance of so many people on this planet comes largely from oil. Things have the potential to get pretty bleak in the decades to come.



Many of us are guilty of buring fuel with reckless abandon, myself included, but it's so much fun an' we can't help it. At least we burn diesel, so we're not nearly as wasteful as those gasser guys ;)



Vaughn
 
I think it is human nature to use it with reckless abandon til it is almost gone and then complain that it was the previous generations fault. No one wants to give up their quality of life in favor of someone else. Thats a Fact. Or go to the expense of finding and producing a solution. Meanwhile Im going to buy a still for converting waste vegatble oil and create my stockpile.
 
biodiesel

I am all in favor of biodiesel. It can be used with little to no modification to our current diesel engines and is similar in power, yet cleaner burning than regular diesel. I don't care what anyone says... . an electric vehicle is impractical and GUTLESS, not to mention NOT fun. Plus, could you imagine trying to pull a loaded 10 ton (or larger) trailer with anything other than a diesel? Biodiesel is the way to go. Once we get more demand, then supply and infrastructure, the cost of manufacture and price we pay will come down.
 
That article is right on. In several hundered years, our use of oil as an energy source will be just a small spike in time that jump started the industrial revolution.
 
Do you guys remember 'gasahol'? I remember when all the US mfrs. recommended against its use in their vehicles, and some even voided warranties if the customer used it in a warrantied vehicle. The claim was the rubber components were corroded by the gasahol. SO, let's come up with better artificial rubber compounds, or find ways to eliminate rubber in our fuel systems, instead of trashing the one RENEWABLE energy source that we can produce right here in the USA. Our farmers can grow enough crops to produce all the alcohol we need, our engineers are capable of solving the technical problems involved with running an internal combustion engine on pure alcohol, and companies like Amsoil already produce 100% synthetic lubricants. What is the real problem here? Alcohol is the one product that we can produce to run all of our family sedans and light trucks, and at the same time, develop the technology to produce bio-diesel in quantity. And that would go a long way toward producing an energy independent country. Which is a thread I recall seeing a few of you in, along with me. My first calculator was half the size of a typewriter, needed to be plugged in to a 110v power source, and cost $125. Now I have one that fits in my shirt pocket, cost me $2. 98 at Wal-Mart, and has a 5 year solar cell-battery thingy for power, with many more functions that the first one had. And the same with digital watches. How much did we pay for them when they first hit the market? Hundreds, if you had to be among the very first. And now, they sell for about $3. 95, and have a 5 year warranty. Technology and mass production will make any new idea affordable and practical, if the idea has merit and is wanted by the mass market. The point of this reminiscing is, we have the technology already to ease our dependence on dead dino juice, imported or domestic, it's all being depleted on a daily basis. It wouldn't take much more R&D to make alcohol a viable, readily available, renewable, and commonplace fuel. Most of the emphasis here should be on the 'renewable' part. Combined with a full effort to develop the technology to make bio-diesel the fuel it has the potential to be, the US wouldn't need any foregn oil source. Excuse me while I put my fireproof suit on. But seriously, take the politics and the energy giants' profit margins out of it, and do what's right for the country and eventually the world, and how would it NOT work???
 
It's all about money. The Oil companies keep one hand in the pocket of the government officials. Neither of them want to lose the money that they have passed on for generations.



How many patents for super efficient engines and motors has the government, oil companies, and auto manufactures bought up and pigeon holed in the last 60 years?



10 years ago, Honda came up with a prototype car that got 50 mpg in the city, all gas powered, was not lacking in the ability to get up and move when it needed to, and the emissions were cleaner coming out of the tailpipe than the ambient air at the CA emissions testing shop.
 
Originally posted by sticks

10 years ago, Honda came up with a prototype car that got 50 mpg in the city, all gas powered, was not lacking in the ability to get up and move when it needed to, and the emissions were cleaner coming out of the tailpipe than the ambient air at the CA emissions testing shop.



And it went into production. It was called the CRX HF and I owned one. So please do not use that as an example of pigeon holed tech.
 
The world isn't on the verge of "running out of oil". We are, however, running out of cheap oil. As crude oil prices rise and remain stable at higher levels, production from alternate sources such as oil shale in the Rocky Mountains, the Alberta tar sands, heavy crude from the Orinoco River basin of Venezuela becomes economically viable. In addition, secondary and tertiary recovery from existing reservoirs and exploration and production of high-lifting-cost formations begins to make sense.



It's the free market at work. As prices increase, new sources of petroleum supplies as well as development and commercialization of alternate energy sources become economically justifiable.



Rusty
 
I wouldn't rule out electric vehicles. The pure electric ones are gutless, but a diesel electric wouldn't be bad, its what the train locos use and they can pull anything they want to. Penn State put a 4cylinder diesel electric deal in a suburban and I think it got milage into the twenties. Biodiesel is what I'd vouch to use seeing as the vehicles needed to produced are powered by diesel. CNG is also another option for diesels and gassers. Imagine filling up at the same pump as a little honda. Hydrogen vehicles are just insane. There's no way in heck I'm gonna tag along a tank of hydrogen, no matter how safe they say that tank is.
 
For those who think biodiesel can replace all the current U. S. requirement for diesel fuels, heating oils, etc. , how many acres would have to be under cultivation to produce the required biological feed stock?



Rusty
 
Detroitiron: my thoughts exactly... AMEN.



Question is, as Rusty points out, do we have enough land area available to produce the required raw materials for biodiesel and ethanol (or whatever kind of alcohol)? Well, genetic engineering can certainly help there. Since the crops would not be for human consumption, perhaps we can engineer very fast growing, very high-yield plants appropriate only for alcohol/biodiesel production thereby limiting the requirements for additional farmland.
 
Originally posted by Dieselholic

... Hydrogen vehicles are just insane. There's no way in heck I'm gonna tag along a tank of hydrogen, no matter how safe they say that tank is.



I'll go for a Hydrogen truck ... a hydrogen fueled fusion engine ... a few million HP from a engine the size of a grain of salt. :D
 
Originally posted by RustyJC

For those who think biodiesel can replace all the current U. S. requirement for diesel fuels, heating oils, etc. , how many acres would have to be under cultivation to produce the required biological feed stock?



Rusty



I think somewhere I read about 11,000 square miles (for vehicles).



Also we really can't complain about the price of oil yet as it is still very cheap... ... ... ... ... ... .



(... ... . pause... ... ... . wait for laughter... ... ... ... continue... ... ... ... )



This little tidbit came out the other night, I think on Lou Dobbs. In order to create a problem like the gas crunch in the late 1970's. The price of a barrel of oil would have to jump to around $80. 00 a barrel or $4. 00 or $5. 00 a gallon gas. Due to inflation our dollar is so weak we don't notice it anymore. A dollar today only worth $0. 05 of what an Eisenhower dollar is worth.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by RustyJC

For those who think biodiesel can replace all the current U. S. requirement for diesel fuels, heating oils, etc. , how many acres would have to be under cultivation to produce the required biological feed stock?



Rusty



That assumes that the only method for generating biodiesel is from planted crops. This is not the case (algae can produce oil too!). And this also assumes that every acre of current farmland is utilized at 100% capacity and cannot be re-farmed for oil-producing crops. This is also not the case.



From my reading on the subject, if a certain % (and the number escapes me) of existing farmland was actually farmed, instead of sitting idle due to tax assessment or depressed crop price issues, we'd have all the land to produce the fuel we need. And then some!
 
Originally posted by AUrban

That assumes... .

It assumes nothing. I'm just asking if we have enough incremental arable land in the U. S. to meet the feedstock requirements for biodiesel. If it's all produced by algae working in chicken manure, the answer is 0 acres.



Rusty
 
Originally posted by John - K5AWO Hubbert argued that at a certain point oil production peaks, and thereafter steadily declines regardless of demand. In 1956 he predicted that U. S. oil production would peak about 1970 and decline thereafter. Skeptics scoffed, but he was right.



Last week I read and article (Front Page Mag or World Net Daily) that presented some good arguments that oil isn't a natural resource, or even organic. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find it on the Internet now that I need it. The gist of the article was that oil is formed when methane that is trapped deep in the earth rises up and mixes with other substances, and forming oil in pockets beneath the surface of the earth. To support this, researchers have pointed to oil fields that were thought to be depleted but have been found to have "recharged". They also pointed out that oil has been found in areas where there was no abundance of life that would have formed organic oil.



And yes! As luck would have it my last ditch search on WND strikes black gold! Here's the link to the article:



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645



I can't say I'm on board with this theory, but I don't reject it out of hand and the article is an excellent read, regardless. I'd be interested in hearing what the oil field boys think about this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The answer from my reading is a resounding "yes" to your question RustyJC, if issues of crop prices and tax incentives are properly addressed. My gut feeling is that if the govt would give average crop farmers tax incentives similar to what they hand out to oil companies, we could maximize biofuel production in short order.



The algae biofuel issue is very interesting in itself. It's pretty phenomonal what pond scum can produce when given the optimal conditions...



What gets me is that although a gallon of diesel is $1. 75 or so, what about the added costs of tax "incentives" to big oil, militarization of the middle east and the ultimate price of human life? Way too much for me to figure out in one post but it just doesn't seem too much of a stretch that we need to figure out a way to eliminate dino-oil/foreign oil dependencies. My $. 02... .
 
Originally posted by Dieselnut59

I don't care what anyone says... . an electric vehicle is impractical and GUTLESS, not to mention NOT fun. Plus, could you imagine trying to pull a loaded 10 ton (or larger) trailer with anything other than a diesel?



Maybe it's comparing apples to oranges, but a diesel locomotive is, for all intents and purposes, driven by electricity (which is generated by a diesel generator).



From my "green" understanding of the technology, don't electric motors have a better torque curve than diesel engines and that's why diesel locomotives use them?
 
Back
Top