Slashdot Mirror
The End of the Oil Age
geekstreak quotes "'The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.' Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I`ve seen a lot of that attitude, especially in the US. It seems to manifest itself most strongly when the cars in question are sports cars, (or -bizarrely- SUVs. As a motorsport geek as well as a computing one, I don`t see any reason why a hybrid/fuel cell/electric car can`t be made to perform as well, or as interestingly as a car with an IC engine.
8 02/page025.html
eg.: http://www.edmunds.com/news/autoshows/articles/47
People will buy "green" cars, it`s just a case of convincing them that they don`t have to drive a glorified milk float
You are quite correct. The "Hydrogen Economy" buzzword-crap refers to the idea of using hydrogen as an energy distribution mechanism, like a battery. You "charge up" your hydrogen tank by using electricity to split H out of H2O, and the electricity has to come from somewhere. You are also correct that it will come from whatever's cheapest, and only the environmental nuts with rooftop PV panels will make hydrogen cleanly.
However-- that's not the point. At least not initially. The idea is to transition to an infrastructure that does not depend on any particular generation method. This opens the way for your car to be powered by anything-- not just gasoline. Once you can put hydrogen in, you're no longer tied to a single source. As more efficient generators and methods (nuclear, solar, excercise-club treadmills) come into play, your existing car will be able to immediately take advantage of them.
To sum up, you're right. It will still be gasoline and coal on the backend for a long while. But every time a more efficient nuke plant pops up, cars can instantly switch their power source by just sourcing hydrogen from somewhere else. Contrast that to our existing infrastructure, where to take advantage of a more efficient generation method or fuel source, you need a new car for each technology advance (say, hybrid vehicles or VW diesels) or non-gasoline-compatible fuel.
It's just a way to disconnect generation from distribution and usage, and it works a hell of a lot better than a stack of Li-ion batteries that weighs as much as your car.
Been there, done that.
I'm old enough to remember the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Gas prices went through the roof. At their worst, gas was around $3.00/gal (in today's dollars, and yes, I know that's nothing compared to most of Europe). Pretty nasty when very few cars got over 15mpg.
The problem was that the vast majority of our oil was imported from the Middle East then, so when they stopped shipping there was none to be had at any price, hence the legendary gas lines and odd-even rationing.
Today, the Arabs could close the valve completely, and while it'd still be a huge PITA, we get a lot less of our oil from there, and we know a lot more about conservation than we did 30 years ago, so life would go on.
And not just in the Middle East. The US has a huge deficit, which it supports by priniting copious amount of money. Other contries with our levels of deficit and debt are places like Argentina, which has rioting in the streets... but we're saved from that kind of hyper-inflation because people around the world demand the dollar and they'll buy them up nearly as quickly as we can print them. George Monbiot points this out and covers some of the reasons for it, like the fact that the world's oil supply is priced in dollars, which means that people need our dollars to buy oil.
So, while the Middle East is dependent on us for it's economic welfare, it turns out that we're dependent on it as well. What America needs to do is keep oil prices in dollars and convince China to hit the crude-oil crackpipe. Otherwise we may have to pay off our debts...and I'm not going to find my share of 6 trillion dollars lost beneath the couch cushions.
Furthemore, it can be had in many parts of the US for not much more than regular diesel. I live in the Atlanta area and get mine in 55 gallon drums, delivered to my door, for $2.50/gallon, taxes and transport costs included.
I wish the media would quit griping about future alternative fuel sources. A renewable, domestic, practical, affordable solution is here, now.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
Diesel engines actually run cleaner than regular engines so I guess you must be misinformed or you're just lying. You can buy a desiel car if you want. I've had two. Desiel exhaust looks dirty but it's actually cleaner than the poison gas cocktail spweing invisibly out of most cars.
Why should it be the governments job to promote alternatives to oil? Hmmm I can think of 2. Stopping global warming. I know you don't think it's a big deal but well when Japan, England and New York are underwater people will be whining saying why didn't anyone tell us this was going to happen! Second and more important, because oil money is what funds wahabi islam and other extremist movements. Also having your economy tied to foreign oil makes you need to do things like prop up dictators and invade countries etc. So for the sake of national security we need to use less oil.
"As of January 1, 2001, domestic cars in the U.S. averaged 10.2 years. This is the highest average age for domestic cars in operation in more than 55 years," reported James A. Lang, President of Lang Marketing Resources, Inc., (www.langmarketing.com), a Wyckoff, New Jersey research and consulting firm specializing in the Vehicle Products Industry. Lang Marketing maintains a database of vehicles on U.S. roads."
"During the 1990s, the average age of domestic cars in the U.S. skyrocketed. At the beginning of the decade, domestic cars averaged 8.1 years, soaring to 8.5 years during 1992 and averaging 9.2 years at mid-decade. The domestic car population in the U.S. averaged 9.6 years at the beginning of 1998, increasing to 10.0 years by 2000."
http://www.langmarketing.com/docs/news04-23.htm
I posted this comment a few days ago on the energy poll but the poll changed before anyone had a chance to read it. Here it is again.
While googling around for information on world oil production I came across something called the Hubbert Curve.
The Hubbert Curve is a mathematical model that predicts petroleum production levels. It was developed in 1956 by M. King Hubbert, a petroleum geologist at Shell Oil.
It basically says that the rate of production of oil over the life of the reserve roughly follows a normal (ie, "bell curve") distribution. In other words, the rate of production will increase until half of the available oil has been produced, then the rate of production will begin to decline.
Here is a Hubbert curve plotted in 1996 using the latest available data at the time. The first graph shows the world output of conventional oil in millons of barrels per day over a 100 year span starting in 1950. It assumes an Ultimate Recovery (total amount of oil in the world) of 1750 Gb (gigabarrels). The plot does not include non-conventional sources such as oilsands. The full report is here
The graph predicts that global production will peak in the early 2000's and will decline steadily over the next fifty years. By 2050 production from conventional sources will have decrease by 70%. The second graph shows the Hubbert curve for conventional, non-conventional and gas liquid sources, plus the combined curve for conventional and non-conventional oil. Although production from non-conventional sources is predicted to double over the next 50 year it will not offset the predicted decline in production from conventional sources.
The graph has both its supporters and detractors. One of the inputs to calculating the curve is the Ultimate Recovery and its hard to know exactly what will be. I've found figures on the web that range from 1750 Gb to as high as 2300 Gb. However, as this article states, even if ultimate recovery is as high as 2600 Gb, the peak will only be delayed till 2019. Here is a critique of the Hubbert Curve.
What I find interesting about the curve is that oil production will not suddenly drop to zero when the oil runs out (the doomsday scenario). Rather production will steadily decline over a long period as existing sources dry up and new sources become harder and more expensive to exploit. At the same time, increasing oil prices will lead to the development of new sources of energy. As new energy production expands demand for oil will probably decrease, leading to lower oil prices. Oil production will finally stop when the cost of extracting the remaining oil exceeds market price.
We say gas is expensive, but it's not -=that=- expensive. Consider that gallon of milk can run you twice what a gallon of gas costs.
Similarly, consider the price of a handle of vodka. Almost every refined product we purchase costs more per gallon than gasoline.
The real question should be this. At what level are US Citizen prepared to take drastic means to keep energy prices down? California seems to be tolerating relitively high gas prices in comparison to the rest of the US. Admittedly it's California, so there's a bit of inherent irrationality there, but they haven't done a whole lot more than lobby for their regulations to be implemented on the national level.
When push comes to shove I think it would take a massive shift in policy almost completely by suprise. If gas prices climb slowly you won't see a change. If they spike upward (like if the Mid East decides tomorow it doesn't want to sell oil to the US and we're stuck with no one but Vesesuela) suddenly however, I think you'll see a bunch of angry SUV driving soccer moms.
A slow rise in gas prices might lead to exploration of alternative energy sources. When gas hits $3.50 a gallon I think you'll see a real economic pressure to provide super fuel efficient cars etc. Similarly as electric bills rise you'll see more money going to alternate sources of electric energy as well.
As for jumps, I think we'd have to hit around $6 a gallon... maybe more before you saw a real unapologetic war for oil. Most of the US population isn't as bloodthirsty as the rest of the world belives us to be (complaicent yes, bloodthirsty no). To get the public to rally behind a war of conquest for a material good you'd have to see some pretty rough consequences from pasifism.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
I don't know where you are from, but here in Europe we put about 4 liters into a gallon, not 2.
try this query in google:
how many liters in a gallon
HTH
(and petrol cost about 1.2 euro's a liter here, hardly 5 dollars, but that's another matter)
In the Netherlands, it's not expensive at all to convert, and the LPG itself is waaaaay cheaper than normal gasoline.
Unfortunately, I did not receive any tax breaks on my TDI. I don't even get any tax breaks on the biodiesel, either. I get charged full price from my local commercial supplier.
However, I can rightly claim that I get over 100mpg of petroleum diesel :)
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
Again, why is that the Government's job?
You have a basic misunderstanding of what government is for. Government isn't some kind of third-party that steps in like a referee. The government is us -- we, the people. If we need to do something collectively that individuals can't do on their own then government is exactly the vehicle to get it done. If you don't believe that that is the function of government then read this:
WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES,
in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Um, no. In South Korea, where I live, LPG is sold at about half of the gas stations, and it's cheaper than gasoline.
according to this guy we will reach peak oil production within a decade. Yeah, we'll have oil for 50 more years, but our demand will continue to grow while the supply remains constant. This is not something we'll be leaving for our children. It's happening now.
Not to mention that a fuel cell powered vehicle is essentially an electric car, but with a battery that doesn't contain crap like nickel or cadmium or other heavy metals.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Ah, I see your problem--your numbers are off for US GDP. That ~$5 trillion GDP should be ~$10+ trillion.
A brief lesson on refining and plastics:
Common plastic precursors are typically ethylene (C2), propylene (C3), or styrene (C8). "Gasoline" is ~C5-C15. "Goop" is C20+. So it's not the goop you use to make plastics - it's the light stuff.
"Distillation-only" units are but a small part of a modern refinery - usually the first step in processing crude. The various fractions out of a crude distillation tower get sent to other units (which likely all have a distillation component) to get processed down into something approaching gasoline (presuming that's where the given refinery makes its money - which is not always the case)
For example, "goop" gets fed to a cracker (catalytic or thermal) which (oddly enough) cracks the C20's into smaller pieces. While one typically aims for the the gasoline range as the max product out of cracking units (assuming that's where the money is), going down to C1-C2 is not difficult - you just have longer catalyst contact times or higher temperatures.
So, to answer your question of what'd they do with all that gas - they'd keep cracking it.