THE END IS NEAR

[mike777]

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/11/the-age-of-oil-.html

[helene_t]

No big problem. Natural gas will be available for some time to keep electricity plants going, when that runs out as well they will build nuclear plants. Electric cars are available.

[whereagles]

helene, it's way more serious than you think.

 

Let's start with the tech stuff: the energy density of oil tops anything (except natural gas) by far and comes in the very convenient liquid state. You just can't beat those specs.

 

95%+ of all transportation is oil driven. To replace the world car fleet with electric cars is a multi-trillion dollar proposition, spread over the decades it would take to fabricate all the batteries and setup grid reinforcements. Not to mention the airline industry....

 

And then you'd need to at least double, probably triple, the electricity generating capacity. To prevent warming, new gas/coal plants would need CO2 storage devices (still under development), so that leaves nuclear power. We're talking at least 1 nuclear plant per 2 million people in western countries. Now, I wouldn't mind living close to one (heck, being a physicist, I'd might even find a job there... lol), but most people WOULD.

 

So less oil leaves us with 3 alternatives:

 

1. Make less powerful, smaller cars that use less energy

2. Use a bike if close enough to work

3. Start a war to plunder oil-rich nations

 

Now to the human stuff: people don't want to do 1 or 2, so that leaves 3. Not a pretty perspective, but the good news is oil won't just run out like that. Extracting oil is not like sucking a straw, it's more like squeezing a sponge: if you push it hard enough, you always get something out of it. Oil supply will dwindle, but won't stop in like 1 month or so. That gives us time to think about something.

 

Still, unless fusion power works, we'll have a heck of a problem to solve this century.

[mike777]

"we'll have a heck of a problem to solve this century. "

 

Heck of a problem means a heck of an opportunity for some smart young people to make alot of money, solving it. :)

 

There is a heck of alot of money to be made solving a heck of a problem compared to solving an easy one.

 

Think of the internet....not sure how to solve the problem but it is a heck of a problem so:

1) throw alot of money at the problem

2) most of it will be wasted but that is ok

3) let alot of different solutions be tried

4) most of them will not work but that is ok

5) something will work and make a ton of profit. :)

[whereagles]

"we'll have a heck of a problem to solve this century. "

 

Heck of a problem means a heck of an opportunity for some smart young people to make alot of money, solving it. :)

 

There is a heck of alot of money to be made solving a heck of a problem compared to solving an easy one.

It's way harder than you think. Trust me, being a physicist, I know what amounts of energy we're talking here. I sure hope you're right, though.. If I were as optimistic as you, I'd by a BMW tomorrow.. lol.

[mike777]

"we'll have a heck of a problem to solve this century. "

 

Heck of a problem means a heck of an opportunity for some smart young people to make alot of money, solving it. :)

 

There is a heck of alot of money to be made solving a heck of a problem compared to solving an easy one.

It's way harder than you think. Trust me, being a physicist, I know what amounts of energy we're talking here. I sure hope you're right, though.. If I were as optimistic as you, I'd by a BMW tomorrow.. lol.

Well think a bit out of the box......here is one tiny idea.

Somehow, someway we use the internet more and leave the house less. That may slow the growth demand for energy a bit compared to what the demand would be without the internet?

 

One more person plays bridge on the internet and does not drive to and back from the bridge club?

[jdonn]

Well think a bit out of the box......here is one tiny idea.

Somehow, someway we use the internet more and leave the house less. That may slow the growth demand for energy a bit compared to what the demand would be without the internet?

 

One less person plays bridge on the internet and does not drive to and back from the bridge club?

This is the most intelligent post you have ever made Mike.

[hrothgar]

"we'll have a heck of a problem to solve this century. "

 

Heck of a problem means a heck of an opportunity for some smart young people to make alot of money, solving it. :)

I found a simplier solution:

 

I went long on oil four years back.... Price may very well go up, but I effectly hedged myself against the issue. In a similar vein, I took another long position on the Euro and am currently cackling as the dollar circles the drain. This "solution" certainly won't work for everyone. (Someone has to be on the losing end of these deals, but thems is the breaks)

 

Still wish that I had placed money into urea futures three years ago... Oh well, live and learn. Right now I'm trying to figure out if there is any viable way to purchase options (or right of first refusal) for solar / wind power production in different geographies... Land use options for solar power in Northern Mexico should be very valuable in a few years.

 

On a more serious note, petroleum gets used for a lot of stuff other than just energy. Hydrocarbons are incredibly useful... Peak oil is going to be incredibly painful.

[whereagles]

Well think a bit out of the box......here is one tiny idea.

Somehow, someway we use the internet more and leave the house less. That may slow the growth demand for energy a bit compared to what the demand would be without the internet?

 

One more person plays bridge on the internet and does not drive to and back from the bridge club?

That might be true, but the world doesn't work like that. Check these oil supply/demand charts:

 

Demand: http://omrpublic.iea.org/world/wb_wodem.pdf

Supply: http://omrpublic.iea.org/world/wb_wodem.pdf

 

As you can see, oil supply is starting to decrease, whereas demand is projected to increase. Actually, we're already at a point where demand is higher than supply. The difference is being compensated by stock drawdown. Which is why weekly US inventories keep decreasing. And the more they decrease, the higher the barrel. This can go on for like 2 years, after which there's no telling what can happen.

 

So, conclusion is: buy oil stocks. And uranium too, for that matter.

[whereagles]

1. Still wish that I had placed money into urea futures three years ago... Oh well, live and learn.

 

2. Right now I'm trying to figure out if there is any viable way to purchase options (or right of first refusal) for solar / wind power production in different geographies... Land use options for solar power in Northern Mexico should be very valuable in a few years.

1. I hear ya... in 99, uranium was like $6 or so. Now it's $90 :) Talk about return... Still, I think it has potential to go up a lot. Like in $200 or $400 in the next years.

 

2. Not sure you can hedge that. You can hedge electricity, but I guess you know that. Well, one can always buy stock on wind/solar companies.

[helene_t]

I have to agree with Whereagles, it is extremely unlikely that some miracle solution to this problem will be found. The perpetuum mobile can't be made.

 

I have more trust in the law of supply and demand. When oil prices reach some 4-5 euro per liter, people will realize that they can do with less.

[jtfanclub]

Let's start with the tech stuff: the energy density of oil tops anything (except natural gas) by far and comes in the very convenient liquid state. You just can't beat those specs.

 

Meh. Butane is better, but we don't have to beat the specs. Ethanol has about 2/3 the energy density. It burns colder, allowing for a lighter engine. Suppose you could only get 200 miles on a tank of Ethanol while you got 300 miles on a tank of gasoline. So what? The world will hardly end with that.

 

The U.S. and Europe won't have any problem with it. We use oil like it's free because per unit of energy it's darn close. As oil prices rise....

 

1. All electricity for immobile objects will be non-carbon. Nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, whatever.

 

2. Farm equipment will go electric. When it spends every night in the barn and never goes more than a few miles away, there's really no point in having them use fuel anyways. Fertilizer will also no longer be made from fossil fuels, as it'll be cheaper to go with alternatives.

 

3. Railways will make a comeback. Rails don't need fossil fules when the grid doesn't use them. Trucks will still exist to make runs to and from the rail yards, but they'll quickly convert to electricity, since (like the farm equipment) they'll spend every night in the same place and be relatively short ranged.

 

4. Cars will go alternate fuel, probably ethanol. Right now, ethanol only uses something like 17% less oil than using gasoline. But that's because of the trucks, farm equipment, fertilizer, etc. all use oil. Once all of those go "carbon-free" (which of course they aren't, but they don't use much for fossil fuels).

 

At that point, we'll be down to less than 10% of the fossil fuels we need now.

 

Nuclear plants? We'll find places. Heck, I'll bet Mexico would love to to have our nuclear power plants. I'll be that my local city wouldn't mind having a nuke plant a couple of miles away for ten grand a household. Trillions of dollars? Sure, but it's not alternative trillions. It doesn't cost that much more to make an electric harvester than it does a regular one. As they wear out, people will switch.

 

All we need is for oil prices to get high enough to make alternatives profitable.

[Winstonm]

Not to worry - there are plenty of dilithium crystals on Xenon and at warp 5 the round trip can be make in 30 minutes (minus time for annoying commercials).

[sceptic]

unless I am much mistaken, everyone seems hung up on running out of energy (well specifically oil) in this world, I have a concern about the same thing, but from a different perspective

 

 

if the oil runs out, bang goes all the products associated with the Petro chem industries, so lets assume no more UPVC, plastic or whatever etc etc.

 

Now we have to go back to basic products wood (perhaps) are we not endanger of running out of tress before we run out of oil?

 

I think that people in general just jump on the bandwagon of oil shortage and sustainable energy, I think the consequences will be worse than people can imagine when the associated products cease to be

 

We will all end up like the clangers (see old BBC programs programs Wikipedia should enlighten you if you do not know what a clanger is)

[Gerben42]

3. Railways will make a comeback.

 

Comeback? You mean in the US. In Europe, railways are very heavily used. And the personnel is on strike in Italy & Germany today... Guess what, many goods are left untransported.

 

unless I am much mistaken, everyone seems hung up on running out of energy (well specifically oil) in this world, I

 

Mostly people who are not living long enough to actually witness the crash...

 

Electric cars are available.

 

Electric cars are just nonsense. The electricity is produced with coal and oil power plants mostly. You can't create electricity without producing the energy for the car somewhere else.

[helene_t]

Not to mention the airline industry....

Oops forgot that one.

 

Today I can fly (one-way) from Manchester to Amsterdam for 30 Euro plus taxes. Suppose it becomes 1000 Euro. I would have to take the train (which would be quite expensive as well because the construction of nuclear power plants will have problems keeping up with the rising demand for electricity, and because of rail bottlenecks). Some of my visits to the continent would have to be replaced by video conferences. I will never visit New Zealand again, maybe not North America either.

 

I think we will adjust. As you said, oil won't disappear overnight, it's more like squezing a spunge. A lot can be saved on transportation, heating and airco without huge impact on our standard of living. Other things being equal, more expensive energy (and the absense of the convenient oil) will lower our standard of living. But not by huge margins, I think. There are other things I'm more worried about.

[whereagles]

1. Farm equipment will go electric. When it spends every night in the barn and never goes more than a few miles away, there's really no point in having them use fuel anyways. Fertilizer will also no longer be made from fossil fuels, as it'll be cheaper to go with alternatives.

 

2. Railways will make a comeback. Rails don't need fossil fules when the grid doesn't use them. Trucks will still exist to make runs to and from the rail yards, but they'll quickly convert to electricity, since (like the farm equipment) they'll spend every night in the same place and be relatively short ranged.

 

3. Cars will go alternate fuel, probably ethanol. Right now, ethanol only uses something like 17% less oil than using gasoline. But that's because of the trucks, farm equipment, fertilizer, etc. all use oil. Once all of those go "carbon-free" (which of course they aren't, but they don't use much for fossil fuels).

 

4. All we need is for oil prices to get high enough to make alternatives profitable.

1. I doubt that. Farming stuff is very energy-intensive. You'd need huge batteries to drive a tractor or threshing machine. Diesel is very hard to beat for that application. In fact, most experts say that priority #1 when fuel needs to be rationed is agricultural machines. Then public services (ambulances, police, transportation) and only then private people.

 

2. Again, heavy trucks cannot run on batteries for a long time. You can make hybrid diesel trucks, though.

 

3. Ethanol? Probably not. Intensive farming of energy crops demineralizes land very quickly. Unless you do stuff in a sustained, cautious way, you'll have to move to new land in 5 years (that's what's happening in Brazil right now, and it's alarming). Besides, ethanol has lousy energy return on investment. 2nd generation ethanol (switchgrass, wood) fares better, but is still under develpment. In any case, the sustainable production will be at most 20% of today's usage (right now it's about 3-5%, so I'm counting on a 4- to 7-fold efficiency gain).

 

4. That price rates to be something like $250-300 a barrel (calc by Matt Simmons). Still, the big catch with alternatives is always the same: production doesn't scale to current demand. For alternatives to work, we'd have to either cut demand or come up with some brilliant idea like commercial fusion power.

[foo]

Thorium fission nuclear reactors are presently our best general solution for power generation. Niche solutions like Geothermal, Hydro, and Wind can supplement that.

 

For transportation on land or sea, the best general solution at present is biodiesel-electric hybirds.

 

Air transport, especially supersonic air transport, is a tougher problem. Lockheed Martin's "Skunkworks" (they designed the U2, the SR-71, and the first UAV's) is working on a nuclear engine for planes. Biodiesel has been shown to work for slower planes.

 

Solar will at some point get efficient enough and low cost enough to be a more useful solution, but it has not happened yet.

 

Unfortunately, there are plenty of applications in the plastics and biomedical fields where ATM there literally is no good substititute for a good or service based on a petrochemical.

 

...and of course it's going to take time to put all these pieces in place. Time we may well not have before there are major social disruptions and violence (I mean like world war violence).

 

We also have to address all this while paying attention to the now serious dangers of Climate Change and high levels of GHG in the atmosphere.

 

Whereagles is correct about this being one of hardest problem sets of our time.

[mike777]

"Whereagles is correct about this being one of hardest problem sets of our time."

 

It may be helpful for starters if you could clearly state what the difficult problem is.

lack of energy, too much demand, too little suppy, saving the planet, being green, helping the poor, other?

[jtfanclub]

1. I doubt that. Farming stuff is very energy-intensive. You'd need huge batteries to drive a tractor or threshing machine. Diesel is very hard to beat for that application. In fact, most experts say that priority #1 when fuel needs to be rationed is agricultural machines. Then public services (ambulances, police, transportation) and only then private people.

 

You could do it without batteries at all, of course- you can actually beam electricity from a tower to the machines, if you so desired. Or heck, you can run a cable, either trolley-style or just do an hour's worth of work followed by 10 minutes worth of charging. But I do think you can do it with batteries.

 

2. Again, heavy trucks cannot run on batteries for a long time. You can make hybrid diesel trucks, though.

 

But we're not talking a long time. 90% of truck transportation would just be from the rail lines to the local stores and back. Interstate trucking wouldn't exist, and trucks having to travel more than 50 miles each way would be only in the rarest of areas (and would probably remail on some mix of diesel and biodiesel).

 

2nd generation ethanol (switchgrass, wood) fares better, but is still under develpment.

 

Well, not saying we can do this tomorrow. I am saying that as oil prices go up more research will be done, and for things like switchgrass where we know it's very possible but just needs more time it will become profitible.

 

4. That price rates to be something like $250-300 a barrel (calc by Matt Simmons).

 

Sounds a little low. Europe already has $200 a barrel gas, thanks to artificially inflating the price with taxes. And you know what? We have at least one country in Europe where all of their electricity is produced without fossil fuels. France produces over 75% of its power through nuclear reactors.

 

Even if we switch cars to ethanol/electric plug-in hybrids (ie., normal hybrids but capable of using ethanol and can be plugged in to recharge the hybrid batteries as well as using gas power), which will strain the grid, countries like France are already building the nuclear power plants necessary.

 

When gas prices in the U.S. go to $8.00 a gallon, we'll start looking like Europe, with their well developed rail lines and nuclear power. When the gas prices in both countries is $20.00 a gallon it'll look like my vision of the future, or an alternative one.

 

Still, the big catch with alternatives is always the same: production doesn't scale to current demand.

 

I don't buy that for a minute. The only reason why we don't have a thousand nuclear reactors in the U.S. is because we don't want them, not because of some physical limitation. France will double its electrical output in the next 20 years simply because nuclear power is profitable at $8.00 a gallon. And we haven't even touched wind power, tidal power, etc.

 

The real problem is developing countries. Virtually all of these ideas take a well developed infrastructure and a lack of strife. You can't keep a nuclear power plant downstairs for when the power goes out. A plug-in hybrid may get good gas milage, but you lose most of the advantage when your power lines can't handle you plugging it in. Countries like China use the cheap gasoline to power their economy. When that goes, there goes that fast economic growth.

 

But Europe and North America? We'd actually better off if the price of oil slowly went above $500 a barrel. Well, except for the plastics issue, as somebody mentioned.

[Codo]

We will find the same solution as always: Take it from the poor and give it to the rich.

 

Energy is getting very expensive so just the 20 %"rich" will get it in a sufficent amount.

There will be big problems for the lower 80 % of the earth population, but not "for us". They will life like today, no electricity, no cars, etc. We will life like today, having it all.

 

This happened with all the metals and other treasures they found in africa and elsewhere. The big profite is with the "leaders" in the poor countries and with us.

 

The same will happen with energy.

It started already: In some areas of Africa they have plantings for biological power but not enough to eat.

This is reality and there is no need that you believe me, just ask the club of rome or other free organisations which think about these problems.

 

All these problems (energy crisis, global warming, 25.000 people die at malnutrition every day) are homemade. We can solve them but we will not, because it is much easier for us 20 % when "they" give and we take then vice versa....

[helene_t]

"Whereagles is correct about this being one of hardest problem sets of our time."

 

It may be helpful for starters if you could clearly state what the difficult problem is.

lack of energy, too mu

The problem is that with current technology and current standard of living, we need a lot of oil. Oil is almost up and there is a lack of good alternatives.

[mike777]

"Whereagles is correct about this being one of hardest problem sets of our time."

 

It may be helpful for starters if you could clearly state what the difficult problem is.

lack of energy, too mu

The problem is that with current technology and current standard of living, we need a lot of oil. Oil is almost up and there is a lack of good alternatives.

Is not the solution the same as always?

 

Price acts as ration ticket while we wait for innovation and creative destruction?

See past 100 years?

 

Otherwise the sky falls and we all die, yes?

[whereagles]

It may be helpful for starters if you could clearly state what the difficult problem is. lack of energy, too much demand, too little suppy, saving the planet, being green, helping the poor, other?

The problem is:

 

1. is oil is extremely important for societies (transportation, fertilizers, plastics) and its production is decreasing since july 2006.

 

2. there is no alternative at the moment that can generate the same amount of energy that oil does. We're talking big amounts of energy, like in 2000+ nuclear plants.

 

3. even if a new source of energy comes along, you'd still need to transform it into something vehicles can use.

[whereagles]

1. I doubt that. Farming stuff is very energy-intensive. You'd need huge batteries to drive a tractor or threshing machine. Diesel is very hard to beat for that application. In fact, most experts say that priority #1 when fuel needs to be rationed is agricultural machines. Then public services (ambulances, police, transportation) and only then private people.

 

You could do it without batteries at all, of course- you can actually beam electricity from a tower to the machines, if you so desired. Or heck, you can run a cable, either trolley-style or just do an hour's worth of work followed by 10 minutes worth of charging. But I do think you can do it with batteries.

 

2. Again, heavy trucks cannot run on batteries for a long time. You can make hybrid diesel trucks, though.

 

But we're not talking a long time. 90% of truck transportation would just be from the rail lines to the local stores and back. Interstate trucking wouldn't exist, and trucks having to travel more than 50 miles each way would be only in the rarest of areas (and would probably remail on some mix of diesel and biodiesel).

 

2nd generation ethanol (switchgrass, wood) fares better, but is still under develpment.

 

Well, not saying we can do this tomorrow. I am saying that as oil prices go up more research will be done, and for things like switchgrass where we know it's very possible but just needs more time it will become profitible.

 

4. That price rates to be something like $250-300 a barrel (calc by Matt Simmons).

 

Sounds a little low. Europe already has $200 a barrel gas, thanks to artificially inflating the price with taxes. And you know what? We have at least one country in Europe where all of their electricity is produced without fossil fuels. France produces over 75% of its power through nuclear reactors.

 

Even if we switch cars to ethanol/electric plug-in hybrids (ie., normal hybrids but capable of using ethanol and can be plugged in to recharge the hybrid batteries as well as using gas power), which will strain the grid, countries like France are already building the nuclear power plants necessary.

 

When gas prices in the U.S. go to $8.00 a gallon, we'll start looking like Europe, with their well developed rail lines and nuclear power. When the gas prices in both countries is $20.00 a gallon it'll look like my vision of the future, or an alternative one.

 

Still, the big catch with alternatives is always the same: production doesn't scale to current demand.

 

I don't buy that for a minute. The only reason why we don't have a thousand nuclear reactors in the U.S. is because we don't want them, not because of some physical limitation. France will double its electrical output in the next 20 years simply because nuclear power is profitable at $8.00 a gallon. And we haven't even touched wind power, tidal power, etc.

 

The real problem is developing countries. Virtually all of these ideas take a well developed infrastructure and a lack of strife. You can't keep a nuclear power plant downstairs for when the power goes out. A plug-in hybrid may get good gas milage, but you lose most of the advantage when your power lines can't handle you plugging it in. Countries like China use the cheap gasoline to power their economy. When that goes, there goes that fast economic growth.

 

But Europe and North America? We'd actually better off if the price of oil slowly went above $500 a barrel. Well, except for the plastics issue, as somebody mentioned.

Farming machines: an unwinding electric cable? Well.. good luck :)

 

Trucking: yes. If things get to this point, we'd have managed a lot already.

 

Ethanol: it's not a question of money. Money is just a way to get it started. The problem is HOW MUCH ethanol can you make. And to that I say: "at best 20% of what is used today". The laws of physics superseed the laws of economics: no matter how much money you plug-in, you can't make 2 kgs of ethanol from 1 kg of switchgrass :P

 

$200 a barrel: hum.. no. In Europe cars have double the mileage of US cars, so we're at $100 a barrel too. As for France, yeah I knew they were heavy on the nukes. Better still: they reprocess the nuclear waste and reuse it. No containers needed for residues.

 

Scaling of alternatives: nuclear and coal can only generate electricity. Natural gas can be burned on cars but will lead to the same problem as oil: it runs out. Well, so will the others in the long run. The only thing that doesn't run out are renewables, like solar, wind and tidal. But those produce waaaaay less than thermal plants. You need like 2000 windmills at full power to do the same as 1 coal plant. Solar is even worse and tidal is on the same league. If you don't want to buy this, it's your problem. I know it's like that.