| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2005 09:29:22 PM · #1 |
My vehicle dynamics prof showed my class this video today on the state of the world's fuel supply. I thought it was very interesting and informative, but it is also pretty scary. Thought I'd share.
'Peak' 'Oil'
(you have to have real player to view it)
edit: its about an hour long to watch the whole thing
Message edited by author 2005-03-04 21:32:37.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2005 09:54:00 PM · #2 |
I made it two minutes and 4 seconds into it before I almost fell asleep. Got the cliff notes version? ;-)
|
|
|
|
03/04/2005 09:58:58 PM · #3 |
here are the slides and notes. Maybe I shouldn't have posted it late in the evening..at least for those of us on the east coast = P
Probably the key slide is this:
Basically, the 'peak' on the red line is the 'peak' of 'oil' production. Once the slope turns down, production decreases while demand increases as no new 'oil' is discovered (the effects of this are better described in the presentation than I could do here). Assuming this to be true, the 'peak' is projected to be 2005 +/- 5 years.
Message edited by author 2005-03-04 22:03:03.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2005 10:39:02 PM · #4 |
Thanks for the movie, going to watch it later.
Here is some pretty heavy evidence on the subject //www.dieoff.com and the geopolitical and economic ramifications The Beginning of the 'Oil' End Game
And again I recommend The Pulitzer Prize winning
PRIZE : THE EPIC QUEST FOR 'OIL', MONEY & POWER
Our current sliver of history is indeed a pivotal one.
Message edited by author 2005-03-04 22:45:24. |
|
|
|
03/04/2005 10:55:52 PM · #5 |
sorry...why is this scary?
|
|
|
|
03/04/2005 10:58:49 PM · #6 |
And one more article THE END OF THE AGE OF 'OIL'
By David Goodstein
Published by CalTech News, California Institute of Technology
Vol. 38, No.2, 2004
|
|
|
|
03/04/2005 11:07:04 PM · #7 |
I'd certainly be scared if there were no more 'oil' tomorrow..
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
sorry...why is this scary? |
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 09:21:25 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by 'Maverick':
I'd certainly be scared if there were no more 'oil' tomorrow..
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
sorry...why is this scary? |
|
You're a budding engineer...what do you propose to help mitigate this potential problem?
National Geographic had an article on this subject back in July '04 or so...talked about 'oil' shale in Canada and whatnot. The gist of the article is that there is a good amount of 'oil' left, but it is not in the form that we have it today, and that the future holds higher prices for 'oil' no matter what.
Engineering is rooted in efficiency because efficiency is often cheapest. In my field, construction, you want to be as efficient as possible...why have a column that is four feet thick when a two foot thick column will do what you need? Multiply that times a thousand columns in a building, and you start to see why efficiency is important. In the past, people had the luxury of not being efficient, and that time could be ending.
Anyway, I just want one of those Mr. Fusion things that Doc had on the flying car at the end of Back to the Future...I've got plenty of empty beer cans and banana peels to feed my car...if only.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 09:44:59 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by 'Maverick':
I'd certainly be scared if there were no more 'oil' tomorrow..
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
sorry...why is this scary? |
|
Let's see... If there's no 'oil', technology would have to rely on the new hydrogen power cells. Cars running on hydrogen power cells produce water as side product and hydrogen is a completely renewable power source.
The reason that mankind hasn´t made the switch yet is due to the powerful economic interests that need to keep 'oil' as the primary power source in the planet, despite the fact that the contamination produced by it is killing earth's ecosystems, thus killing us along with it....
I'd certainly not be scared if there was no more 'oil' tomorrow.
Message edited by author 2005-03-05 09:50:54. |
|
|
|
03/05/2005 10:20:43 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by rgarciah55:
The reason that mankind hasn´t made the switch yet is due to the powerful economic interests that need to keep 'oil' as the primary power source in the planet |
..and don't forget plastics.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 10:43:29 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by rgarciah55:
Originally posted by 'Maverick':
I'd certainly be scared if there were no more 'oil' tomorrow..
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
sorry...why is this scary? |
|
Let's see... If there's no 'oil', technology would have to rely on the new hydrogen power cells. Cars running on hydrogen power cells produce water as side product and hydrogen is a completely renewable power source.
The reason that mankind hasn´t made the switch yet is due to the powerful economic interests that need to keep 'oil' as the primary power source in the planet, despite the fact that the contamination produced by it is killing earth's ecosystems, thus killing us along with it....
I'd certainly not be scared if there was no more 'oil' tomorrow. |
Unfortunately, at the current state of technology, it costs as much energy to produce the hydrogen in a usable form as is saved by using it in the first place. Hydrogen is NOT a "free" power source.
In theory, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy are essentially "free" in the sense that more energy can be harvested than is expended in the harvesting.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 12:00:27 PM · #12 |
This is more fodder for the 'Bush 'oil' Consiracy' theory...
there was a guy in the 1950s that calculated the 'oil' suplly and suage, rate of discovery, etc and predicted a shortage/crisis in the mid 1970s. he was right,but no one beleived him when he did hte research.
About 5 years ago, another guy applied the same theory to today's 'oil' situation, and came to the conlclusion that there will be an 'oil' cirsis in about 2013.
the conspiracy part starts here - the US is importing as much 'oil' as possible, and insuring a supply by taking over middle eastern countries that have 'oil'. The US will have 'oil'. When the supply runs very low or dry, the US will abandon the middle east and begin pumping our own 'oil' reserves - so teh US will be the last nation on earth with 'oil'.
Of course, the End of Days is near if you beleive the many prohpeies out there (only 2 more Popes till Rapture, mayans say the world as we know it ends Aug 2013...)
So go ahead and buy that 1Ds Mk 2. Debt matters not!
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 12:18:27 PM · #13 |
I have Two feet, and I'm not afraid to walk. But what are the people who are going to do.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 12:29:30 PM · #14 |
The main consideration here is not transportation or plastics but the fact that food production systems rely heavily on 'oil'. No 'oil', essentially, means a vastly reduced ability for us to produce and distribute food.
For all intents and purposes, 'Oil' = Food. That's bad, that's scary.
Message edited by author 2005-03-05 12:29:44. |
|
|
|
03/05/2005 12:40:02 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
I have Two feet, and I'm not afraid to walk. But what are the people who are going to do. |
Fear of walking is not the issue. We (the US anyway) can survive on MUCH less 'oil', BUT there will have to be a major shift in transportation and lifestyle.
100 years ago cars were rare, and so were long commutes to work, long distance transportation of goods, etc. I am 7 miles from a grocery store, 8 miles form work, 5 miles from medical help - and there is NO public transit for me to get to any of these places. Sure I can walk, but it would be an all day trip to walk to the grocery store and back again. same for work. not practical!
I rode public transit for a few years - it takes longer to get to a given destination than you can in a car, you have to stick to their schedule and get their early to wait for a bus. This time 'wasted waiting 'is a great efficiency killer!
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 12:41:26 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by rgarciah55:
Originally posted by 'Maverick':
I'd certainly be scared if there were no more 'oil' tomorrow..
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
sorry...why is this scary? |
|
Let's see... If there's no 'oil', technology would have to rely on the new hydrogen power cells. Cars running on hydrogen power cells produce water as side product and hydrogen is a completely renewable power source.
The reason that mankind hasn´t made the switch yet is due to the powerful economic interests that need to keep 'oil' as the primary power source in the planet, despite the fact that the contamination produced by it is killing earth's ecosystems, thus killing us along with it....
I'd certainly not be scared if there was no more 'oil' tomorrow. |
Unfortunately, at the current state of technology, it costs as much energy to produce the hydrogen in a usable form as is saved by using it in the first place. Hydrogen is NOT a "free" power source.
In theory, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy are essentially "free" in the sense that more energy can be harvested than is expended in the harvesting.
Robt. |
This is true.
In 1997 China built the Three Gorges Dam project on the Yangtze. This dam is 600 feet high, created a reservoir 370 miles long (almost the size of Lake Superior) with a series of locks to bring ocean commerce far inland. Inside the dam are 26 of the world̢۪s biggest turbines. At 400 tons each, they generate 18,200 megawatts of electricity, equivalent to the output of 18 nuclear power plants, all in one dam.
That is the equivalent of 90 million barrels of 'oil' per year.
Now this system is not without flaws, they are having some issues with the environmental impact as much of the water becomes stagnant and with chemical and poison runoff from industry it could become very polluted.
But this is one hell of a start. With modern engineering we could be on our way to breaking the chains of 'oil' on our societies. If only we would push for it. Just imagine what the 200Billion+ were spending Iraq would have yielded had it been used for scientific research and engineering.. |
|
|
|
03/05/2005 12:41:54 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
The main consideration here is not transportation or plastics but the fact that food production systems rely heavily on 'oil'. No 'oil', essentially, means a vastly reduced ability for us to produce and distribute food.
For all intents and purposes, 'Oil' = Food. That's bad, that's scary. |
It is possible, in the aveage north american climate and soil to grow all the food you need in a 750 SF garden. You'll want other food no doubt, and still need salt and coffee (well, i need coffee). You can without major efforts grow that food with no 'oil' or 'oil'-based fertilizers.
yeah, it's like work though.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 01:12:33 PM · #18 |
you're kidding, right? does everyone in new york have access to something like that? how much do you think this will increase the cost of food production? demands on space? irrigation? time management? soil acquisition? climate concerns? it's not realistic. add the cost of this new system in, and most people would be unable to eat.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
The main consideration here is not transportation or plastics but the fact that food production systems rely heavily on 'oil'. No 'oil', essentially, means a vastly reduced ability for us to produce and distribute food.
For all intents and purposes, 'Oil' = Food. That's bad, that's scary. |
It is possible, in the aveage north american climate and soil to grow all the food you need in a 750 SF garden. You'll want other food no doubt, and still need salt and coffee (well, i need coffee). You can without major efforts grow that food with no 'oil' or 'oil'-based fertilizers.
yeah, it's like work though. |
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 01:17:51 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
you're kidding, right? does everyone in new york have access to something like that? how much do you think this will increase the cost of food production? demands on space? irrigation? time management? soil acquisition? climate concerns? it's not realistic. add the cost of this new system in, and most people would be unable to eat.
|
This is why before the industrial revolution and 'OIL', most folks did not live in cities. Why do you think the cost of living in the city, any city, is more than living in the country?
Besides, the end of the world is not the end of all humans...but about 75% will perish. There will be plenty of land available then. Electricity is the one item I am not so sure about!
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 01:45:31 PM · #20 |
I watched a program the other night where they had a small scale demonstration hydrogen generator. The way they were talking it is a very real viable alternative energy source and its' only by-product is potable water. It's technologies like this that governments and industry should be investing in more, rather than going around the world invading 'oil' rich countries.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 01:55:58 PM · #21 |
Referring to the hydrogen response, currently creating hydrogen fuel is an energy intensive process (you put in more than you get out). Also, current technology relies on natural gas to produce hydrogen. As with 'oil', there is a finite supply of natural gas.
As a prospective engineer, right now I'm not sure where technology will go. From what I've been reading recently I'm a bit worried. I had thought that fuel cells and hydrogen were the future and was wanting to get into those fields. Not so sure now.
Has anyone watched the lecture yet? If so, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. This is all new to me and I intend to meet with and discuss the lecture with my professor following spring break.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 01:58:54 PM · #22 |
Also, its unfortunately more than a matter of how to get along without driving. Domestic and international trade, fertilizers, medicine, industry and law enforcement (just to name a few) all rely to a fairly large degree on 'oil'.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 02:20:41 PM · #23 |
I still maintain that this is only scary if we pretend it's not happening...much of the world is well aware of this and is taking steps to find and develop renewable or more efficient energy sources.
Of course, it's true that if we instantly had no 'oil' tomorrow, our economy, lifestyle, and culture would be drastically shaken...there would be many deaths because there wouldn't be any trucks delivering food, medicine, water, insulin, etc....It would be a dramatic and devastating way to force change upon us.
My point is that our economy, lifestyle and cultures do not have to be dependant on 'oil'. I agree, it's time for change.
Message edited by author 2005-03-05 14:22:39.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 01:46:53 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by 'Maverick':
Referring to the hydrogen response, currently creating hydrogen fuel is an energy intensive process (you put in more than you get out). Also, current technology relies on natural gas to produce hydrogen. |
I think that a lot of what is available to read on the subject is anti-hydrogen propaganda. And a lot is well-meaning but very pessimistic.
Example - the idea of manufacturing hydrogen from methane, while a technological reality, misses the point of any upcoming hydrogen revolution completely.
To be truly useful, hydrogen production should not be tied to carbon fuels, it should be very low cost, and perhaps most importantly, it should be decentralized. That is, not produced in huge plants as is electricity.
Although, to make "free" hydrogen right now, all you have to do is electrolyse water using the electricity you could produce at dams, wind, geothermal, etc *at night*. Right now, if there is low demand, these facilities shut down, because there is no way to store that electricity. Hydrogen production is a perfect way to store that potential energy.
Another way to make hydrogen, and a good example of the "decentralized" concept, is to generate hydrogen using solar fuel cell. Sunlight hits a membrane and an electolytic reversible reaction takes place, all without a change of phase. Which means it is efficient.
So, you make hydrogen on the roof of your house, on the outer surface of your car - using free sunlight.
The cool thing about hydrogen is that you can also use it like natural gas to cleanly burn on your stove, water heater, furnace - once you have it, you don't even need to convert it back to electicity if you don't want to.
So, every household, every one of the 100 million cars on our roads, every place a community puts up a panel, every stream, every wind generator, etc becomes a small hydrogen generator, if we go that route.
Every parking meter can have fittings to recharge your car - or vice versa, your car powers it = the community electricity or hydrogen grid.
Internal combustion engines burn hydrogen very well with minor carburator adjustments, or, conversely, you could run the car on the electricity generated from the reverse reaction of H2 production, which creates water.
Problems - getting industry to relinquish their stranglehold on the status quo.
_ huge infrastructure investments. Need piping and wiring hookups, like for natural gas. Heck, you could probobly use the natural gas pipes!
- lifestyle changes. Until technology improves, you would have to fill up your car every 150 miles. Cars would become smaller, likely. ( They are likely to do this anyway, with soaring 'oil' prices)Untold other changes. But, then again, 'oil' life as we know it is screeching to a halt anyway.
- big time investment from government to get this going.
- Every carbon-based industry will (has) fight this like crazy. Bye- bye profits.
Benefits - pollution free- save the planet from global warming. Worth any price?
- *somebody* is going to make a lot of money in this next technological revolution. It might as well be us?
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 02:34:39 PM · #25 |
Other interesting technologies:
Solar Tower
Hybrid Solar Lighting
Hydrogen Solar's Tandem Cells look practical
I read about a vegetable 'oil' to h2 solution last year, but I think it was still early research. |
|
