Only 40 years of gas left!
- Thread starter JTE83
- Start date
Ethanol is not a viable replacement for oil. First of all, it's very energy intensive to grow crops. Secondly, it's energy intensive to extract the ethanol from the crops. Depending on farming technique, some studies have shown a net BTU loss associated with ethanol. Whether this is the case, or it's a borderline gain, it certainly is not viable as a crude oil replacement.olddirtycracker said:
Newer technologies are more efficient, as well as utilizing more of the plant materials, which should increase ethanol's viability as a fuel. Lot's of new technologies coming down the pipeline as far as alternatives to oil. We'll just have to wait and see how long it takes to get them into widespread used.poweredbysweat said:
I think we're already well on the way, it's just taken a while to get started.
Friend of mine is in the oil industry, asked him what his opinion about the 40-50 year supply. He says its true but thats only the sweet crude. Once thats gone they start to draw out the dirty oil. Plenty of it but higher cost refining. Oil will be around for a while. BUT! you'll have to pay more for it!
I looked for an alternative to the IC vehicle and was almost going to convert an IC car to electric. Distance is an issue. Further you go the more batteries you need.
This issue is one of the major reasons I got back into riding. Apart from getting fit, saving the environment and absolutely loving it.
Has anyone seen the AirCar. Carbon fibre tanks with high pressure O2 powering a small van. Believe you can drive from LA to NY on a litre of gas. (small IC powering pump to refill tanks). Cool! emissons - cleaner O2 because system filtres air for engine use. Solar power the pump when vehicle is parked.
Does anyone remember a science experiment with a 1x male and 1x female
fly in a sealed bottle with set amount of food. Fly population grows until all the food is gone and all thats left is waste. Environment can't be sustained and fly population dies overnight.
Somewhere in that bottle is a fly riding a bike!
I looked for an alternative to the IC vehicle and was almost going to convert an IC car to electric. Distance is an issue. Further you go the more batteries you need.
This issue is one of the major reasons I got back into riding. Apart from getting fit, saving the environment and absolutely loving it.
Has anyone seen the AirCar. Carbon fibre tanks with high pressure O2 powering a small van. Believe you can drive from LA to NY on a litre of gas. (small IC powering pump to refill tanks). Cool! emissons - cleaner O2 because system filtres air for engine use. Solar power the pump when vehicle is parked.
Does anyone remember a science experiment with a 1x male and 1x female
fly in a sealed bottle with set amount of food. Fly population grows until all the food is gone and all thats left is waste. Environment can't be sustained and fly population dies overnight.
Somewhere in that bottle is a fly riding a bike!
*hybrids are trendy little pieces of obsolete before they were invented ********
*hybrids don't get that good of milage
*hybrids produce plenty of inderect pollution
*diesels can run on just about any flammable liquid
*we will never run out of petroleum; it would become too expensive just to collect when the supply got really low
*ethanol is garbage (for use as fuel)
*people that drive 15 mpg SUVs on pavement should not be allowed to drive
*hybrids don't get that good of milage
*hybrids produce plenty of inderect pollution
*diesels can run on just about any flammable liquid
*we will never run out of petroleum; it would become too expensive just to collect when the supply got really low
*ethanol is garbage (for use as fuel)
*people that drive 15 mpg SUVs on pavement should not be allowed to drive
Oil gone in 40 years???
It's a bunch of ****.
Everytime the price of oil increases, the world supply increases. Why? because suddenly it's more economically feasable to extract oil from more costly reserves.
One example is the oil sands in Canada. This is a sand/oil mixture that until recently was too expensive to extract the oil from the sand. Gas is over $2 a gallon and suddenly it's cost effective. This has resulted in Canada suddenly having the second largest reserves in the world (second only to Saudi Arabia).
Another example- In Saudi Arabia they have been extracting oil very easily, they have a lot of "easy" oil and when a well starts getting difficult and expensive to extract, they move to another "easy" location. Now, suddenly they can get $60+ a barrel all of a sudden the more difficult and expensive oil isn't so expensive to extract. The Saudi reserves have suddenly doubled.
Don't worry about running out, what you should worry about is the fact that most oil producing nations are very unstable and this could interupt supply at any time. Nigeria is at war, Venezuela and Bolivia are on their way to becoming socialist, Iran is run by religious nuts, Iraq is being destroyed by insurgency, etc, etc....
As for hybrid vehicles, unless you're going to run them for a decade you won't get your moneys worth out of them.
Want to save money and the world? Ride your bike. But don't let people scare you with "running out" of oil.
It's a bunch of ****.
Everytime the price of oil increases, the world supply increases. Why? because suddenly it's more economically feasable to extract oil from more costly reserves.
One example is the oil sands in Canada. This is a sand/oil mixture that until recently was too expensive to extract the oil from the sand. Gas is over $2 a gallon and suddenly it's cost effective. This has resulted in Canada suddenly having the second largest reserves in the world (second only to Saudi Arabia).
Another example- In Saudi Arabia they have been extracting oil very easily, they have a lot of "easy" oil and when a well starts getting difficult and expensive to extract, they move to another "easy" location. Now, suddenly they can get $60+ a barrel all of a sudden the more difficult and expensive oil isn't so expensive to extract. The Saudi reserves have suddenly doubled.
Don't worry about running out, what you should worry about is the fact that most oil producing nations are very unstable and this could interupt supply at any time. Nigeria is at war, Venezuela and Bolivia are on their way to becoming socialist, Iran is run by religious nuts, Iraq is being destroyed by insurgency, etc, etc....
As for hybrid vehicles, unless you're going to run them for a decade you won't get your moneys worth out of them.
Want to save money and the world? Ride your bike. But don't let people scare you with "running out" of oil.
I won't go so far as to say that the "40 year" prediction is "a bunch of ****," but back in the early 60s I recall the suggestion was that we'd be running out of oil by 2000 ...JTE83 said:
IMO, so-called "Peak Oil" and other notions are intentionally mislead propaganda ... YES, yes, and yes ... I have done SOME previous analysis of oil & gas ... not that MY analysis & conclusions were necessarily correct.
BTW. Yes, we are awash in potential "synthetic oil" from tar sand, and the break even point was cited as $18US a little over a dozen years ago, so allowing for inflation, that would be in the $24US range, today, by my reckoning.
Nonetheless, we should conserve natural resources for OTHER reasons ...
Agreed... but I think too many conservationists exploit fear to push their agenda, I also think educated people notice this and the paranoia inducing conservationist loses all credibility. I suppose they're counting on people to take them at their word and hope they won't bother to educate themselves.alfeng said:
Digibike said:
So let me see what you guys are saying:
Treat the earth like you stole it! No matter what we do the nature is so powerful and resourceful (no pun) the world will be able to absorb the pollution and continue to sustain the life forms on it.
Is that right?
So let me ask you. What agenda do you think the conservationists have? They want to scare you because they get enjoyment out of it? Or do you think they are going to make profit out of it? What do the conservationists gain from doing what they do? Do you think they just want to conserve the earth and its resources so it continues to support life on it, or do you think they are just worrying too much about some stupid animals that are going extinct and trying to scare us so that those stupid aninals do not go extinct?
What do I think? Well I've already gave my opinion in my first response about the oil running out. I also talked about how much we over rate ourselves. I think the stupid animals the conservationists are trying to save are us, the almighty human kind who is so blinded by a drop of knowledge and little bit of power that they cannot see their own demise at their own hands. If there are other intelligent beings who notice us, they are probably making bets on how long it will be before we all die off because we destroyed everything that supports our life. I place a bet on us killing ourselves off before we get hit by meteor or any other such catastrophic end.
Ok, so here's my story about "oil running out":
A few months ago, I met a guy in a pub in Jakarta, Indonesia. He runs a tugboat leasing company and specifically handles the logistics for hauling oil rig equipment at sea.
He said there were no tugs of suitable size available anywhere in Asia because the exploration for Indonesian offshore oil (once considered "too hard to get at") was so intense. Oil companies were literally begging for boats at "any price," he said.
Interesting, the same figure of 40 years came up - that's when he thought the Indonesian fields would be exhausted, he said. "After that?" I asked. He just laughed and took another swig on his Guiness.
A few months ago, I met a guy in a pub in Jakarta, Indonesia. He runs a tugboat leasing company and specifically handles the logistics for hauling oil rig equipment at sea.
He said there were no tugs of suitable size available anywhere in Asia because the exploration for Indonesian offshore oil (once considered "too hard to get at") was so intense. Oil companies were literally begging for boats at "any price," he said.
Interesting, the same figure of 40 years came up - that's when he thought the Indonesian fields would be exhausted, he said. "After that?" I asked. He just laughed and took another swig on his Guiness.
This is bad economics -- NOT because I say so, but because I have witnessed the WORLD BANK try this experiment with the Jamaican Dollar starting back in 1978. Similarly, the WORLD BANK's more draconian devaluation of the Mexican Peso as an alternative experiment in currency devaluation to observe the impact on "domestic" commodity pricing.alienator said:
Rising prices do not have a significant impact on supply and demand in the long run.
Supply and demand, BTW, as described by theorists is NOT a true factor in the current pricing of crude oil on the world markets; but, rather mostly a result of speculators.
WE are not expected to know how the financial markets operate because the "financial reporters" AND the wet-behind-the-ears MBAs either are not as bright as they think they are OR because they have not done the research OR because they choose not to let the unwashed masses (you & me) know the truth ...
Allowing for inflation AND my estimation of the demand, if you removed the speculators from the NY Mercantile Exchange, then crude oil pricing ("Sweet Crude Oil" or otherwise) would be in the mid-$40.
I believe the current CASH price for Sour/Heavy Crude is in the low-to-mid-$40 range ... Sweet Crude is cheaper to refine, and so there is about a $2-to-$3 premium ...
Twenty years ago, it was observed that the break-even price for refining the tar sands was about $18US. Again, allowing for inflation (which is solely manufactured by Dollar devaluation by the Federal Reserve AND NOT supply & demand driven market forces), that would put the cost of tar sand derived oil (aka "synthetic oil" ... yes, that Mobil ONE probably isn't any better, but they have good marketers) would be in the low-to-mid-$40 range.
Prices manipulated? Say it isn't so!
But, prices ARE manipulated ... to the benefit of some (witness record oil company profits -- oh sure, all legal because they undoubtedly influenced how the "laws" were structured).
Can you say "De Beers"; and, do you understand that the world is actually awash in diamonds, but that the supply is strictly regulated?
Peak Oil IS a myth ...
Global Warming may be occurring, but it is not man made and is barely exacerbated, if at all, by Man -- that is the INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
How do those who run around espousing Global Warming explain the fact that about 1000 years ago the Vikings had thriving & self-sustaining settlements in regions outside of Europe that are now inhospitable? That, in England, they were growing grapes which were not suited to the English climate of a decade ago ...
Global Warming is cyclical ... it has been alternating with glaciation for at least 100,000 years ...
While most Environmentalists may be well-intentioned, they are uninformed ...
And, the objective of SOME Environmentalist (e.g., those who are promoting AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH) is little different from the objective of SOME so-called Christian Fundamentalists -- control. Control of the congregation -- control of you & me -- because THEY either think that they no better OR they like the notion of control for control's sake.
Oil prices MAY rise, but it is because it is to the benefit of some rather than because of actual demand.
The so-called demand from China & India doesn't warrant the price differential from the past.
The Chinese and/or East Indians will undoubtedly be using on-demand hydrogen fueld cars before the United States & Europe adopt them.
If anyone needs thoughts to cogitate on, then consider the high likelihood that gasoline prices in the United States will probably be BELOW $2.00 before the November elections ... one way or another ... by hook or by (the) crook(s)! Maybe $2.00 gasoline by November won't occur, but if it does ...
Whether it does or does not run out is immaterial. If the price continues to go up, the economic consequences will be unsustainable.
If we'd actually started addressing this problem in earnest when it was first exposed (in 1973) or when a president first took the lead on it (circa 1976), we might be in a different situation.
Instead, Ronald Reagan and oilman G.H.W. Bush told us the "energy crisis" was a liberal sham. Now, Dumbya has neither the courage nor vision or intellect to do anything.
Meanwhile, SUVs were coming off the assembly lines like sausages and stupid americans bought them up like there was no tomorrow (and like gasoline would never be $3/gallon).
Once again, American stupidity trumps American ingenuity
If we'd actually started addressing this problem in earnest when it was first exposed (in 1973) or when a president first took the lead on it (circa 1976), we might be in a different situation.
Instead, Ronald Reagan and oilman G.H.W. Bush told us the "energy crisis" was a liberal sham. Now, Dumbya has neither the courage nor vision or intellect to do anything.
Meanwhile, SUVs were coming off the assembly lines like sausages and stupid americans bought them up like there was no tomorrow (and like gasoline would never be $3/gallon).
Once again, American stupidity trumps American ingenuity
Yeah, it's all those evil republicans' fault. I note you chose to leave out filthy clinton who likewise did nothing or even made things worse.
Personally speaking, I think we're headed to hell in a handbasket for a variety of reasons, but the oil business is by far the most sure. I laugh at the fools who say that they'll get along w/o cars because they live close to their work. Fine, so you'll die of starvation if the riots don't get you.
If you are very young, ask a 40+ year old about the fuss in the late 70's when the oil was slightly interrputed for passenger cars only. That's a holiday compared to what we'll face with a REAL interruption. What we're facing is a mass extinction of all humans within the lifetime of many today.
Personally speaking, I think we're headed to hell in a handbasket for a variety of reasons, but the oil business is by far the most sure. I laugh at the fools who say that they'll get along w/o cars because they live close to their work. Fine, so you'll die of starvation if the riots don't get you.
If you are very young, ask a 40+ year old about the fuss in the late 70's when the oil was slightly interrputed for passenger cars only. That's a holiday compared to what we'll face with a REAL interruption. What we're facing is a mass extinction of all humans within the lifetime of many today.
Not to delve too deeply into history, but I reckon that the FIRST modern conflict over energy resources was the Franco-Prussian War. You and your history teachers may disagree.Thaibiker said:
And, at least one "historian" has noted that the reason that the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor was because the United States was being intentionally provocative (no doubt, because FDR wanted IN on the action) by blockading the straits in-and-around Indonesia ... a source of oil for the Empire of Japan.
That's not to say that the Japanese were right to respond as they did; and, it hardly excuses the Japanese invasion of Manchuria ...
But, the so-called oil crisis (and, coal, before it as the energy source) has been with us for decades longer than you have supposed ... only the masks which the players wear change with the changing scripts ... and, the conflicts are dances where the soldiers are treated as cannon fodder ... and, we are no less the pawns for enabling the transfer of wealth to the elite -- Repblican, Democrat (Al Gore's family was, and may still be, significant shareholders in Occidental Petroleum ... primarily Libyan oil ... Hmmm, the Gores weren't just tabacky farmers), Tory, Conservative, whatever ...
Similar threads
