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."

Comments

Hydrogen fuel cells

[Raul654]

The article mentions hydrogen fuel cells as a way to break big oil. But last I heard, the most effecient way to make hydrogen is from coal, which is a dirty nasty process. (Or so I hear). Am I wrong on this?

Re:Hydrogen fuel cells

[tiled_rainbows]

Yeah, that's what gets me, too. All this talk about "the hydrogen economy" yadda yaddda yadda tends to assume that people will be charging their fuel cell up from renewable energy sources. But surely, in a free market, they'll be charging it up from the cheapest energy source, which will be the same as the variety of (generally non-renewable) sources that drive today's power grids. So it won't make a blind bit of difference. And I bet that OPEC et al are looking into the most efficient way to convert oil into hydrogen - I mean, what else are they going to do with it once eveyone starts driving fuel-cell powered cars?

Anyway, point of this slightly incoherent post: Fuel cells are cool, but, unlike oil, they are not an energy source and therefore will not replace oil. Hopefully something will, though.

Re:Hydrogen fuel cells

[kfg]

And also energy intensive. That energy has to come from somewhere. See the second law. The hydrogen derived from the process cannot be used as the energy source for the process.

Catalytic cracking from methanol is another possibility. Energy must be used to refine and manufacture the catalysts( and those catalysts expire, requiring energy to dispose of), as well as to produce the methanol. See above reference to the second law. The quickest dodge around the outside of the second law in this case is to use some naturally occuring process to reduce the energy need. That's why 90% of the "wood alcohol" produced today is produced from. . .are you ready for it?

Oil!

Ah, but what about that bioethanol the article talks about, I hear you cry. That isn't made from petroleum oil.

No. It isn't. Then why is it so expensive? Because of the energy needed to grow the plants ( do you know how much fuel is used in farming?) and the energy needed to produce the ethanol from the plants. See the second law.

Effectively all hydrogen on earth is in a bound molecular compound. Energy must be added to free it. See the second law. Producing hydrogen will always be done at an energy loss.

From whence will we derive the energy to make up that loss?

Ummmmmmmmm, oil?

There's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't win. You can only break even. Oh yeah, and you can't break even.

There are many benefits to be derived from using hydrogen as a fuel. Saving energy from other sources isn't one of them. The big energy companies, even those specializing in oil and nuclear, are going to frikkin' love the "hydrogen economy."

It's going to allow them to sell us more oil for less benefit than ever before.

KFG

Re:Hydrogen fuel cells

[Sgt York]

OK, let's say that over the next 15-20 years we phase into hydrogen powered cars. I'm not predicting, I'm just pulling the number from my sphincter. Anyway, let's just say that 80-85% of the cars on the road in 2023 are hydrogen powered. No doubt: the hydrogen to power these cars will come from processes driven by hydrocarbon based fuel, provided there is any left. It's the cheapest, and readily available.

However, that is still a good thing. It may or may not improve current environmental condidtions (efficiency of scale, concentration of pollutants, etc), but it is still overall a good thing. In this scenario, cars are then ready for greener fuels.

Let's say that in 2050 we perfect cheap solar/wind/fusion/total conversion/cosmic ray harvesting/whatever as a "green" energy source. If cars are already set up to use hydrogen as a fuel, the general populace is all set to take full advantage of that new green source. Large companies will have incentive to shift to the new tech because it's cheaper and gives good PR. The general populace won't care, because it doesn't affect their daily activities. If cars are all set on gasoline, people will resist the shift. Get the resistance to the new tech out of the way now, because we can.

Re:Hydrogen fuel cells

[radtea]

Several other people have pointed out that hydrogen has value as a means of transmission of power that makes it a useful step in the transition toward complete reliance upon indefinitely sustainable energy sources. Hydrogen/solar and hydrogen/wind are natural combinations, as both sun and wind are abundant resources that often aren't co-located with high densities of energy consumers.

But it gets better.

Hydrogen as a transport medium has three big advantages over electricity: transmission is relatively lossless, hydrogen can be stored far more easily than electricity, and hydrogen is better suited to powering small mobile engines, such as those found in automobiles. On the first point, roughly 40% of electricity generated in Canada (admittedly a worst case) goes into line losses. The number in the U.S. isn't that much lower. Ergo, hydrogen production can be moderately inefficient compared to simple electricity generation and still break even on efficiency grounds.

Most importantly, however, cars that use hydrogen generated from burning coal, oil or gas would be far more energy-efficient and less poluting of the atmosphere than gasoline powered automobiles. The reason for this is simply that large stationary power-plants are much easier to load with all kinds of fancy efficiency-enhancing, polution-reducing technology than cars are. Small, mobile power plants suffer from all kinds of practical engineering constraints (weight, size, cycle-of-use,...) that don't affect big stationary power plants.

--Tom

I love the Economist.

[YanceyAI]

What is more, because hydrogen can be made in a geographically distributed fashion, by any producer anywhere, no OPEC cartel or would-be successor to it could ever manipulate the supplies or the price. There need never be another war over energy.

Nice sentiment, but I'm sure some big corporation, or perhaps some lobbying coalition of corporations will probably patent the technology, then lobby to make certain patents never expire. Even much of major university research is now funded by corporations and results in patents.

Think I'm paranoid? Ask the RIAA how long they think a copyright should be good for. So no wars, just draconian lawsuits that continue the inequitable distribution of energy, food, and wealth.

Middle East

[1000101]

You think the situation in the Middle East is bad now? Wait until the world no longer relies on them for their oil and their economies fall apart. It will be a complete disaster. I would like to not have to rely on oil as much as the next guy, but I think it's going to cause just as many social problems as it will solve environmental problems.

Oil isn't going away anytime soon.

[hedon_elite]

Technology has existed for some time to curb our need for oil, but our government won't promote this. The whole 'restucturing the Middle East' agenda is based around trying to procure our oil on the cheap, and many more of our armed forces are going to have to die (it will probably take a major, MAJOR conflict with heavy losses before the US government decides to start seriously looking for alternatives). I'm glad I didn't join the Air Force a few years ago when I was contemplating it. I went to MEPPS and everything. Lucky me.

Re:Oil isn't going away anytime soon.

[wayward_son]

Technology has existed for some time to curb our need for oil, but our government won't promote this.

Again, why is that the Government's job?

In fact, Government interference with pollution controls is one of the major reasons our cars are so inefficient. Diesel engines are considerably more efficient and reliable, but they have trouble meeting pollution regulations.

HydrogenMan defeats OilMan

[bill_mcgonigle]

They're 'Energy Companies' now, not 'Oil Companies'. They'll be just as happy making billions of dollars selling bottled H2 as they are selling gasoline. Plus, they won't have to settle for OPEC's finicky pricing schemes - they'll be able to raise prices without restraint.

How hard would it be to install a nuclear reactor on an oil rig in international waters and start splitting seawater?

Not likely

[onyxruby]

Oils are used as a base ingrediant in plastics. While we may someday move a hyrdogen economy, and we might even eventually get away from the internal combustion engine. Were not about to stop using plastics. Petroleum products go into a whole lot more than our gas tank, something many people are oblivious too.

Not only that but the oil companies are smart enough to realize there not in the oil business but the energy business. Point to example, BP/Amoco is the world's largest seller of Solar panels. Why anybody would think that these companies would stand by and not partake in new energy technology is beyond me.

Re:Not likely

[HarveyBirdman]

Why anybody would think that these companies would stand by and not partake in new energy technology is beyond me.

Because a monochromatic world of simple good and simple evil filled with shadowy bogeymen and vast conspiracies is easier for many to accept than the more complicated worldview known as "reality".

Re:My car

[Alan Partridge]

Actually, as any sensible motorist will tell you, cars will last as long as you're willing to maintain them. What usually happens is that a) after 5 years, the car loan is paid off and you fancy a new one, so you sell the car and b) after 10 years, it costs more to service the car each year than the car is worth, thus making it prohibitively expensive to INSURE.

In fact, it's MUCH more economical to buy a high quality car that's 5 years old and maintain it until it gets damaged beyond economic repair, the maintenance costs do not even approach the level of depreciation you get on a new car.

The car industry knows this, and plays us accordingly (that's why it costs $200 to replace that door seal on your 10 year old Honda Accord with 150 000miles on the clock).

Re:And don't forget

[Valar]

11. Don't spend more money invading a country than actual value of the oil under said country, especially when there are better oil profit/cost relationships in the same region, and the production in question could easily be had from French, German, or Russian companies that actually owned many of the rigs for much less.

They tried that

[Dark Paladin]

Back in the 1970's - the fuel shortage.

About the same time, fuel efficiency jumped from 10 miles per gallon to 25.

For the last 30 years, nothing has changed for fuel efficiency (a little here and there, but let's face it, not on a huge scale).

Why? No economic incentive. But if another fuel crisis occured, you can bet that Necessity would mother quite a few inventions to increase fuel efficiency. Especially when car makers find they can make more money doing so.

And that's what it's all about: money. Cars won't be more fuel efficient, people won't buy more car efficient cars until they have a pocketbook reason to. Right now, even though gas is expensive, it's still "cheap" compared to what it should be for inflation's sake.

Biodiesel not even mentioned

[DaveWhite99]

This article pays homage to future alternative fuels such as hydrogen and bioethanol, but does not even mention the most practical, affordable, and widely used alternative fuel : biodiesel. Biodiesel is commonly blended with petroleum diesel and is used in school buses, trucking fleets, and by individuals like myself. I run commercial-grade biodiesel in my non-modified (straight off the showroom floor) VW TDI. I even have it delivered to my garage door in 55 gallon drums for $2.50/gallon, all taxes and transport included.

This article is just one in a long line of many that only pays attention to trendy, non-practical technologies like fuel cells (a battery-powered car is still cheaper and faster than any fuel cell car) and bioethanol, while completely ignoring the practical, relevant, and current technologies like biodiesel.

Re:So it goes...

[Alyeska]

As someone else on here said, there's no such thing as an "oil company" any more. People around here need to update their propaganda. The various energy companies I've worked for couldn't care less whether it's oil, gas, hydrogen, or twinkies, as long as the profit margin is high.

But then again, I'm an evil oil-man, and will be by his evening to collect all of your children and pets to torture. It's what we eeeeeevil people do. Stretches my credibility, what?

Re:And don't forget

[Valar]

http://www.notinournames.org/iht/articles/vonspone ck-oil-revenues.html

From 1996-2001, the Iraqi oil revenue was a total of less than 51 billion. It will cost significantly more than $10 a year to maintain a 'colony' in Iraq. Even assuming upkeep was nothing, and there were no costs after today in Iraq for the US, it would take more than a decade to "pay off" the invasion costs. There are cheaper ways of acquiring the oil than that. Many other countries simply put money in Sadam's pocket, and leased rigs. This is much more cost effective. I think a lot of what the administration has said was bullshit, but I don't buy the blood for oil policy either. People should wisen up and realize that there ARE more important things to the administration than money (i.e. power).

Re:Governments can save us by BUTTING OUT.

[mpthompson]

The transportation industry as a whole is massively subsidized through taxes. Americans only pay a small fraction of the true cost of driving our vehicles in the form of the gas tax. These subsidies go to build/maintain roads, fight wars to control/maintain/secure energy supplies, fix environmental damage, smog prevention, DMV operations, law enforcement, and a myriad of other costs associated with driving. The oil companies aren't paying for the war in Iraq, our taxes are.

If these subsidies were removed and the true cost of driving was more accurately reflected at the pump the free market could produce better alternatives much faster. As things are now, trying to develop alternatives that compete with an entrenched industry that is heavily subsidized by taxes is extremely difficult, if not foolish.

Re:My car

[adeyadey]

This is the reason why we have to start now, long before the wells run dry. We are all too addicted/dependant on personal transport now to switch over to public transport totally (myself included), and its gonna take time to replace all those cars.

The point is its all feasable - Ive mentioned the wind power bit (USA) before - costs down to $0.03/kw/hr & falling - just turn it into Hydrogen, or power batteries direct if cheap/light enough. Its actually not gonna be that hard, just requires the will. Increasing taxes on petrol helps, but is not enough in itself. Actually I think costs could come right down as technologies improve (like PC's)- our kids could all be driving powerful SUVs running on cheap green electric/hydrogen, laughing at their dads who fought wars over oil..

Re:No difference for a long while, but...

[Courageous]

In France, 90% of our electricity comes from nuclear plants and it's reasonnably cheap. I gather that the investments were huge but they're paying off.

(my fellow) Americans are (somewhat) irrationally afraid of nuclear. As a consequence, our safety standards are very, very high. This increases total cost of generating power beyond the cost of other power generating techniques. If Americans were a bit less nuclear-paranoid, we might be able to look rationally at some of the emerging/new techniques at safely and cheaply generating power.

C//

Re:No difference for a long while, but...

[ThinWhiteDuke]

France also has its share of irrational fear of the nukes - hehe, another common point between us ;) - I don't think any new plant has been built in the latest 20 years and Greenpeace guys call Doomsday everytime a lightbulb dies within 20 miles of a nuclear plant. Our plants are safe, no significant problem has been reported since the beginning of the program (like 50 years ago). I guess our safety standard are world-class too. Still electricity can be produced cheaply.

I think the main barrier to nuclear power is not economical, it's political. No elected official wants to risk his (her) reelection by building a new nuclear plant.

Re:No difference for a long while, but...

[cens0r]

But burning coal actually releases as much radiation into the air as you get nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant. The upside to the nuclear power plant is that you can contain it... good luck containing all the polution coming out of the coal burning plant.

Energy Corp and Efficiency

[duck_prime]

They certainly don't care what KIND of fuel they have to sell you. What doesn't exist, however, is any incentive for them to encourage efficiency. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The more efficient stuff gets, the less people have to buy their products.

That's why the energy companies don't make cars and toasters. Someone else makes the energy-consuming devices, and that someone has a very large vested interest in efficiency, at least efficiency w.r.t. the competition's device.

The problem with the world going over to some alternate source of energy is twofold:

1). The first-mover problem. The first corp switching to methane/gerbil/whatever power on a large scale will make all the costly mistakes, much to the delight and edification of their competition, so I can imagine a ... reluctance ... to be the first one.

2). Don't forget that we need a source for PLASTIC. Right now our enormous chemical industries guzzle down oil like you wouldn't believe, and we still need to find an alternative for that. And with the way fractional distillation works, if you separate enough oil to get gloop to make plastic out of, you get as a side effect lots and lots of, well, gasoline. What are they supposed to do with it?

I do favor alternate energy sources (heck, alternate plastic sources too, if any) but let's not forget that it will take really hard work to cut over, and that it's not as simple as tossing up a couple of windmills. The energy corps today aren't using oil just because they like polluting. Here's some guy's take on the problem.