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?
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.
They'll pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead hands!
- National Oil Association
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.
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
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
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)
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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!"
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.
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!
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.