After The Oil Runs Out - Then What?

[Turbo Tim 1]

I remember reading an article by some Austrailian scientist a couple of years ago that said it would take all of the crop land in the world to make enough bio fuels for Austrailia. Don't know if he was on crack or not but I'd be interested in knowing if we could support ourselves.



With the current proven known oil reserves right now we have 40 years of oil left at our current consumption rate according to an article a couple weeks ago on CNN.com or one of those channels. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[John - K5AWO]

Originally posted by AUrban

..... don't electric motors have a better torque curve than diesel engines and that's why diesel locomotives use them?

You are ever so much correct... Nothing compares to an electric motor for standing start grunt..... that is as long as the conductors don't melt and the fuses don't blow. The more current, the greater the magnetic field, hence the stronger the pull (push- depends on configuration).



Investigate MagLevs and see what electric motors can do. A MagLev is nothing more than a linear motor the length of the track.

 

[John - K5AWO]

Re: Re: After The Oil Runs Out - Then What?

Originally posted by Crunch

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 personally subscribe to that theory too. It has always bothered me that oil was thought to have come from dinosaurs.



Minimum of two problems with that theory, both covered in the article:

• never were enough dinosaurs to cover that much earth that deep.
  
• and why is oil found under the sea bed? dinosaurs never lived there.
  
• I doubt seriously that the whole earth's surface turned over and buried all that stuff hundreds and thousands of feet deep. Some oil wells are in excess of 11,000 feet down.
  
• as pointed out in the article, oil is known to be over 20 miles deep.
  

To me, that defies any logic about "condensed bio-matter" having produced our oil.

 

[Headshot zod]

The one thing that nobody mention is that increasingly the oil that is left will be harder to get out of the ground. That around the year 2010 the prices will climbing because the "easy oil" is almost gone and what is left will be harder to get out.



Here is another stat. It takes 15% of our nations energy resources to get food to your table. 4% to grow and 11% to get it to your plate. Imagine when those prices double..... One reason we can grow an excess of food is because cheap nitrogen fertilizers. We have a cheap way of extracting nitrogen. When that price increases I think will be shipping less food to other countries.



(I'm 99% sure it the nitrogen fertilizer) if not I'll repost.

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by Headshot zod

The one thing that nobody mention is that increasingly the oil that is left will be harder to get out of the ground. That around the year 2010 the prices will climbing because the "easy oil" is almost gone and what is left will be harder to get out.

Actually, I believe it was said and explained that we're not running out of oil. Rather, we're running out of cheap oil. See page 1 of this thread.



Rusty

 

[Headshot zod]

I must have missed it, although when you asked how many acres, I answered that post on page one.

 

[John - K5AWO]

My bargaining agent informed me last night that butter is now over $6. 00 a pound. She said that is almost double what it cost us roughly two or three months ago.



I've never won an argument with the bargaining agent around here.

She always wins. Read, I like my supper meals.

 

[Headshot zod]

hmmmmm... a bargaining agent , now thats a new one.

 

[Crunch]

Re: Re: Re: After The Oil Runs Out - Then What?

Originally posted by John - K5AWO

To me, that defies any logic about "condensed bio-matter" having produced our oil.

And from the same article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=38645

By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s.

That makes me question the "known reserves" estimates. We don't know what we don't know, especially when it is covered up by miles of earth. Their theory about oil being derived from methane is also interesting. I've also read that the known oil reserves in Iraq alone are enough to meet current demand in the U. S. for the next hundred years. The 40 years estimate in a previous post had to have been for the world.



It has been theorized that methane is responsible for the disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle. The theory holds that frozen methane on the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, held together in a lattice formation, occasionally breaks loose in large amounts. As it rushes to the surface the bubbles reduce buancy for boats and ships, which sink like rocks. It has also been theorized that methane could drop the lift factor for airplanes, causing them to drop into the ocean. And on the extreme side, one theory holds that the dinosaurs became extinct when a huge amount of methane broke loose and contaminated the atmosphere.



If you like the science side of this topic you might be interested in this:



http://www.ofps.ucar.edu/joss_psg/publications/decadal/Decadal.low.pdf



I've read that known reserves of natural gas will meet current world demand for the next 500 years. It may be that one day we'll be driving natural gas powered trucks, which means that BOMBing will take on a whole new meaning.



And for John - K5AWO, butter is still only $4 in North Texas. Up about 25% over last year, and only slightly higher than diesel on the west coast.

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by RustyJC

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.

Here's a part of the post from page 1.



Rusty

 

[John - K5AWO]

Re: Re: Re: Re: After The Oil Runs Out - Then What?

Originally posted by Crunch

And from the same article:

[/I]



It has been theorized that methane is responsible for the disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle. ... ... ... . As it rushes to the surface the bubbles reduce buancy for boats and ships, which sink like rocks. .....



And for John - K5AWO, butter is still only $4 in North Texas. Up about 25% over last year, and only slightly higher than diesel on the west coast.

hello Crunch! LOLROFL..... I needed that to offset today's events earlier (not w/TDR)...



I saw that show about the methane gas, [on National Geographic or the Science Channel?]. Very interesting when they showed that yes, a ship could be capcized under the right conditions.



thanks for that link. Man, TDR is just the greatest. I don't know of any other forum that allows such a diverse expansion on our knowledge, AND, still be related to our diesels.



I want to thank everyone for their solid thinking on everything.

John

 

[Hohn]

I'm not sure of the Methane theory, but it would be nice, if true.



I agree with Rusty-- the oil's always going to be there, it just might be REALLY expensive to get it out.



Personally, I think Biodiesel (soy-based) and Ethanol are both the most realistic alternatives. Then we wouldn't have to pay BILLIONS of tax payers dollars to have farmers make fields sit empty.



The corporate welfare in the farm bill gets my goat. What's the logic of PAYING PEOPLE TO BE UNPRODUCTIVE?? If we're concerned about farmers becoming victims of their own efficiency, WHY ARE WE?



We don't seem to object too much that digital watches and calculators are cheap.





If we'd get rid of the corn and soybeans subsidies, maybe the lower cost of alternative fuels will make it more of an appealing option. I mean, we PAY farmers money to keep the price of certain commodities artificially high. THEN we turn around and complain about the high cost of developing alternative fuels???



Non-sequitur.



Since the farm bill billions go almost entirely to huge corporate farmers and wealthy celebs that "hobby" farm, we could afford to get rid of it and develop biodiesel and ethanol.



THEN, you mate the ethanol-burner or the oil-burner to an electric hybrid, and VOILA!



A volkswagen TDI can get almost 50mpg. A hybrid Honda can get 50-60mpg (Insight, I believe the car's called). So why not hybrid a little diesel? Why not build a TDI bybrid that gets 85mpg+??



Why not develop Smokey Yunick's hot-vapor engine?



One reason- $$.



THe oil companies are in the enviable position of having all of America dependent upon oil, and they get it so cheap that they have NO interest in weaning us from that dependency.



They myth is that "foreign" oil is the evil part of the dependency. WRONG! It's the fact that we are dependent upon oil AT ALL.



Almost all larger oil companies are multi-national, so the distinction between foreign and domestic oil is ridiculous.



Now, if BIG OIL had to *compete* with BIG SOYBEANS or BIG CORN, then and only then would we have restored a situation where the CONSUMER is in charge.



But alas, there are too many people who have gotten too rich off of stifling capitalism. And our politicians are in their pockets so deeply, I'm loosing hope that it can or will change.



Justin

 

[Detroitiron]

sticks and Hohn have it figured out!

Not the answer to when the oil runs out, because there is no easy, one-size-fits-all answer. We all know that. But they, like me and some others that read and contribute ideas and experiences to these forums, know that money is the bottom line in the USA. And that is why the energy executives are going to try to keep any alternative fuel source R&D from being adequately funded. And as far as start up costs to actually develop alcohol fuels and bio-diesel into affordable and readily available products, the money exists, it's just being used for other purposes at the moment. For example, who among us has actually benefitted in our daily lives from any multi-billion dollar probes to Mars, or any other planet? Even if we could put humans on other planets, so what?? Is whatever we would learn worth what we spend? Not at the expense of neglecting problems right here on Earth, it isn't. At least not in 'my world'. The one where I get up every day and try to earn a living and figure out how to buy the food, pay the bills, and provide for my energy usage, knowing that at least the energy doesn't have to be as expensive as it is. And if it wasn't, then correspondingly, other things in life, both necessities and luxuries, might just be more affordable. I'm not against space exploration. I'm against programs that have such high ideals and expensive price tags with so little tangible return. I read that the latest Mars program priced out at 4 Billion dollars. And there are still children going hungry in this country. HUH?? Who figured out those priorities?
How many people could be fed for years, or trained to be self supporting and productive members of society, for those dollars? Or who among them might be the guru that discovers how to produce the alcohol fuels and bio-diesel that makes petroleum fuels obsolete and unnecessary? Now wouldn't that frost Shell, Exxon-Mobil, BP, et al?
The money for R&D exists. Getting it to be used for other projects is the problem.

 

[klenger]

For an example of what will happen to the oil companies in the future, just look at Kodak. They used to make film and photographic paper. Now they make digital cameras and photographic quality printer paper. Maybe that's by BP is in the solar panel business.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

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.



(SIGH!)



The above is one pretty common belief that totally IGNORES the fact that while electrical power SEEMS a cheap and easy solution/alternative, it IGNORES the issue of WHERE that electricity comes from and HOW it is generated! What is the "gain" in using electrical power if it requires MORE oil related fuel to generate it at a distant location and then "transport" it to your local electrical outlet than it might if you simply burned that same fuel directly in your vehicle?



Electrical power is not "magic", doesn't generate itself, and DOES consume fuel or energy in one form or another - and transmission and distribution isn't cheap and easy either!



The notion that setups like locomotives are "electric", and thus cheap to operate, ignores the fact that their generation of electricity still consumes fuel - at the rate of gallons per FEET in some cases - their use of electric motors for actual drive power is largely related to the easier control of driving force due to lack of the need for massive transmissions and related drivetrain componenets rather than by great fuel savings - otherwise, the 18-wheel guys would be using them...



As to the "ease" of replacing fossil fuels with agriculture - I have often stated that few individuals actually comprehend the sheer VOLUME of fuels we consume daily or hourly - and the land needed to farm a significant replacement, as well as the fuel consumed to plant, cultuvate, harvest, process, and then distribute the finished fuel product...



Our problem is NOT so much a "fuel" problem - it's a POPULATION problem! How many of you in your local cities, towns and villages are seeing NO local growth - new homes and subdivisions being constructed?



Precious FEW!



As new homes, and people to fill them continue to increase, so will our need for fuel for their transportation and to power those homes - and so will the need to feed and clothe them - which in turn will require yet more agricultural lands for FOOD - what will we really want and need most - FOOD for our bodies, or fuel for our vehicles?



Reduce/control outrageous population growth, and MANY of our related problems and issue fade away and are greatly reduced...



It's not an easy answer, and one that few really want to face - but it IS the basic problem related to many of the issues we face increasingly as time goes by!

 

[Detroitiron]

Gary-KJ6Q, you're partly right. The underlying problem is over-population, not just here, but worldwide. And not only in energy or food consumption, but in all necessary and consumable items required to sustain life for humans.

Now, do you see anybody volunteering to get off the planet? Me neither. We have no other choice but to accept that situation as it is. And let's not even get into the Catholic churchs' view on birth control! No, we don't want to 'go there'. That's a bottomless can of worms.

Your implication that most people cannot comprehend the "sheer volume of fuels... " etc. , is, at the very least, presumptuous, and may be perceived as arrogant. Do you think this is an uneducated, illiterate audience reading and contributing to these forums? I beg to differ. Speaking only for myself, and being fully aware that there are numerous others in this group with equal or superior abilities, my powers of comprehension are excellent, I possess a triple digit IQ, and have decades of knowledge, skills, abilities, experience, and education that allow me to comprehend most everything I decide to take an interest in.

I happen to agree with you that electricity isn't the magic pill that some would have us think it is. And for those referring to light rail systems and other modes of public transport, are there any systems extant that actually are self supporting and not subsidized by any government funds? If there are, they would be worth studying, to learn how it is being done.

None of us that are would-be proponents of alcohol fuels or bio-diesel, or any other renewable, alternative fuel source has any illusions that it will be easy, quick, or cheap in the short run. Nothing worth doing has ever been easy, quick, or cheap. But you have to start somewhere. How long will consumers be willing to sit on their collective hands while the energy companies and their government official accomplices fleece the American public? The ENRON scandal wasn't an anomaly, or a fluke. It happens every day, and it is still happening.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"Now, do you see anybody volunteering to get off the planet? Me neither. We have no other choice but to accept that situation as it is. And let's not even get into the Catholic churchs' view on birth control! No, we don't want to 'go there'. That's a bottomless can of worms. "



It's only a "bottomless can of worms" IF we allow irrational control to overrule common sense and reason. and also accept your opinion that we "have no choice but to accept the situation as it is" - several countries, India and Japan were finally FORCED to adopt forms of population control - and to simply roll over and play dead to the clear evidence that this planet can only reasonably support a finite number of individuals hardly requires a college degree or an IQ in triple digits...



Trying to simply continue to find ways for ever increasing energy flow, rather than addressing the NUMBERS of individuals requiring that energy, is as short-sighted as a rancher foolishly overgrazing his farmland - then wondering why his herd steadily is becoming thinner and more sickly - could it be we need more of a rancher's mentality in dealing with our problems, rather than the Pope's idea?



AS to societies comprehension of the sheer volume of fossil fuels consumed daily, perhaps you would care to offer your estimate of the size pipeline and volume of flow we in the US comsume daily - THEN provide the corresponding volume of alternate agricultural products it would take to equal that flow.



THEN guestimate the COST to produce that Agricultural flow to usable fuel - it's already being done in limited quantities is some areas of the country - but "limited" is the key word...



Consider that refinement of crude oil revolves around a STEADY flow of crude oil 24/7 right to the refinery via ships, pipelines or trucks - those refineries rarely are shut down, production is constant.



In the case of agriculturally produced energy, where would we find similar delivery capability for around the clock, 365 days a year operation - and if that cannot be provided, what happens to production costs to the consumer? Crude oil is a single product, requiring relatively minor tweaking to maintain final producd quality - what happens when dealing with seasonal crops that vary fairly radically in quality and quantity from one week to another?



I'm not saying any of the above is not neccesary or adviseable - only that those who see or promote those efforts alone as the death pill for energy problems are overestimating the ability of agriculturally derived fuel alternatives, especially in light of ever increasing populations that will ALSO be placing greater demands on cultivated farmlands...

 

[Detroitiron]

Gary,

India and Japan are NOT predominantly Catholic. My point in that paragraph was that the Pope is adhering to an antiquated policy that is untenable in today's world. I'm not Catholic, and if you are, I meant no disparagement. Only to point out that, as you evidently agree, there indeed are too any people on the planet, and the world population is growing at least as fast as the oil is flowing via the trucks, pipelines, and ships, from the refineries.

As for my comment that we have no choice but to accept the situation as it is, it was meant to imply that we would not perform genocide in order to reduce the population. Certainly not that worldwide birth control should not be practiced! Of course it should! And back tracking a little, the "bottomless can of worms" remark was aimed at the Catholic church, in the person of their Pope, and its stated views on birth control, or the lack thereof. You don't have to read between the lines on anything I write here. I'm not rolling over and playing dead on anything. I am aware that we are an overpopulated planet. The comment I made that you seemed to take such delight in slamming, again, meant that we are not going to reduce the population THAT IS ALREADY HERE! I've never had anything I've written, that was read by others in a common venue, be so completely misunderstood and taken out of context. To what end? To accomplish what goal? I am willing to concede that many of your points have merit and should not be ignored or disparaged. Would you not grant me the same courtesy?

 

[klenger]

Are there too many people on the planet, or just too many people for our current level of natural resource consumption?

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

YUP - I think we're pretty much on the same page - we need to do ALL we can to develop and implement alternative fuel resources - we have many potential avenues to pursue to that end - my main thrust of discussion was intended to address the view of some that all, or nearly all, of our energy needs could be cured simply by use of agriculturally provided materials...



Cheers!