Peak Oil
Silly Old Git
Thread Starter
Anyways the biggest load of crap i've heard is the number of the beast mentioned in the biblical book of revelation, is really a date: 06/06/06 or 2006-JUN-6. nothing happened! lol....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: desert somewhere
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an interesting feature on beyondtomorrow the other night about a vehicle in Brazil that runs on four different fuels (including ethanol)
Tetra fuel car
Tetra fuel car
M.25
Yep I saw that as well and was very impressed. I still think that cars like that are only a stop gap until producing Hydrogen in sufficient quantities becomes a viable solution. If we can over the next 20 to 30 years get enough cars on the world’s roads running on hydrogen I think we will delay the inevitable of the world running out of petroleum products for at least 300 – 500 years and also greatly reduce the pollution we pump into the atmosphere.
Andy_RR
At present the internal combustion engine is more efficient, mainly because the infrastructure is in place to support them but with time I believe they will become a dinosaur and a costly noose around anyone’s neck that tries to run one.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Do a search of the internet. The number of sights is staggering as well as the strides that have been made in the last five tears or so.
Yep I saw that as well and was very impressed. I still think that cars like that are only a stop gap until producing Hydrogen in sufficient quantities becomes a viable solution. If we can over the next 20 to 30 years get enough cars on the world’s roads running on hydrogen I think we will delay the inevitable of the world running out of petroleum products for at least 300 – 500 years and also greatly reduce the pollution we pump into the atmosphere.
Andy_RR
At present the internal combustion engine is more efficient, mainly because the infrastructure is in place to support them but with time I believe they will become a dinosaur and a costly noose around anyone’s neck that tries to run one.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Do a search of the internet. The number of sights is staggering as well as the strides that have been made in the last five tears or so.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who cares about cars, cars are borring! I could not careless to be honest.... Cars can be replaced by Public Transport, like Trains, Trams etc
what about Aeroplanes? what will power them? Thats more important I think...
what about Aeroplanes? what will power them? Thats more important I think...
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peak oil is not about the end of oil - it is about demand exceeding supply and thus the price goes ballistic. There will be fuel for aircraft for many years to come. The problem is that it will cost a lot more (unless other economic sources of fuel come on line) and this will increase the cost of flying for the average punter.
At least the high price provides revenue for the oil industry to develop new technologies for oil extraction and processing so hopefully in the next few years we will see a turn around in the cost.
Look at what the head of BP thinks the future holds.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1795824,00.html
TH
At least the high price provides revenue for the oil industry to develop new technologies for oil extraction and processing so hopefully in the next few years we will see a turn around in the cost.
Look at what the head of BP thinks the future holds.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1795824,00.html
TH
Trash Hauler
And that is the point I was saying before. If the price climbs too much it will break the back of the consumer and a recession will follow. Prices are not entirely based on how much of the black stuff there is in the ground but how much the consumer is prepared to pay for it. It is becoming quite obvious that that time is fast approaching. It is widely accepted that high oil prices have the same effect on world economies as high interest rates. You can’t just keep jacking them up and not expect something to give. With both of them rising the limbs at the end of the branch are starting to look awfully thin indeed.
archangel7
You should because they are by far the largest consumers of crude oil on the planet. Fix that problem and the rest go away.
No they can’t. Public transport wouldn’t even go close to moving the same number of people around the world each day if oil ran out tomorrow.
And that is why fixing the problem of what cars in the future run on is so important. The more that can be weened off petroleum fuels the longer it will last for transportation methods like air transport that can’t be changed so easily.
And that is the point I was saying before. If the price climbs too much it will break the back of the consumer and a recession will follow. Prices are not entirely based on how much of the black stuff there is in the ground but how much the consumer is prepared to pay for it. It is becoming quite obvious that that time is fast approaching. It is widely accepted that high oil prices have the same effect on world economies as high interest rates. You can’t just keep jacking them up and not expect something to give. With both of them rising the limbs at the end of the branch are starting to look awfully thin indeed.
archangel7
Who cares about cars, cars are borring! I could not careless to be honest
Cars can be replaced by Public Transport, like Trains, Trams etc
what about Aeroplanes? what will power them? Thats more important I think...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404titan,
Do you use public transportation? Of course you do. Even if you live out in the country, you use public transportation when you drive to the city..."No, I don't," you reply. "I drive all the way into the city. I don't change from my car to a train or bus."
That may be true, but you still use transit to help you get around. How? If it weren't for public transportation, there would be thousands more cars on the road. You would spend hours more driving in or out of the city, because congestion would be far worse than it already is. So even if you don't ride public transit, you still use it, and it is still working for you.Reducing traffic congestion for people who drive is just one way but there are many more! It is also more cost efficient to use public transportation, particularly in business and urban areas, helps promote cleaner air by reducing automobile use and it can also significantly reduce dependency on petrol, reducing auto fuel consumption by 1.5 billion gallons annually. Of course it is also the safest way to travel! There is, however, another reason why we need to move cars and trucks out of cities: the space they consume. A two-track rail system can transport 48,000 passengers per hour in each direction (with seats for everyone); a two-lane road can transport 2000 cars (say 2400 passengers) in each direction. Since a metro track is the same width as a freeway lane, the space savings are about 20-fold, without even considering parking requirements. In some center-cities, as much as 70% of the land area is dedicated to roads and related infrastructure.
Titan, have you ever been to Melbourne? It has one of the world's most extensive tram networks, one of the few tram systems in Australia. Maybe the best PT system in Australia, maybe even the best in the Southern Hemisphere. Sydney has a good PT system as well, when I lived there for 17 months, I traveled to bankstown everyday to and from work. Not once have I waited for over 15-20 minutes for a train and it was never late... the trains where always packed thousands of people on board moving students and all types of different workers etc..
cars are not needed and they are a waste...if we improved our transport system including the GA we could move more people to and from work... But this would require a lot of hard thinking and planning...with the rising prices in fuel, naturally you then wonder if you can do without cars at all.
Do you use public transportation? Of course you do. Even if you live out in the country, you use public transportation when you drive to the city..."No, I don't," you reply. "I drive all the way into the city. I don't change from my car to a train or bus."
That may be true, but you still use transit to help you get around. How? If it weren't for public transportation, there would be thousands more cars on the road. You would spend hours more driving in or out of the city, because congestion would be far worse than it already is. So even if you don't ride public transit, you still use it, and it is still working for you.Reducing traffic congestion for people who drive is just one way but there are many more! It is also more cost efficient to use public transportation, particularly in business and urban areas, helps promote cleaner air by reducing automobile use and it can also significantly reduce dependency on petrol, reducing auto fuel consumption by 1.5 billion gallons annually. Of course it is also the safest way to travel! There is, however, another reason why we need to move cars and trucks out of cities: the space they consume. A two-track rail system can transport 48,000 passengers per hour in each direction (with seats for everyone); a two-lane road can transport 2000 cars (say 2400 passengers) in each direction. Since a metro track is the same width as a freeway lane, the space savings are about 20-fold, without even considering parking requirements. In some center-cities, as much as 70% of the land area is dedicated to roads and related infrastructure.
Titan, have you ever been to Melbourne? It has one of the world's most extensive tram networks, one of the few tram systems in Australia. Maybe the best PT system in Australia, maybe even the best in the Southern Hemisphere. Sydney has a good PT system as well, when I lived there for 17 months, I traveled to bankstown everyday to and from work. Not once have I waited for over 15-20 minutes for a train and it was never late... the trains where always packed thousands of people on board moving students and all types of different workers etc..
cars are not needed and they are a waste...if we improved our transport system including the GA we could move more people to and from work... But this would require a lot of hard thinking and planning...with the rising prices in fuel, naturally you then wonder if you can do without cars at all.
Last edited by archangel7; 23rd Jul 2006 at 22:33.
archangel7
Yes I have been to Melbourne. I go there all the time. I think you need to do a little research into Public Transport the world over before saying such stupid things as “Cars can be replaced by Public Transport, like Trains, Trams”. The reality is that in Australia’s capital cities only 10% of people use public transport on a regular basis. To put it another way imagine the chaos that would result if the public transport infrastructure in Melbourne and Sydney suddenly increased by ten times the current levels. It quite clearly wouldn’t be able to handle it. In Hong Kong where I live which has one of the best public transport systems in the world, only about 20% of the population use it on a regular basis. Again it would crumble under the strain of five times more people using it overnight. The other major problem with most public transport systems around the world is that it is focussed on transporting people from the suburbs to the centre of the city. If you need to get across town the system breaks down as it wasn’t designed to move people in that fashion. If you need to get across town you can spend hours trying to get there which quite clearly isn’t practical if you have to do it twice a day, five days a week. Oh and by the way I grew up in Sydney and currently spend quite a bit of time there and the public transport system is to put it bluntly, very unreliable, especially the rail network. Time tables may as well be written on toilet paper because that is all they are worth. And yes I do use public transport on a regular basis in both Sydney and Hong Kong but also own cars in both locations because of the limitations of the public transport systems in both cities.
Public Transport Users Association Victoria Australia. (Myths)
Public Transport Users Association Victoria Australia. (Problem)
Commission for Integrated Transport.
Yes I have been to Melbourne. I go there all the time. I think you need to do a little research into Public Transport the world over before saying such stupid things as “Cars can be replaced by Public Transport, like Trains, Trams”. The reality is that in Australia’s capital cities only 10% of people use public transport on a regular basis. To put it another way imagine the chaos that would result if the public transport infrastructure in Melbourne and Sydney suddenly increased by ten times the current levels. It quite clearly wouldn’t be able to handle it. In Hong Kong where I live which has one of the best public transport systems in the world, only about 20% of the population use it on a regular basis. Again it would crumble under the strain of five times more people using it overnight. The other major problem with most public transport systems around the world is that it is focussed on transporting people from the suburbs to the centre of the city. If you need to get across town the system breaks down as it wasn’t designed to move people in that fashion. If you need to get across town you can spend hours trying to get there which quite clearly isn’t practical if you have to do it twice a day, five days a week. Oh and by the way I grew up in Sydney and currently spend quite a bit of time there and the public transport system is to put it bluntly, very unreliable, especially the rail network. Time tables may as well be written on toilet paper because that is all they are worth. And yes I do use public transport on a regular basis in both Sydney and Hong Kong but also own cars in both locations because of the limitations of the public transport systems in both cities.
Public Transport Users Association Victoria Australia. (Myths)
Public Transport Users Association Victoria Australia. (Problem)
Commission for Integrated Transport.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chimbu chuckles
If you guys wanna believe a bunch of BS from the extreme left of the green movement fill you boots.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/peakoil/index.htm
Peak oil spans all political persuasions, the most active US politician on peak oil is a Republican member of the House of Representatives Roscoe Bartlett and the best selling peak oil author is Matthew Simmons, a former energy adviser for President Bush.
The fact that peak oil (not running out but just the peak in the rate of extraction before it starts to fall back down) is likely to occur within a decade and most likely before or around 2010 is proved in my opinion.
The alternative view of a peak at some 120 million barrels per day in 2030 is fanciful (yet less than 25 years away so even that far off we should take action now), it isn't rigorously supported by the data. The evidence point to peak around 2010.
As you may be aware there are two distinctly difference approaches to evaluating the timing of peak oil;
a) The annalists approach considering the production profile of all fields, those in decline, those in ascension, those holding steady then to this add the new projects we know about – and over the time scale of six years we have complete visibility because it takes that long to bring a new project on line. This analysis is predicting a global peak around 2010. There just aren’t the projects post 2010 to offset depletion.
b) The geologists approach based on two key points, an estimate of ultimately recoverable reserves (URR) and that the profile of the extraction rate curve is the derivative of the logistic curve and follows the well known bell-shaped curve, the area under the curve representing the URR. These two points and historic extraction data allows the complete curve to be calculated complete with date and extraction rate at peak. This approach has been verified on many individual fields and countries – it follows that the summation of the many oil producing countries in the world will behave similarly. This analysis (developed by Shell’s chief consultant in general geology M. King Hubbert and successfully carried out in 1956 to predict the peaking of the lower 48 states of the US in 1971) also predicts a global peak around 2010.
I really don't see how people have difficultly accepting peak oil, the available evidence is pretty clear on the matter.
This article covers some of the reasons why peak oil is probably about now.
Finally, to extract oil first one must discover oil. Here is the oil discovery profile:
The amount of oil discovered to date produces a peak around 2010, the die are already cast.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: planet igloo
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The geologists approach based on two key points, an estimate of ultimately recoverable reserves (URR) and that the profile of the extraction rate curve is the derivative of the logistic curve and follows the well known bell-shaped curve, the area under the curve representing the URR. These two points and historic extraction data allows the complete curve to be calculated complete with date and extraction rate at peak. This approach has been verified on many individual fields and countries – it follows that the summation of the many oil producing countries in the world will behave similarly. This analysis (developed by Shell’s chief consultant in general geology M. King Hubbert and successfully carried out in 1956 to predict the peaking of the lower 48 states of the US in 1971) also predicts a global peak around 2010.
This information also fails to show the present shale sand deposits in the US, (conservatively estimated at 3 times the original known Saudi reserves) or the fact that 80% of the current survey work is done on the North american continent.(the rest of the world gets a measley 20%)
Peak Oil IMHO is a completely self-serving phenomona in so much that the oil companies and government agencies (regulators & theocracies) are the ones to gain when prices are high. It is as simple as failing to invest in refining capacity (there has been a lethargy on the part of oil companies to increase capacity since the last major oil price spike), couple this with increased (although in a historical sense..not really) political instability..and hey presto, you have a license to print money.
Whatever the estimates consider, I am of the opinion that this is perhaps a very cynical money making exercise, the latest news of the problems associated with a certain Alaskan pipeline highlight just how ridiculous the situation is! (by admission there is no shortage of supply..merely a refining shortfall, so this technical issue should have no impact on the overall picture...and yet a $2-3 USD price spike ensued)
Its all rather artificial really.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 757manipulator
So your suggesting that an estimation that is 50 years old..and presumably based on 50 year old technology, has as much relevance as it did 50 years ago?
Originally Posted by 757manipulator
This information also fails to show the present shale sand deposits in the US, (conservatively estimated at 3 times the original known Saudi reserves)
Originally Posted by 757manipulator
or the fact that 80% of the current survey work is done on the North american continent.(the rest of the world gets a measley 20%).
Originally Posted by 757manipulator
Peak Oil IMHO is a completely self-serving phenomona in so much that the oil companies and government agencies (regulators & theocracies) are the ones to gain when prices are high. It is as simple as failing to invest in refining capacity (there has been a lethargy on the part of oil companies to increase capacity since the last major oil price spike), couple this with increased (although in a historical sense..not really) political instability..and hey presto, you have a license to print money.
Whatever the estimates consider, I am of the opinion that this is perhaps a very cynical money making exercise, the latest news of the problems associated with a certain Alaskan pipeline highlight just how ridiculous the situation is! (by admission there is no shortage of supply..merely a refining shortfall, so this technical issue should have no impact on the overall picture...and yet a $2-3 USD price spike ensued)
Its all rather artificial really.
Whatever the estimates consider, I am of the opinion that this is perhaps a very cynical money making exercise, the latest news of the problems associated with a certain Alaskan pipeline highlight just how ridiculous the situation is! (by admission there is no shortage of supply..merely a refining shortfall, so this technical issue should have no impact on the overall picture...and yet a $2-3 USD price spike ensued)
Its all rather artificial really.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: planet igloo
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isn't because there's less light sweet oil refining capacity (the cheapest) available, it's because there's less light sweet oil about. Global supply of light sweet oil peaked back in 2004 and is now declining
Which is irrelevant to peak oil in 2010, it's a flow rate problem not a lack of oil shale or tar sands problem.
Suggesting that if only the rest of the world was drilled as much as the US more oil would be found? Rubbish, the US drilled like crazy in the early 80's, completing some 25,000 wells per year. Did it improve their extraction rates - nope, they have been declining since 1971. So no the rest of the world hasn't been Swiss cheeses like the US but that absolutely doesn't mean there's vast amounts of oil yet to find
