The end of oil and aviation? [Archive]

madman1145

20th Apr 2007, 19:38

.. and I just read today that Iraq has a lot more oil than original anticipated and if the new estimates are correct it would become the third largest supplier of oil ..

Beside pig might make us fly, don't forget that if you are a farmer and have plenty of land left over, you can grow your own fuel for your diesel engines. A slight modification on a regular diesel engine, and coldpressed plant oil can make it run ..

And then there is the hydrogen power-stuff they are working on ..
I bet they can make stuff like this today in large commercial scale if they really wanted to, that the technology is ready in it's essence to move on. "They" just need to make the last profits of the excisting oil reserves before letting out too much of new technologies ..
Why kill off a huge and steady income before it's totally gone ??

I wouldn't worry too much. New way of making power will surface in time ..

- madman

paco

21st Apr 2007, 00:44

madman - indeed, the first diesel was designed to run on corn oil! Go figure!

And you're right about alternative technologies - Nikola Tesla had an electric car (based on a Pierce, I believe) that ran for days on one charge. I feel sure the plans are just waiting to surface...... then watch the price of electricity rise!

Phil

madman1145

21st Apr 2007, 01:10

Here are some of the geeks playing around with this topic - Nordic Folkecenter = Nordic Peoplecenter - freely translated
Link: http://www.folkecenter.net/

And here is a quote for you, paco - http://www.folkecenter.net/default.asp?id=8826

What said Rudolf Diesel?

"The use of plant oil as fuel
may seem insignificant today. But such products
can in time become just as important as kerosene
and these coal-tar-products of today."

Rudolf Diesel in the year 1912
in his application for a patent; in a time, where
energy crises, climate changes and ozone holes
not yet were discussed

- madman

gulliBell

21st Apr 2007, 01:10

....and the oil will be gone in about 30 years.

Not likely, not in our lifetime anyway. But certainly something for the next generation to come to terms with.

Ethel the Aardvark

21st Apr 2007, 04:17

Some figures that I heard,
Heathrow airport uses 25 million litres of Jet A1 per day and a small airport like Perth, West Australia uses about 1 million litres per day. Trying adding up those figures per day for arround the world.
From what I understand there is still lots of oil, but its just going to be harder and more expensive to obtain.

Revolutionary

21st Apr 2007, 04:52

In the next 30 years, society will move away from engines burning hydrocarbon based fuels and into clean, efficient alternatives. Demand for oil will wane in tune with decreased availability. Oil will become as obsolete as whale blubber. In a hundred years the combustion engine will be a relic, on view in museums next to steam engines. And the world will be a better, cleaner place for it. Already Boeing is experimenting with electric propulsion for airplanes. And electric helicopters won't be far behind. Behold, these are my predictions:D

Graviman

21st Apr 2007, 09:18

The immediate future of energy will become coal once again - there is plenty of it. This will have no impact on the aircraft industry since the energy giants will respond to commercial pressure to convert the coal to kerosine, with the potential offshoot of hydrogen. Liquid fuels offer good energy volume density, and are easy to transport. So far large coal fired industrial gas turbines have not been successful due to the combined problems of tar on the turbine stages and heat exchanger size - however, the potential for coal driven industrial gas turbines remains.

Predictions are that fusion will become commercially viable in the next 37 years anyway, so we just need to pad out until then. Even when this happens there will be chemical means to convert the energy, CO2 and H20 to Kerosine. So even this will not affect the aero industry, as turbines are still practical.

There are many developement projects to make fuel cells more viable, but these will currently just force diesels and turbines, or hybrid combinations, to become more efficient. There are some interesting developments on the horizon, the most promising being this one:
http://www.eurekamagazine.co.uk/article/8475/Power-chips-can-kill-all-engines.aspx

Then there is the CO2 problem, which I too was concerned about. The debate is still out, but there is evidence that global warming is a natural function of sun spot activity (linked to cloud formation aparently). My own view is that we'll find out soon enough anyway, but it really doesn't hurt to consider pumping CO2 deep underground to remain in solid form out of harms way (sublimes due to high pressures down there). It is easy to capture and seperate with a compressor, and just takes a commitment of cash. Still politicians seem now to be jumping on the CO2 bandwagon...

Mart

SASless

21st Apr 2007, 14:14

Pie in the Sky folks....sheer folly.

If the farmers start selling their corn to the "Petrol" market....what happens to the cost of animal feed, the price of flour, and other "corn" based products?

If one starts breaking down water into Hydrogen fuel....what about the demand for water by all other users....perhaps bathing becomes too expensive.

Electric vehicles? Where does the fuel supply for that come from? How do we generate the necessary amounts of energy to "fuel" that concept?

I am not a nay sayer on this, but we have to consider the collateral issues while seeking the perfect source of "fuel".

NickLappos

21st Apr 2007, 14:23

SASless is right - in fact it takes 3/4 gallon of gas to make 1 gallon of alcohol - for those who think this is sound energy policy, I have a car that runs on water.

And the laughable idea that we will run out of oil is simply not true - as long as we are willing to spend $60 per barrel or more!

What is the real problem is not energy as it is - but how we stop global warming if we continue to burn carbon. Cutbacks on energy use, massive resurgence of nuclear power and wind/tide/solar are all coming. Aviation will use oil products for a long time, due to its density and portability, but liquid hydrogen is an alternative that can work, as well.

SilsoeSid

21st Apr 2007, 15:17

Wasn't it on Robbie Coltranes Trains, Planes and Automobiles and the episode on diesel engines where the figures for efficiency of fuels and engines was something like,

Steam 10% efficient,
Petrol 30% efficient,
Diesel 90% efficient.
I suppose it all depends on ones interpretation of efficiency.

Having just come back from the continent for Easter and noticed diesel a lot cheaper than petrol of all grades, I still wonder how, over here in Bliars Britain, we still allow the Gov't to get away with this completely opposite pricing; Especially as diesel is more efficient, uses less per mile relatively, it is cheaper to get onto the forecourt being less refined and pushes out less carbons than petrol.
:suspect: $£$£$£$£$£

NickLappos

21st Apr 2007, 16:56

Sil,
That list makes literally no scientific sense.

Steam, with external combustion, is the most efficient means yet measured. over 38% efficiency on steam trains has been measured, and over 42% for steam power plants (where size and weight are less of a penalty.) By efficiency, everyone but your source means the work produced by the engine as compared to the heat energy of the fuel it consumes. Also inherent in the definition is that all engines must throw away at least 50% of the fuel's heat.

For internal combustion, diesels are somewhat more efficient than gas, mostly because the higher compression ratio allows higher combustion temperatures. But supercharged (turbocharged) gas engines are so close that the decision is by weight and cost, I think.

Dave_Jackson

21st Apr 2007, 17:31

No oil consumption.
No pollution.
Low cost.
Personalized flights.
Parachutes for those who pay for 1st class.

http://www.t3.co.uk/__data/assets/image/103790/HumanCatapult_250.jpg

SASless

21st Apr 2007, 18:49

Sils,

I love showing up at any petrol station in the USA and see the diesel fuel price is somewhere between 20-45 Cents (US) more than petrol. They give us the lame excuse that home heating oil is in demand or the demand for petrol and the refinery industry not being able to cope with both diesel and petrol demand that is the reason.

Our environmentist whacko's absolutely hate diesel engines....and the EPA demands eighteen wheelers pass a snap throttle test for "smoke" emissions (visible to the eye) and ignore the computerized engines ability to sense load, torque demand, rpm, gear position, road speed, exhaust gas temp, and thus vary engine fuel system performance to match the needs of the engine to obtain maximum mileage per gallon of fuel used and at the same time reduce emissions to a minimum.

As you drive behind a modern Big Truck and watch the exhaust stack...nothing but heat wave showing with no visible smoke....but the algorithm for cruise is not the same for idle or low power demand or high power demands.

It would appear to this cabbage headed dunce that if one can acheive 8 mpg with variable engine settings and only 5-6 mpg with a fixed computer setting, that the variable engine would put out less pollution than the other purely because of the reduction fuel consumption in the first place.

What we have here is the confluence of the failings of politics, science, and enviromental hooliganism. In the meanst while...we have not built a new refinery in 20 years, have not built any new Nuclear power plants in about the same time frame, and continue to add "anti-pollution" devices to the vehicles that only work to decrease the mileage rate of consumption and adding to the demand for crude oil. Alas that competition for oil, fires the desire for war and unrest.

slowrotor

21st Apr 2007, 19:33

SAS,
This study found coal power plants emit thousands of tons of radioactive uranium and thorium into the air for us to breath.(and mercury and much more toxins)
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Nuclear plants do not emit anything normally, no CO2 either.
France has the cleanest air with nuclear and hydro.

SilsoeSid

21st Apr 2007, 21:10

Nick,

I think that because the series was specifically about transport, the efficiency for steam powered engines was quoted to be so low was because the engine was exhausting the steam to atmosphere. With a condensor however, the efficiency will improve.

A figure of 38% for a steam train seems a bit high, as that, as you say, begins to enter the realms of the power stations, and re-heaters. With all the gizmos in place, in theory I believe in htis modern age up to 90% can be achieved.

Anyway,
In trying to locate the programmes transcript, would you believe that Robbie Coltrane played rugby union for Scotland’s schoolboys !
:eek:
SS

rotorrookie

21st Apr 2007, 21:30

What a bu***hit, this guy Kunstler is probably working for OPEC or some oil baron in Saudi....They just want us to beleve that the oil wells are drying up in the nearest future.
WHY? So the way they keep supplying less than the demand(obviously to keep the price up) looks better to the world.
The oil industry will die because of other energizers before the oli wells will go dry or at least it will be much smaller than to day.
New energizers are their biggest threat, and all this clues of clobal warming, that force us to use hydrogen,methane or somthing else rather than oil, and then ,how are they going build all these “far out” hotels,buildings and keep the standard of how they live today, we are paying for this s**t....

But this “propaganda” of theirs is working preatty well I must say, I mean only few days after Iran take some British POW they price on your local pump goes up because of the tension level had gone up....cmon.
Bottom line is that this industry will die in the future, and I say because how
un-nature friendly it is, not because there is shortage of oil in the world.

madman1145

21st Apr 2007, 23:20

A comment:

The US has a major cultural problem. They assume fuel is available like water. It is a source that is always cheap and that we can get anytime we want, that we don't have to be bothered about ..

I mean, it's no secret that vehicle technology in the US (engine & vehicle itself) is about 15 years behind European and Japanese technology. Why bother evolve when we can put a good old 6-liter petrol engine in a big-ass truck that gives you like 12 mpg and equip it with plastic quality my dad had in his Mazda from 1983 :confused: - a truck they just use for grocery shopping and picking up the kids at school with. Like one of the TopGear guys said sitting in an American car, knocking on the plastic with a big questionmark in his face "Where do they get this from???" ..
And it amasses me, since they have been able to come up with high-tech-**** like the Blackbird, Space Shuttle, Stealth Fighter etc. etc. - so I know they can if they really want to ..

Was it a few weeks ago I heard in the news, that the US produce twice as much energy, general speaking, than the Europeans, despite there are less Americans than Europeans ..
They are like a sidewinder missile. Shoot-and-forget, or buy-and-forget society. They need to grow up - if they would reach same level as Europe in this matter about consumer technology and pollution, a significant less amount of fuel will be consumed and a lot less pollution would be let out ..
When I tell Americans the price of fuel in Europe, they get this blue-screen in their eyes with the text: "Does not compute". They can simply not understand those prices - or that VW/Audi make roadcars that goes 77 mpg, they are like "WHAT??" when they are proud that their truck goes 22 mpg - and that diesel cars in Europe is getting closer and closer to be sold more than petrol, because they run longer on the mileage and modern dieselengines pollute less ..

- madman

WhatsaLizad?

22nd Apr 2007, 03:12

"The US has a major cultural problem. They assume fuel is available like water. It is a source that is always cheap and that we can get anytime we want, that we don't have to be bothered about .."

True to a point, but it's changing. $3.00 gallon for gas is dragging us into reality fairly quickly. The sales figures for low MPG trucks and SUV's have dropped like a rock. In my case, since diesels won't be available for a couple of years, a 30+ MPG car was recently bought, rendering the 12 MPG SUV to backup missions.

When you discussed the price of fuel, did you happen to mention how much of that was for taxes and where they went? (although we have some hidden "security" fees for carriers and B2's)

SASless

22nd Apr 2007, 04:10

The US has a major cultural problem. They assume fuel is available like water. It is a source that is always cheap and that we can get anytime we want, that we don't have to be bothered about ..

Not quite dear boy....what the Europeans cannot discern is a simple thing called geography. We talk of thousands of miles distance when we discuss travelling as compared to that in Europe.

When yer digs is in Cow****, Montana and it is two hundred miles to the nearest Walmart....it makes for a different situation than nipping down to the corner store for a loaf of bread.

I can still buy what passes for beer in these parts for fifty Pence your money. I might have to drive a hundred miles to the pub but that is what living in the West is about.

Of course we can drive from Miami to Seattle with no traffic lights or radar cameras in a mere six days of driving (3344 miles) or San Diego to Presque Isle (3313 miles) and another six day drive. We have truckers who round trip a run from Miami to Seattle each week hauling food products.

I can still remember petrol selling for 18.9 Cents per US Gallon but now pay $3.09 for the same gallon. My car back then got 12 mpg and my new diesel pickup gets 23 mpg so some change has taken place.

madman1145

22nd Apr 2007, 08:33

Ohh, I do understand your huge distances, that your distances is more than a European is used to travel and might be able to comprehend. Just visited the in-laws a few weeks ago, going from FL to NC where they build WallyWorld's in the middle of a cornfield, and that's only like what, half way up the eastcoast? And a reason why we took her son's Jetta rather than my girl's 22mpg Tacoma, because it runs like 50% longer on the mileage ..

So with your distances, even more reason to evolve in technology and make your vehicles run longer per milage than what is the standard now. Like getting up-to-date with engine technology and decrease the size of some of your cars. But as one tolled me over-there, "there is a thing about our trucks. We love our trucks" ..

I do understand that some part of the population need a big-ass truck like on the far-out countryside, but for God sacke put a diesel in it - plain stupid having petrol in a truck ..
But for those using them just for shopping and other daily stuff, nothing justify a big-ass truck - and nothing justify why you need a big V6 or V8 in your family car except to show of that mine is bigger than yours ..
There are other ways of making horsepower and torque than just increasing the volume of an engine ..

- madman

paco

22nd Apr 2007, 10:01

I did hear of a chap who got over 100 mpg (more like 138) out of his VW by essentially replacing the carburettor with a miniature air conditioning unit - it vapourised the fuel better.

Phil

madman1145

22nd Apr 2007, 10:29

VW made a what we call 3L ver. of the little Lupo, with diesel engine. A small 4-seater car. 3L means it uses 3 liter of fuel per 100 km. - equivilant to some 77 mpg ..
Their sistercompany Audi also made a 3L of their Audi A2 4-seater car ..

Both cars are out of production now, but the Lupo 3L became popular here in Denmark due to the mileage and low taxation on it because it is more enviromental correct ..

VW proved a few years ago that they could also make a 2L car (117 mpg), but that ended with only an experimental 2-seater tandem car, for what I remember ..

So it can be done with piston engines, just a question about supply and demand. And as long we got enough oil in the ground, we don't really care, do we? Except getting a longer mileage with today fuelprices ..

- madman

paco

22nd Apr 2007, 13:48

Lots of alternative engine links here:http://www.himacresearch.com/links.html

Allen Caggiano was the guy I mentioned above (just remembered!)

Phil

SASless

23rd Apr 2007, 00:19

Mad,
I agree with you and would go so far as to do away with petrol fueled vehicles and allow only diesels. The VW Jetta diesel gets 54-55 mpg which is a very good step in the right direction. Add in the German engineering and it is a very good auto.

To show how easy it is to improve the efficency of our diesel Pickup trucks....all one has to do is buy an after market programmer and with a few clicks of a hand held computer device and the engine can be improved.
I did mine and and gained three miles per gallon straight off the bat as well as another 120 shp and 220 foot pounds of torque. The low speed torque was greatly improved. To get more effect all I have to do now is change the air filter system with a bolt on Mod and there will a further increase in both torque and horsepower.

I opted for the "big" truck so I can pull a Caravan or cargo trailer and operate within the MAUW limits for the truck.

I will admit that it is a blast to kick 525 Horses in the butt every now and then.....and use 800 pounds of torque for what it was designed.

Perhaps I am still a borderline "Redneck" in that regard....just as I enjoyed turning loose multiple thousands of horses when flying a Chinook.

paco

23rd Apr 2007, 00:30

SASless - programmer? Any details?

cheers

phil

rotorbrent

23rd Apr 2007, 01:37

Hi,

Wells across from our ranch in Texas were dug in 1923 and the oil free flowed for over 15 years. Then it stopped. No oil so the wells were sold. We did not sell ours.

The next guy put in pump jacks and made millions and then the old stopped so the wells were sold, we did not sell then either.

The next guy put in salt water injection and the oil flowed again and then the oil stopped and the wells were sold again. And of course we did not sell ours.

The next guy put in CO2 injection and the oil is flowing again better than ever. And ours are as well.

We just sit and watch the lawyers, bankers, stock brokers, and book writers get all excited over the times that "there is no oil" Who have never probally seen a oil well other than some picture in some book.

There is enough oil off the west coat of florida to last a long time just the tourist will have to get used to a oil rig in thier maragretta sunset. Of course the Cubans are about to hit it rich when those rigs close to key west start flowing soon. Cubans will be swimming from florida back to Cuba.

Not a bad deal find the oil for about $6 a barrel and sell it for around $60 dollars today is not a bad gig. Please talk some more about us running out of oil. My Grandfather thanks you and my grandchildren will thank you as well.

SASless

23rd Apr 2007, 01:40

Paco,

I use the "Bully Dog" system. It plugs into the diagnostic port under the dash...you follow a step by step install program much like any other computer program. It also reads defect codes, calibrates the vehicle computer for changes in tire size and the like. It also allows you to change selections for various things like auto lock, auto shut off of lights....torque curve...fog lights on with Hi-Beams...all sort of things.

Cost is about $550 and works on Ford, Chevy, and Dodge diesel engines.

It is continually updated without charge by going to their web site and logging in.

It is impressive to say the least. The test to confirm the mod is installed properly is to test drive the vehicle by accelerating to third gear...push the go pedal to the floor and see if the rear tires break traction on dry pavement.

It also does it in four wheel drive....must be horrible for the drive train!

I went from 17.8 mpg to 22.9 mpg as measured on consecutive tanks of fuel.

paco

23rd Apr 2007, 05:05

Thanks - will look into that!

Phil

OFBSLF

23rd Apr 2007, 12:42

I do understand that some part of the population need a big-ass truck like on the far-out countryside, but for God sacke put a diesel in it - plain stupid having petrol in a truck ..the vast majority of heavy-duty pickups in the US are sold with diesels.

The automakers are working on diesels for the light-duty pickups, but the emissions control regulations are a major stumbling block. The light-duty pickups face stricter emissions regulations than the heavy-duty trucks -- far, far stricter than current European emissions control regulations.

rigpiggy

23rd Apr 2007, 13:03

The engine emissions in and of themselves aren't the problem, but the sulphur and other crap in the fuel is. Clean diesel is only now coming on the north american market. BTW trucks have lower emission requirements than cars, how come chrysler isn't sticking the liberty diesel into there other vehicles?

madman1145

23rd Apr 2007, 13:16

I have no doubt that most of the F250/350 trucks and those who are bigger are diesel. For us Europeans, a F150 (Ford's most sold truck, I believe it is), Nissan Titan and those are still big-ass trucks - and they are mainly gasoline with 5-6 liter engines - and that makes no sence ..

Take the Toyota Tacoma, half-size truck as I believe you call it, only gasoline ver. excist in the US. In Europe, the HiLux is the sistermodel, and that comes with diesel, only diesel in Denmark - why not a diesel in the US, they do excist ?? - but you don't want them I bet, otherwise Toyota would offer it if there were a market in the US for it ..
I think it's a cultural thing, because "diesel is something they put in big semi's, not my car/light truck" ..

I don't know how far technology has come with American diesel engines, but in Europe it is becoming more and more standard equipment to have a life-long-lasting particel filter on the diesel engines in family cars and it is available for trucks and semi's as well. They are talking having them as standard on the citybus'es - and with that filter, they are cleaner than gasoline ..
A quick Google browse of a particel filter manufacture: http://www.purefi.dk/indexen.htm

Doesn't seem like there is any excuse today not to use a diesel engine instead ..

Ohh, another amazing thing about US fuel: You have gasoline graded as low as 87, highest 93 - Holy crap, 93 is the lowest in Europe, some European and Japanese cars can only go with grade 95, otherwise in the long run it can kill that type of high-performance engine. That again shows how much in technology American engines has evolved, that size of the engine makes the power, not finer technology. And thereby how much waste of power there is in American engines when they are running ..

But yes, it looks like you guys are catching up :ok: ..

- madman

James Roc

23rd Apr 2007, 15:41

"Peak Oil" is a complete hoax. It was thought up to capitalise on the "scarcity dollar" which they did splendidly!

James

DennisK

23rd Apr 2007, 16:37

I don't plan to add any more special info on alternative fuels ... but it does seem to me that even at £5 a UK gallon, avgas is a very competitive buy. My local pub charges me £20 a gallon for its best beer!

But UK fuel tax is another thing. Our fuel would be incredible value if the tax were waived. (never of course) If I were a fuel retailer, my receipts would all read something like this.

Fuel. 10 gallons (45 lit) £15. 00p

But ........

Tax/vat please £35. 00p
______

I need. £50. 00p

That would make the consumer and the Government wake up!

Best wishes all,

Dennis K

brett s

23rd Apr 2007, 17:22

Don't confuse octane rating systems in the US with what you see in Europe or Japan - they aren't the same, most places other than US list the research octane number (RON) while the US lists the average between RON & motor octane number (which is a lot lower). Compare the same numbers & you won't see much difference - your 95 is about the same as our 91.

Biggest problem in many areas for diesel vehicle owners here is buying fuel - rural areas you can always find it but in some urban areas it's pretty scarce. That'll take care of itself if the demand gets there, but for the time being it can be a pain.

OFBSLF

23rd Apr 2007, 17:55

madman: The main reason that no diesels are available in F150 class pickups is EPA/CARB. It is not the fault of US consumers. It is not the fault of the manufacturers. The problem is the regulators.

In the US, the F150 class pickups must meet the same emissions standards as cars. The F250 and above are subject to much looser restrictions (though even those are getting more strict, which is why Ford came out with the new 6.4l diesel). The US emissions standards are far more stringent than European standards. The diesel Hilux (and the like) WILL NOT meet the US emission standards. As of the 2008 model year, diesel emission standards in the US get even stricter, forcing Mercedes to add urea injection systems to their diesel exhaust treatment system. Particulate filters alone will not meet the 2008 US standards.

There are many of us here in the US who would love to buy a diesel. But we can't because of the regulators. So stop blaming us consumers. Blame EPA, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the various environmental pressure groups.

how come chrysler isn't sticking the liberty diesel into there other vehiclesBecause it won't meet the 2008 emissions regulations. The diesel engine in the Liberty is old technology. They are putting the MB Bluetec diesel into the Jeep Grand Cherokee. However, once DC sells Chrysler, who knows what will happen to that...

The engine emissions in and of themselves aren't the problem, but the sulphur and other crap in the fuel is.Not true. Even with the ultra-lower sulfur diesel fuel that is now available, the cleanest diesel sold in the US today (Mercedes E320) can't meet the 2008 emissions standards without urea injection.

crispy69

24th Apr 2007, 01:47

It really makes me laugh when I see post's claiming that we are not going to run out of oil. We all know that oil will run out!!! It is just "when" that is the debatable bit. It is typical Human selfishness when people say that it is not a problem, Maybe it will not happen in our live's but it is still going to be a problem for someone ie OUR kids or Grandkids or GreatGrankids etc. Unfortuatly we dont tend to care to much about the problems we create for future generations And I am just as guiltly as most considering I fly the least fuel efficent form of transport mainly because I like it.
I personnally think there is plenty of Oil for us to consume as drilling techniques are constantly evolving, After all there was a time when drilling in the north sea was considered a massive jump forward. How long it will last? How long is a piece of string? in 30 years time will we all have 3 cars each and a hover car too? or will we all ride on buses and electric mopeds! who know's but consumption will dictate how long our supply will last.
I also think OPEC countries play it up too to get the best price how many time have we heard that the price of oil is going up because the CEO got caught cheating or doing things to goats or whatever the lousey excuse they normally use is. Maybe I exagerate about the goats but we have all seen the price go up and thought what the hell does that have to do with it!!!
Will this stop 'hell no" they have us by the ball and they know it.
I dont see how we can be at peak production if needed you can always build more rigs ships refinary's etc
Do I think we will run out of Gas for our aircraft? NO! Even when we make the change to better energy sources if they are not suitable for Aircraft I think that Aviation will just use synthetic fuels unstead. If that is the only option avaliable I'm sure they will get more efficient at processing these.
What I do think will be the bigger issue is the effect of pumping all those carbons from crude into the atmosphere. I dont buy the crap that it has no effect at all but what I am not sure is how big the effect will be. Maybe we will all get nicer summers and have great days at the beach or maybe the weather will go AWOL and your nice holiday house will be under 10ft of water and our crop's destroyed. If you know please tell me! I sure hope we get the good summers beacuse if it's the other it will be permanant and we will be f^%&^d.
What can we do about it? NOTHING people dont care enough or know enough to march on the streats and let there goverments know they want change. Goverments well dont get me started but even if they wanted to change things they probably couldn't as they are tied by political ties and world finance which is all conected to oil. And even if MY goverment did it wouldnt matter because no one give's a crap what a little country like NZ thinks anyway.
So in conclusion if we are screwed we are and if we arn't we are not.:\
Enjoy your flying and dont overthink it!

sunnywa

24th Apr 2007, 03:50

Rotorbent, as you said

The next guy put in CO2 injection and the oil is flowing again better than ever. And ours are as well.

Just a quick question about this. Does this mean you are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere (after it dissapates) or storing the CO2 and reducing the amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. As long as they don't start injecting beer next.:hmm:

Graviman

24th Apr 2007, 11:40

Not pretending to be one of Rotorbrents theory guys, but my $0.02...

If CO2 is captured from atmosphere, or a source which would contribute to atmosphere it is reducing CO2 emission. Under pressure, even at moderate temps found deep down, CO2 sublimes into a solid. As long as well pressure is not released CO2 will stay down there until geological processes convert it into rock like Calcium carbonate (chalk).

Grew up in Houston, y'awl, so know how important oil biz is down Texas way - somethang had to power them big ole Saturns :ok:

Mart

Desert Diner

25th Apr 2007, 12:53

My car back then got 12 mpg and my new diesel pickup gets 23 mpg so some change has taken place.

There is a culture difference.

In the US, most people would be estatic to get over 20 mpg while in Europe most people would be horrified if they got below 50 mpg.

That comes from taxing the hell out of both the fuel as well as the engine size.

OFBSLF

25th Apr 2007, 15:04

Why do Europeans buy cars that get better mileage than do US consumers? I think most of the difference is due to the price-elasticity of demand and tax policy.

Fuel costs a great deal more in Europe than it does in the US, and most of that difference is due to taxes. One reason that diesel engines are so popular in Europe is that in most countries diesel fuel is not taxed as heavily as gasoline.

Here in the US, diesel is often more expensive than gasoline. If a diesel engine costs $2000 more than a gasoline engine, and the fuel is 25% more expensive, then it is hard for a US consumer to make an economic case for a diesel engine.

IMHO, the best way for the US to increase the mileage of the fleet is to increase fuel taxes, rather than mandating fleet economy standards. It's easy to change what people want by manipulating the cost; it is harder to get people to buy what they don't want. Unfortunately, both the Democratic and Republican parties here in the US are allergic to raising fuel taxes.

The recent fuel price rises in the US have significantly changed vehicle demand in the US. Sales of traditional body-on-frame SUVs and full-size pickups are down significantly. Toyota's brand new full-size pickup truck already has $2000 on the hood to move it out the door.

It is going to take a while for the US fleet mileage to change, simply because people are not going to replace their vehicles overnight. In addition, the emission regulations are creating significant technical challenges for diesel engines.

But things are changing in the US.

slowrotor

25th Apr 2007, 18:03

Looks like Boeing is going with biofuel, according to this article at aero-news.net

Boeing, Virgin Atlantic Joining To Develop Biofuel
Wed, 25 Apr '07
Aircraft Fueled by Soybeans?
Virgin Atlantic CEO Richard Branson has entered into a partnership with Boeing to develop a bio-fuel for jet engines... and both parties believe they can fly a 747 with one engine running on biofuel as early as next year.
Normal aircraft movement contributes hundreds of tons of greenhouse gases to the environment. Branson (right) believes he has found the solution.
"The positive effects of biofuel will hopefully reduce or almost get rid of the airlines' contribution to global warming," said Branson.
Branson is joining forces with Boeing and aircraft engine manufacturers to try to turn everything from soybeans to switch-grass into jet fuel, according to WLS-TV Chicago.
Ground testing is scheduled to begin soon. A test flight could actually happen by the end of 2008.
"Passengers ill get from A to B on bio fuels the same way they get from A to B on dirty fuels. The difference is they'll be able to get from A to B without feeling guilty and without damaging the environment," said Branson.
"I think 15 years ago in the car industry people said it was unrealistic. Then with further work on fuel cells, ethanol, renewable sources and you can begin to see a future world out there where dependency is reduced," said Jim McNerney, Boeing chairman.
As Aero-News reported in December 2006, Branson lobbied Chicago Mayor Richard Daley to allow tugs to take planes from their gates to the runway and back at O'Hare. Pilots would only throttle up their engines for takeoff.
The tug system is currently being tested in San Francisco and London Heathrow. O'Hare currently uses tugs to move aircraft from gate to gate or from a terminal to a maintenance hangar.
A spokesperson for the Chicago Aviation Department denied any "serious" discussions about expanding the use of tugs.
"The footprint to the environment around those airports will be something like 90-percent better than it is today, a dramatic improvement. All the noise of those engines running all day will disappear," said Branson.

madman1145

26th Apr 2007, 11:12

As I said. It's a culture thing - and here is the evidence :) ..

Jeremy Clarkson (TopGear) testing the Humvee H1 and H2 on European roads ..
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLOPzKrXohg

- madman

NB: Hummer H2 just went from 110.000 dollars to 150.000 dollars in Denmark last night. New taxsystem on vehicles just enforced, smacking huge gaseaters and lowering tax on small long mileage cars (for American, VERY small cars) ..
And the Hummer here is still only a 2 seater on yellow plates for that price, that is VAN's plates. Want all the seats in it (white plates like a normal car), you are probably gonna pay more than 200.000 dollars for it ..

And for those who would love to see 3 British funny aristocratic TopGear-men, driving some 800 miles out of Miami going north on a roadtrip in cars that cost no more than 1000 dollars, this is a great great laugh :ok: : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na36aiBjmHQ