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)
Governments need to promote them.
And Oil Industries need to subdue them.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
...Then what will KFC fry their chicken in?
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?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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.
Can I bum a sig?
A gas tax would do nothing but piss off everyone in the States while the oil corporations whine like crazy over it.
Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
Surely the problem with all these wonderful schemes is that they involve a reduction in our standard of living, at least in the short and medium term, if only due to increased taxation, and there is little evidence that this is a vote-winning idea. Sure, we can blame the politicians, but if the electorate was begging for higher taxes on fuel, I suspect they would be happy to deliver.
Virtually serving coffee
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.
weellcome our (hic) neww bio (hic) bio (hic) bioethanol supplying overlawrds... (burp)...
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
They'll pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead hands!
- National Oil Association
1. Wait.
2. Buy stuff from only your home town.
3. Eat less.
4. Shop less.
5. Buy an electric car.
6. Walk.
7. Run.
8. Bike.
9. Have lots of sex. (ok these aren't in order)
10. Make fun of people who drive or buy things from far away or shop too much or don't have much sex.
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.
Did governments need to promote the alternatives to stone? A thing whose time has come shouldn't need "help". In fact, I'd argue that having government in your corner is often the worst thing that could happen.
And what can you make oil out of? Pretty much anything. Sewage, yard waste, paper, plastic, road-kill...
Recycling at its best. And this isn't theoretically-possible technology. This is currently-profitable-and-expanding technology.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese.
This
I guess I'll have to keep posting this for the rest of my life, because people don't seem to hear it:
Yes, oil dependence is an economic and political problem. Yes, fossil fuels are an ecological disaster. But switching to cars powered by hydrogen, solar or whatever is not going to stop us from turning the world into a place where you can't walk to the corner grocery store without worrying about being run over. Can we put some geek energy towards solving that problem, please?
So yes, oil dependance for the world is a problem. It's allowed a single section of the world to weild incredible economic power over others, and has allowed a group of religious extremists more money than they really deserve. Saudi Arabians (not the entire country, mind you - just folks with way too much money on their hands) exporting schools to Afganistan with a branch of extreme Islam that pretty much hates, well, everybody, Iran putting a gigantic bounty of Salman Rushdie's head because he wrote a book he didn't like:
So here's what I see happening:
Now:
50 years from now:
It's a simplistic view, I admit - but I figure nothing will be done on a US national scale, let alone a global one, until there is A Problem With Oil Supplies.
Which, I'm guessing at around 50 years. Perhaps by then we'll have fusion systems or some other cool way of gathering energy. Until then, nobody really wants to do anything because it will cost too much money.
And in the end, that's what it's all about, isn't it?
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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
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?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
well until I can actually buy one of these wondor cars that need no oil (No lubrication?) I'll stick to 70 MPG with a SMART car thanks v much :)
My Portfolio
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.
This technology had a couple false starts and inital designs sucked in terms of ROI for energy spent, but company called "Changing World Technolgies" built a demonstration plant that worked and then built a plant next to a turkey processing plant that digests the left overs from the turkey plant into 40 weight oil and gas (which it uses as fuel in the first stage of the digester).
*puts down the pom-poms* I think this technology is great. It's not perfect because it still keeps us dependant on oil (just not oil from foreign contributors) however, I think it's a step in the right direction.
I went looking for the link I read in the Discover magazine and it seems dead, so I've put in the google cache link instead.
Anything into oil
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
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).
That was classic intercourse!
"The only long-term solution to this connected set of problems is to reduce the world's reliance on oil. Achieving this once seemed pie-in-the-sky. No longer. Hydrogen fuel cells are at last becoming a viable alternative."
Oh fantastic! I just zip right on down to the Ford dealership and pick myself up a Hydrogen powered car. Then I can go to the nearest gas station and fill it up with liquid Hyrdogen. I'm sure it'll be cheaper than the $1.40 a gallon I paid to fill up my car this morning.
Lets get real here, people. Nobody knows for sure if fuel cell cars will actually work in the marketplace. There are lots of hurdles to overcome like safety issues (New for 2005! The Buick Hindenburg XT!), distribution and production issues for Hydrogen, not to mention the fact that fuel cells may be a tough sell to consumers as long as they can buy gas at a reasonable price.
Fuel cells may be a good idea...they may be a fantastic idea. Or they could be the next Segway. A wait and see attitude is more prudent here before we go throwing out 100 years worth of research and development on the internal combustion engine.
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.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
With gas increasingly becoming an expensive commodity, people are turning to other means for powering their gasoline engined vehicles. A European country (Italian?) already makes car conversion kits, which cost about $50, take about 2 hours to attach, and allow the car to run on liquefied petroleum gas (butane) commonly used as cooking gas. A cylinder of LPG fits comfortably in the trunk, lasts upto 200 miles, and can be exchanged for a new one at the gas station. A switch allows you to switch between gas and LPG on the fly....I've actually seen this work...if you want to switch from LPG to petrol, you turn the switch to OFF, allow the car to stall slightly and turn it to the petrol position...that's it....as easy as that. Not only is LPG a cleaner fuel, but it is also typically 5-6 times cheaper than normal petrol.
Another point.US is also one of the few countries where 2 wheeled vehicles like motorbikes/scooters are almost non existent. They are pretty widespread in European counties like Spain and in Asia. Not only are they more fuel efficient, but release lower amounts of polluting gases (atleast the 4 stroke versions, 2 stroke engines release more harmful gases for the same amount of fuel). I have noticed a growing use of scooters in the US, atleast in and around college campuses.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
20, 50 or 100 years from now. Whenever this oil depedency has hit rock bottom. Countries in the middle east will simply blame america for their lack of revenue (assuming they don't move on to some other form of business, they must adapt, or perish). In 20-50 years the world will be much more tightly connected and it will only become easier for a country to sue another country. For example. all the damage Saudi Arabia has done to their people and environment by drilling for oil would be blamed on the US's massive consumption.
Not only is the US gouged on prices, when the money runs out, these countries will turn around and litigate for more.
I say the sooner we throw off the shackles of depedency on a tiny region of the world, the less damage they can do to us. America has always been fiecely indepedent, to the point of being pig-headed. I think we're due for some pig-headedness now. Cut ourselves now, to avoid worse wounding in the future.
Of course I doubt anything will happen until the last possible second. Politicians don't seem to react unless it's an "oh shit" situation. Doing nothing substantial pisses off fewer people, and limiting the number of people you piss off is what it takes to survive in politics.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
Using Nuclear Power they could steam cook chickens and produce electricity at the same time. "Welcome to nuK-FC can I take your order?"
The linked article (gasp I read it first) notes that hydrogen can be generated from any electrical source, even nuclear. Electrolysis is an energy intensive process - using the electrical output of a nuclear plant to crack water would be a waste of useful electricity. Radiolysis, the breakdown of water into hydrogen and oxygen by the action of neutrons, is a by-product of the nuclear reaction in water moderated reactors (virtually every commercial nuclear plant in the U.S.).
Using the nuclear reactors to make electricity, sans greenhouse emissions, and siphoning off the hydrogen evolved from radiolysis is a much more efficient solution. One pound of nuclear fuel ( 5% U-235) can generate an absurd amount of hydrogen. A lot more than the electricity evolved from that same amount of fuel could through electrolysis.
The half dozen or so hydrogen stations in California will extract their hydrogen from natural gas. Read here
That may be the case now, but it wasn't always. Automobile manufacturing quality has risen considerably over the last 20 years. I recently junked a 1990 Geo Prizm that made it almost to 180,000 miles, and probably would have made 200,000 before repair costs exceeded the benefit of keeping it around.
Given today's modern lifestyle, I can't see many cars from the 70's lasting that long, under the same maintenance scheme. Sure, extra-diligent care can make old cars last forever, but for the everyday driver, that task has become much easier lately.
For the record, I followed the tack you noted, and picked up a 97 Subaru Outback, which hit the sweet spot of affordability, durability, and functionality.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The problem is that we have created urban (and suburban, and exurban) town patterns that are useless for mass transit. But all the "green" power sources - wave, wind, solar, nuclear (yes, I do think nuclear power can be perfectly safe if it is regulated and not used to produce military by-products) are large-scale or spread out so they favor mass transport designs. They will work well in much of Europe, China and, ultimately, India, but not in the US.
The hydrogen economy remains a possibility - alternative power could be used to create hydrogen efficiently by splitting water - and if the storage and distribution problems can be solved, could fix the US transport problem. But it is a huge threat to the Bush family (and the Cheneys, and many party backers) UNLESS hydrogen generation can be linked to the use of oil or coal. It's a truly vicious circle: Oil is good for the Bushes because its price fluctuates, military and business savvy is needed to maintain supplies, and the US consumer thinks he gets cheap oil, not realising he is actually subsidising the same people that gave us Al-Queda. Terrorism or the threat thereof destabilises oil security, so actually benefits the oil industry by helping to keep prices up. A credible hydrogen economy based on alternative energy would actually reduce oil prices, weaken the corporatism of the US, and benefit the end user. So is it going to happen? Not while Exxon has a breath left in its body.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Myself, I already drive a car that gets over 40 mpg, and the government *did* give me a tax break for it. Not as good a deal as they give rich people for buying Humvees, but every time I see the price of gas go up a notch... I get a little chuckle.
I didn't buy mine for the fuel economy, exactly; I bought it to cut Saudi funding for terrorism, to undermine support for ill-considered US military adventuring, and because the Prius puts out 90% less pollution than the typical gas-hogging Detroit POS.
The age of oil will end when a more economical alternative is found; not before.
Yeah, what tripe...from the /. lead in:
Everyone knows that the oil age won't end when the oil runs out...it will end when the oxygen runs out. We will always find a way to make more carbon based fuels. Too much of the economic infrastructure is depedent on oil consumption. So we are likely to burn up the other end of the combustion equation first. Oxygen is a public commodity. It is the commons that is ripe for trashing. So I would expect to run out of it first.
At the moment the world consumes 80million barrels a day (mbpd), 20million of those are used by the USA alone who only have 4% of the worlds population !
The USA has oil reserves of 50 billion barrels and at the current rate of usage (which is predicted to rise by at least 1.5% per year) of 7.3 billion per year would exhaust its reserves in 7 years. Consequently the USA currently imports about 30% of its oil from the middle east and another 20% from Africa and elsewhere. 40% of all US oil usage is petrolium based for transportation. Based on this the US oil reserves will run out in about 14 years.
The middle east controls 65% of the worlds oil reserves. Thats 685 billion barrels of the worlds 1050 billion. Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion and has the worlds largest reserves. Iraq, UAE and Kuwait have 97 billion, Iran 90 billion with others making up the rest.
As far as I can make out from Google, experts only expect another 200billion barrels of oil reserves to be discovered at the most. This is only an estimate, not based on known oil wells whose reserves have not been measured but on a guess of "how much oil we don't know about".
At the moment about 10 billion barrels of oil is discovered per year which has been steadily declining since 1965 and based on the current trend is expected to reach 0 by about 2020.
At the current rate of world oil usage (80mbpd), with the current amount of reserves (1050Gb) that would give us 1050b / (365x80m) = 36 years.
China is rapidly becoming the next economic superpower closely followed by India and Pakistan who together constitute over a third of the worlds population. This and many other factors mean that world oil consumption will continue to rise to 120mbpd by 2030 even with conservative predictions.
Consumption is in fact never likely to reach these levels because by 2030 time the worlds reserve levels are likely to be so low that only a 3 or 4 countries will be supplying 90% of the worlds oil. This means that the rate of production will be greatly reduced because the maximum sustained rate of production of 4 countries may only be 40mbpd.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm
According to this trend that predicts oil production rates will start to fall when we reach 50% usage of all oil that has ever existed, the supply rate of oil will increasingly fail to meet demand as time progresses.
What with the USA invading Iraq obviously to secure the worlds largest oil fields (WMD lol ! Evil Dictator lol !) and establish even more military prescence in the region of the worlds largest oil reserves, I can see major conflicts between the USA, Europe and China, India, Pakistan and Russia with the middle east stuck in the middle as soon as 2020 and definately by 2030. Especially if you bear in mind that the USA spends about $500billion on its military every year and China with the most manpower on earth is rapidly expanding its military program and is the 2nd largest arms spender with a measly $30billion.
Theres alot of talk about "renewable energy" and alternative power sources but oil supplies 40% of the worlds power needs and I'm extremely sceptical that we'll even replace 1% of our power needs with non-oil based power within the next 20 years by wich time it will be too late.
Nothing to worry about but I reckon that the earth will be rather desolate and the population reduced by 2 thirds by 2040 if not earlier.
Cycling to work relaxes the mind and frees the body of excess stress. Try it. You will love it.
!
OPEC could simply shop their oil to fast-developing nations with huge populations without the government infrastructure and finances to foster a shift from oil to hydrogen based power. I'm thinking India, Brazil, and China will become OPEC's best friends in the event that the US and other Western industrial powers gradually move towards hydrogen-based energy sources.
It's all well and good to celebrate the move towards hydrogen-powered automobiles in the US and other current industrial powers, but to assume that the OPEC cartel and nations with oil-based economies will become irrelevant in the near future is a huge (and dangerous) oversight on the part of the Economist, IMO.
Rather than make alternative energy cheaper (by investing in alternative energy R&D) so that the market just goes to alternative energy all by itself, increase the cost of gas so much that it has the same cost as alternative energy. Bogus, but typical, liberal approach to just about any problem. Manipulate the market with taxes.
We should tax being a Democrat. :)
The best way to curb the demand for oil and promote innovation in oil alternatives is to tell the world's energy markets that the "externalities" of oil consumption--security considerations and environmental issues alike--really will influence policy from now on. And the way to do that is to impose a gradually rising gasoline tax.
The effect of that will be smaller and more efficient combustion engines. Just look at what they drive in Europe and the gas prices there.
The only way a gasoline tax will ever work is if alternatives (hydrogen, electricity, fuel cells) have an infrastructure equal to that of current gas stations. Until I can charge my car in 2 minutes or fill it up with hydrogen at any station, this won't happen.
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.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
First, it would at least be better than now. First, the process of making H2 from coal isn't as bad as burning it. Second, coal is a resource that is a bit, ah, more evenly distributed in the world. For America, this would be a good way to get the hell out of the Middle East, for good or bad.
Ultimately, it would be better to go to Methanol fuel cells, and I have yet to understand why they're not getting more press. First, methanol's a renewable resourse - as close to solar energy as we're likely to get. Also, it would be a resource that every country could take care of on their own - just farming.
There are also engineering advantages to methanol over H2.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
If the US economy moved from oil to another energy source ( huge hypothetical, but lets say it did) the price of oil would drop considerably. I'm sure the middle east would continue pumping, and selling, oil. But the business would not be quite as lucrative as it is.
I imagine western Europe will switch to hydrogen economies long before it happens in north america.
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
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).
====
Crudely Drawn Games
"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.
You might not see Europeans driving around in fuel cell cars but we sure as hell drive smaller, more economical, cars than alot of Americans do! Oh, and electric cars are begining to creep into our cities, esp. in places like Munich, Germany
Hi!
While there is tremendous potential for hydrogen-based fuel cells, there's a little detail that seems to be overlooked. The vast majority of the world's production of liquid or gaseous hydrogen is produced from off-gases that are byproducts of oil refining.
The world's leading producer of liquid hydrogen is Air Products and Chemicals of Trexlertown, Pa. I've done a lot of work for them over the years--and their hydrogen business is based on "HYCO" plants that take refinery gases, extract the hydrogen and return carbon dioxide (and sometimes hydrogen) back "over the fence" to the refinery. Key point: no refinery, no hydrogen. There are other means of producing hydrogen--but HYCO plants are by far the cheapest.
A point of philosophy:
Immanual Kant's Categorical Imperative can be expressed like this: if your philosophy requires having sinners to do the sinning for you, your philosophy is bankrupt. Getting hydrogen as a byproduct of petroleum production--and then expecting hydrogen to free us from dependency on petroleum--won't work. If everybody stops using petroleum and switches to hydrogen, there won't be any petroleum refined--and thus there won't be any hydrogen. In order to have volume production of hydrogen, you need gas-guzzling petrol users to do the sinning for you.
As I wrote above, there are other sources of hydrogen. As the use of hydrogen increases (and let's not forget--liquid hydrogen is significantly more explosive than gasoline, and touching it will cause body parts to freeze and shatter) new sources of hydrogen will have to be developed, and new processes developed to extract the hydrogen cheaply. That will take time, ingenuity, and money. There's a lot of push behind the idea (if you're in high school, pursuing a college degree in chemical engineering with a focus on cryogenics and hydrogen in particular would be a VERY smart idea) but it will take time to appear. This will not be an overnight sensation.
And don't forget the Saudis
The Saudis are sitting on 2/3 of the world's oil. As they see their dominance dwindling, they will respond. The biggest challenge to the development of a replacement technology like LH will be economic: the Saudis and the rest of OPEC will simply slash prices. When gas costs $.30 per gallon (which still makes them billions) it will be difficult to justify the price per "gallon" of LH.
The bigger trend is a declining importance of physical energy to the economy. Even the U.S., profilgate user of energy that it is, is less dependent on oil than it was back in the 1970s. When the first oil crisis occured, energy costs consumed about 8% of U.S. GDP, as of about 2001, energy costs were down to 3% of U.S. GDP. The U.S. may use more energy than it did in past, but GPD has grow even faster than has energy consumption. Moreover, I'd bet that a greater fraction of U.S. energy consumption is now discretionary -- we use energy (drive SUVs & have lots of home appliances) because it is fun, not because we have to.
The end of oil is inevitable because the importance of energy is declining.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Most of U.S. oil is used for gasoline for cars. So the fastest way to reduce demand is by either driving less. Using some fuel other than gasoline can take a decade or more to have a major effect.
Interesting quote from the simulation: "After Saudi Arabia, the U.S. is the second largest oil producer in the world. But the United States also happens to be the largest consumer of oil. Oil consumption in the United States and Canada is almost three gallons per person per day, twice as high as in Europe."
Set up a simple electrolysis cell with a voltmeter and ammeter, and a thermometer. Fill with de-mineralised water and a drop of any available dilute acid or hydroxide. Plot temperature against time; between sample points, calculate how much power is going into apparatus, get some constantan wire and prepare a resistance that will dissipate the same amount of power at just 1 volt or thereabouts {not enough voltage to separate a H+ ion from an OH- ion; you can actually measure this voltage by turning down the PSU voltage till the ammeter drops sharply}. Remember, power in watts = volts * amps, resistance in ohms = volts / amps, and assume the resistance wire has constant resistance per unit length {it's deliberately made that way}. Do experiment again, but this time using your prepared resistance immersed in the electrolyte instead of carbon rods; adjust the PSU to get same the power dissipation, which will mean more current this time. Plot temperature against time on same sheet of graph paper.
Qualitative analysis: If the temperature rises much more with the resistance than with the electrolysis cell, then obviously most of the energy supplied is going into breaking up the water into hydrogen and oxygen. If the temperature rises by nearly the same amount, then most of the energy supplied is ending up as heat.
Quantitative analysis: Knowing the heat capacity of water is 4170 Watt-sec per kg per degree C, and neglecting the trace of whatever you used to make it conductive and the amount of water converted to H2 and O2, we can work out the expected rate of temperature rise from the energy supplied:
temp rise deg. C per sec = volts * amps / 4170 * kg.
This gives us an indication of the magnitude of heat loss to atmosphere. The initial slope of the time-temp. curve should follow this closely; because, at the beginning, everything is all at the same temperature so there is no heat loss. By drawing a tangent to the electrolysis time-temp. curve at t=0, we can determine how much energy went into heating. Then
power wasted as heat = temp. rise per deg. C * 4170 * kg.
and
efficiency {%} = 100 * [(volts * amps) - power wasted] / [volts * amps]
Further work: Investigate what happens if you try to use a higher voltage than strictly necessary.
Investigate what happens with different electrode spacings.
Investigate what happens when you set light to hydrogen.
If you can make enough oxygen to inflate a thin polythene bag, investigate what happens if a bag containing pure oxygen is touched with a smouldering cigarette end.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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!
Guipo
Theonlyuse of monkeys is to testthings onthem.Some peoplemay say"Hey That'scruel!"and myresponse is"I don't like monkeys
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.
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..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
By using H2 in an internal combustion engine as opposed to fuel cells, you get the best of both worlds. You don't have to recharge, there's no battery involved, you can get similar performance as you can with gasoline engines, you can drive for hundreds of miles without refueling as you can with gasoline, and there is no pollution or greenhouse gases. The only exhaust is water vapor. BMW already has such a car with an H2-powered V12, the 750hL (http://www.bmwworld.com/models/750hl.htm).
Personally, I don't think the masses will want to switch over to fuel cell vehicles, but I think that people will have no problem switching to combustible H2 because they don't lose any advantages that they have with traditional vehicles. It's even possible to convert our current vehicles to H2 power with minor modifications.
All we need is to have H2 filling stations as prevalent as we now have gasoline stations. That's much more realistic than having people have to switch to fuel cells, which people won't want to do.
BRAVO!
I find the biggest problem with vehicle longevity is the lack of proper care by the owner. Second problem, owners buying vehicles that they can not possibly maintain unless they are a professional mechanic.
One moment while I give the gratuitous link to my web-famous Hydrogen Powered Hacker Jeep. Seriously, it has 279,000+ miles, 1996 Cherokee, 2 Door, 4.0L I6, 5 speed manual trans, Command-Trac four wheel drive. Check journal for other posts about maintaining and modifying.
The success that I have with my vehicles (previous vehicle was a 1986 Dodge Dakota, V6, 220,000+ miles) is just changing the oil and using synthetic lubricants wherever/whenever conceivable. This is NOT a secret, but you would think that it is by talking to most vehicle owners.
Wal-Mart does synthetic oil changes for around $30, close to the retail price of the oil itself. I am pretty bad about flushing the radiator, and did have to replace one recently, probably due to my own neglect. I use Moble 1 gear oil in the trans and differentials, Moble 1 synthetic ATF fluid in transfer case.
I also use plastic-safe silicone spray on all exposed seals/rubber. Pretty bad about waxing and washing the paint, but the engine is always clean. Try to find a brushless carwash with an under-body sprayer to remove corrosives picked up from the road.
Under-coating promotes rust, so don't add any. Whenever a trim screw is removed, use silicone sealer on it before putting it back. Whenever a structural fastener is removed spray with penetrating oil a few days in advance, get the rust off, use anti-sieze on the threads, replace and paint over with Rustoleum if possible.
Anyway, if you start with a vehicle built on the "heavy duty" side of the range and you can turn a screwdriver, use a rag, and/or drive to Wal-Mart, you can take care of your own vehicle indefinately.
Now about this quip in the article: Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them. Replacing pseudo-tyranny with real tyranny is not much of a solution.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
here's the fun part. -- I fixed the link
I submitted this 2 days ago but was rejected...
water car
It's a link to a page that has "plans" to convert your car to run on hydrogen generated in a reaction chamber from water.
I looked them over and think they are a bunch of hooey, but I have seen many claims to this regard recently one that was a water/gasoline hybrid running on 20% gas and 80% hydrogen+oxygen generated from water on the vehicle.
maybe someone from slashdot that has the knowlege to look them over and either explain the possible merits or show where the whole thing is a ball of crap, making a gaseous mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is asking for a large explosion..
anyways, it's interesting to read over.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
My car is a hollowed-out log with holes in the bottom to stick my feet through.
Yabba dabba doo!
7 1/2 weeks worth of reserve is alot? a hair under 2 months?
As far as domestic production goes
from : US Dept of Energy
There's plenty of oil out there. Sure you would think so....again from our friends at Dept of Energy,(same link as above)
Sounds like in the near future the Mideast "influence" on worldwide oil will increase. At least based on what or agencies have to say about it.
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
That 'woosh' sound you hear is the OPs point going over your head. Nobody wants to pay $1200/year for minimal insurance (at least in CA) for a car that's worth only $500 and runs twice or three times that a year in repairs/maintainance.
Add up your car's yearly expenses -- car payments, gas consumpsion, maintainance/repair (tires too!), insurance, registration -- then divide by 12... you'd be surprised just how large that $ amount is for most people. And when there's only a difference of a $100 or so a month between keeping the junker in use now and buying a NEW car -- guess what someone is going to do?
I've got a 18 year old toyota pickup with about 120k miles on it. Other than two clutches and a new starter over the life of the car, I've had no other major work needed. My wife keeps pestering me to get a new car because "we can afford it". There's just no reason to -- yet. My last truck had nearly 330k miles when I sold it.
Sitting on a tank full of explosive fuel DOES sound pretty dangerous. So it's a good thing we don't drive cars with an explosive fuel tank now. Seriously-- i thought everybody on slashdot already knew that it was the *skin* of the hindenburg (essentially solid rocket fuel) that did most of the burning. Hydrogen rises, and dissipates quickly. Gasoline explodes, and has this nasty liquid peculiarity at normal car-operating temperatures that allows it to "flow" and "pool" and "coat" surfaces in the event of a leak, instead of just whooshing up into the heavens.
Distribution and production infrastructure will definitely be rough, and slow coming. Which is why all the automakers are working on gasoline-cracking catalysts. The first successful fuel cell car will have to have a gas tank AND a hydrogen tank. If you put gas in it, the catalyst will strip hydrogen and fill your hydrogen tank. So, the gas will still cost you whatever gas costs everybody else.
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.
I don't have a good solution or anything-- just pointing out the problem. A company that sells energy in a more-or-less pure capitalist economy is doing what they're supposed to do for their shareholders if they fight tooth and nail against efficiency. We can't expect them to do otherwise.
Thus they will always have allies in the US political system.
;-) Please do not abuse your moderation status to bury anti-oil comments if it offends your politics. Thank you. - A proud American.
You have Bin Laden's investments in Carlysle Group (arms dealers and arms lobbyists) -- the other major investment family of repute BTW is the Bush family.
You have "appreciation" oil wells donated to the Bush's, by wealthy Middle East fascists.
You have a government that REFUSES to investigate Saudi Arabia for state sponsored terrorism AND finance and people links to September 11.
Anyone remember the closed-door sessions regarding pre-911 "Phoenix memos"? The "liberal" media did a fine job letting that one be swept under the rug.
The Bush cabal are even WILLING to deflect suspicion of Saudi Arabia over to IRAQ with some well-phrased misrepresentations of the truth (but Bill Clinton lied about sex so I guess this is somehow OK).
It seems to me that mass-production of methanol as a fuel is CHEAPER (again, in volume) and more evironmentally friendly than oil and would employ hard-working Americans. It's too bad US farmers cannot lobby together.
If a president is going to betray his country to protect right-wing religious terrorists, he should at the least be impeached.
Note to moderators: Not a troll just because you disagree. All of this information is independently verifiable (though you may not find it on Fox News
Good for you! Just starting to move out into the larger world of paying for my own food, transportation, etc. at this point in my life, I'm noticing that if you don't have some sort of insane compulsion to get a new, shiny, expensive x (like my girlfriend does), you can actually live kind of cheaply.
I got a decade-old station wagon (Chevy Cavalier) for twelve hundred bucks. It gets twenty-three miles to the gallon and gets me where I'm going reasonably comfortably. (Though I'd like to put an MP3-capable stereo in there, for those long trips.) My girlfriend keeps poking at me to get a newer car, the instant I can 'afford' it. She's several thousand bucks in credit card debt. I have student loans in the low four digits, and that's all. Why? I don't buy shit I don't need.
Other example: my father had a 1990 (or so) BMW 320i. He got it with about two hundred thousand miles on it, and it finally croaked at 320k. (It needed a new radiator at some point in there, though.)
If I can afford to, someday, get a new computer, I hope I'm levelheaded enough not to.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The 2 to at most 3 times the caloric intake increase for riding a bike, is miniscule compared to energy needed for discovery, extraction, storage, transportation, refining and retailing of petroluem. Obviously, petroleum has a very high return on energy invested, but ultimately it will run out and cause far more impact to the environment in the process.
Politicus
There is a difference between liability and car insurance, yes... just like theres a difference between property tax and income tax. BOTH add up to monthly out-go.
Just like BOTH those insurances add in to the expense of driving a car. No car, no liability insurance needed.
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
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.
*sniff* Beautiful.
The death of oil may be sooner than expected :
s /h ydrogen000222.html
.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNew
We will still use it for plastics, but we will not
need middle eastern oil
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
At the risk of cooling this hot argument with cold facts, I offer three:
1. The Midcontinuental Riff Zone, an oil pool the size of the Alaskan North Slope ranging from Kanas to the western tip of Lake Superior.
There are oil wells 45 miles west of Des Moines Iowa and I personally witnessed shaker trucks working north of Fort Dodge.
2. Project Plowshare. A joint US-Canadian venture to use atomic energy to free up oil trapped in the Alberta Tar Fields, which hold half the known oil in the world. Detonated 15 Sept 61, this supplied huge quanties of oil resulting in straight run gas at the pump for 17 cents per gallon.
I was in college then and clearly remember filling up my Honda65 with a quarter (and getting a nickel change).
3. A 1972 patent granted to Boise-Cascade for garbage to oil convertion. They used 2 low-boy trucks to haul the cooker to their timer sites where they cooked down timbering waste into diesel fuel and asphalt.
After the patent expired in 1989, University of Arizona built a continuous feed pilot plant that worked just fine. It was reported in Popular Science before a news blackout.
This is the process by which Mother Nature makes oil and the reason oil exploration turned to previously unsuspected places (like the North Sea).
So, when all else fails, tell me the day we run out of Garbage and I'll tell you the day we run out of Oil.
EK
Was there a surplus when he was selected?
Was there a war in iraq when he was selected?
Was there a policy in place to stop events like 9-11 from the clinton administration that was ignored?
Negative statements? Have you seen Rush/O'Reilly/Coultier? Lol, hypocrite.
Why can't republicans/conservatives understand that by providing help to all (the "christian" thing to do btw) helps everyone, rich included. Did you notice that when Bush version 1.0 was sent packing Clinton raised taxes? (Remember Bush 1.0 did to "Read my lips", lol another hypocrite). Amazingly the economy grew at a record rate between when Clinton was elected and Bush 2.0 was selected. Now we are in a downward spiral that only benefits the Dick's (Cheney) of the world.
I am not being ambiguous when I say bush 2.0 is a fucking moron, his speeches, policies, and actions prove that to be true.
Here's a good article for you:
US Homelessness and Poverty Rates Skyrocket
While Billions are Spent Overseas on Occupation
By: Jay Shaft---Coalition For Free Thought In Media
7/30/03
As I watch far away images of body bags being filled, I see much closer images of bodies. I went by a local park the other day and it looked like a concentration camp crossed with a mass murder scene.
There were people in rags and covered with filth lying scattered all over the place. At least twenty people were on crutches, had parts bandaged, or with open wounds not even covered. They were all hungry and a large majority was sick.
All around this city I live in, and nationwide, the level of homelessness and poverty is growing alarmingly. From the last counts and estimates nation wide, there has been at least a 35-45% increase in homelessness and poverty. The increases have come over the last two years with the biggest increases being in 2002 and especially in the first six months of 2003.
Add to that the barely subsisting or borderline homeless/poor and we start to see a very alarming trend that shows no sign of going away. Over 30% of Americans are on the borderline of poverty. A lot just do not quite make the cut to receive food stamps or some kind of benefits and live on a razor edge of desperation and starvation.
I have talked to people that run food banks, soup kitchens, and homeless shelters. Places like Day Star, Catholic Charities, St, Vincent De Paul, and many other major support agencies. They all tell me they have seen a vast increase in people that would starve or be without clothes if not for their services.
The most shocking sight to see is homeless and starving children, living right near some of the richest neighborhoods!!!!! Right here in "humanitarian" America, home of the worlds largest "humanitarian" and "liberating" force (or is it FARCE?).
This country is putting more and more of our citizens on the brink of homelessness and desperate poverty. In addition, it seems that we have pushed countless others over the brink and into the bottomless pit of despair and need. All you have to do is look around, open your eyes, and you will see the vast sea of hungry and destitute.
I have seen more and more children and families out on the street or in feeding centers and at food handouts. To think that the world's richest country allows this to happen is Sickening! To think that we turn a blind eye to starving children because it is easier to tolerate than do something about it!
We cannot afford to hire teachers, build new schools, or even maintain the ones we have. Our children slip farther into the void of illiteracy and neglect. We are the lowest among the industrialized "first" world nations in literacy scores! Many "third" world countries now have higher literacy rates than the U.S.
We are setting ourselves up to turn the world's richest country into a third world quagmire. This country is sinking into a swamp of drowning poor and so-called "Economically Challenged!" The rich meanwhile buy bigger S.U.Vs (self indulgent ubi
Don't wait for the government & car industry to turn the tide. For your next vehicle purchase, chose the cleanest option available! Despite popular conspiracy theories about the car industry and the oil companies, car companies will FOLLOW THE MONEY. Buy clean cars and they will make them for you.
I just got back from Germany and fell in love with the Smart car by Swatch/Mercedes. When will they start selling them in the US? They use 1/3 the road space and 1/4 the gas and look fun as hell to drive.
Make sure the next SUV you see leaves with a key inflicted wound down the side of it's greasy flank.
You are also correct that [electricity to generate hydrogen] will come from whatever's cheapest, and only the environmental nuts with rooftop PV panels will make hydrogen cleanly.
Even rooftop panels aren't "clean".
They trap virtually all the light that strikes them and turn most of it into local heat. (Several times more energy comes out as heat than comes out as electricity.) Meanwhile the energy that made hydrogen is eventually releleased as heat when the hydrogen is used.
The surface area they cover would normally have reflected much of that light back into space unaltered. Especially in deserts, which are the logical place to build large solar collection farms. That would result in a LOT of "global warming".
And none of which takes into account the pollution and energy use from manufacturing the panels in the first place. (I've seen claims that current panel designs take more energy to make than they produce in their service lifetime, though that somnds dubious, and would certainly be improved on if the panels are ever to become a major energy source rather than a convenient way to supply energy to remote locations.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Human muscles are about 25% efficient, which is about on par to a modern gasoline engine.
Also, heavy people do burn a lot of calories. What goes in must come out, and since heavy people eat a lot, they also burn a lot.
Either way, humans have a major advantage over cars in that humans only move ~70kg of flesh, while cars move 3,000kg of metal and plastic. If you're doing moderate power biking, you'll burn about 300 calories/hour and go perhaps 20km/hour. A litre of gasoline holds about 7,500 calories, so the energy equivalent of gasoline will power a human for 25 hours or 500km.
Good luck making a 500 km/litre car. The best production cars get about 33 km/litre, and a hummer gets 4km/litre. That's over a 100-1 advantage for the bike. Bikes still beat the best car Europeans can make by 15-1.
With fuel to power a biker from NYC to LA (10 litres, or 10kg, a Hummer would make it out of Manhatten and into the suburbs of NJ before running out of a gas 15-30 minutes later. The 3-litre/100-km car that Volkswagen makes would make it into Pennsylvania after running for several hours. The bicyclist would make it all the way, and take about 20 days (12 hours/day).
Another way to look at it is the power. A human delivers about 600W peak, and needs about 100W to power the bicycle. A Hummer can give about 250,000W, of which perhaps 75,000W are needed to keep it at highway speed.
Even when you price the bike's fuel using human food, it's still cheaper. Let's say rice/pasta is 50 cents/kg, and it's mostly starch (4 calories/gram or 40% of gasoline's energy density). Gasoline is 25 cents/litre (US price w/out tax). The bike will need 25kg of rice, or $12.50 of rice. The Volkswagen will need 150 litres or $37.50 of gasoline, and the hummer will need 1,250 litres, or $312.50 of gasoline.
Any way you look at it, bikes win on both net energy, gross energy, and even when the food is bought retail, money, and it even beats the best car out there.
Use the power to make hydrogen. Use said hydrogen to float zeplins and transport said hydrogen to other countries. Re-inflate with helium in storage tanks. Fly back, re-compress helium and reful with hydrogen. Repeat.
I know, I know "Oh, the humanity!" But the Hindenburg didn't burn because of the hydrogen, it burnt because they used a highly flammable protective paint. If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, then burn it with a match, it won't explode. It will burn a little around the hole, until it is deflated.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
I've done hobbiest-class research into the topic of oil substitutes and here are two oft-neglected issues to keep in mind:
1) Energy density. It's hard to improve upon oil/gasoline's energy-per-unit-volume with economical substitutes. Hydrogen fuel cells don't have nearly the energy density of gasoline. (Fuel cells tend to be far bulkier for this reason, or you can't travel as many miles with equivalent space.) I suspect consumers would accept a car with a smaller range; I dunno about other applications though. Technology and mass-production may drop fuel cell costs, but improving energy density takes some serious physics/chemistry.
2) Saudi Arabia (and other low-cost oil producers) have plenty of room to drop the price. Sure, it's not hard to see plenty of economical substitutes showing up at $30/barrel (today's price, historically well above average.) And even matching the long-term average price of oil at $15/barrel is conceivable. But the Saudis can produce oil at costs of $1-$2/barrel. Now I'm comparing end-prices to costs here which is a bit unfair (so add a 50% margin to $1-$2), but even if a energy substitute could produce power matching today's oil prices, it'd have to reduce in cost 30-fold in order for us to long-term wean ourselves completely off oil. And that's assuming the Saudi's don't get more efficient in the meantime. At least from an economic standpoint, ignoring costs of externalities like security/pollution.
So I see alternative fuel use increasing, but I don't see oil vanishing from the picture in my lifetime (or my kids'). Heck, I'd be delighted if we just cut our oil usage in half in my lifetime; that'd be a stunning success in my book.
I suspect the Saudi's are just talking down their influence for current political reasons.
--LP, probably posting a bit too late to get mod points
My Step-Father just finished installing solar panels on their roof and it more than covers all the power needs for the whole house. They don't have any natural gas lines either so everything is electric. And my mom has a Kiln that she uses once a week (That's a huge power consumer)
So solar power is completely feasable, at least for powering residential buildings. It's not that cheap though, it might take 30 or more years for the panels to pay for them selves at current energy prices. But if the panels where mass produced the price would go down.
A few advantages are that the panels never break or wear out, since they don't have any moving parts. Also, you get credited for power you put back into the grid. The peak rate time just happens to be daytime when your at work and not using power at home, thus maximising the amount of credit you can get.
It works pretty well for my parents and will definately start paying off for them when they retire. Rising residential energy prices will be one less thing for them to worry about.