Peak Oil

Quote:

5. Global warming will accelerate when the world starts burning more COAL and generate more CO2 gases to the air, causing the world warming to a unbearable state....are you warm yet? Fresh water is going to be a very scarce commoditiy....

Bear in mind that man-caused global warming is still not proven. National conventions of experts in the field have met (headed by Dr. North who teaches at my university), stating that man-kind isn't causing Global Warming. But that's a whole 'nother chestnut in itself. We've had hotter periods than this, we've had steeper heating events (see Hothouse events). It's all natural and people are trying to intermingle politics and science. Much like religion and politics, it typically doesn't mix well.

I largely blame overpopulation for oil prices. China is climbing into the market and oil production is going down. Plus, there are lots of regulations... Way too many. To boot, US has a bajillion different types of blends of fuel. The testy mixing & concocting process easily tacks on $0.10-$0.30 due to all the nitpicking many states have on fuel regulations. Then you have these messes like the Middle East with Iran, or the situation in Venezuela with the crazy bastard in charge there.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

We're probably going to have to give up some of our energy-expensive habits, though. I can't imagine that the brave new world of post-peak oil will permit us as much energy to use for recreational purposes as we currently have. I think we'll have to give up a lot of our fun and cool devices to keep going.

Remember -- necessity is the mother of all invention.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Onyx

Personally, I think the Peak Oil theory really needs to be examined. Do any of you guys realize that "Peak Oil" was conceived by Hubbert in the 50's, who worked for Royal Dutch Shell? In the 1950's the prices of crude oil were dropping because of the abundance of oil. How convienent is it that Hubbert proposes a theory that says oil is actually scarce...and almost immediately prices of oil begin to rise? And it's also pretty ironic that the amount of world petroleum reserves have doubled since then.

Hubbert's study was based on American production of oil. He was spot-on, predicting peak US oil production ~15 years before it occurred. The formula was expanded and applied to world-wide shortly thereafter and came up with something around half a century later being peak year or something. I can't recall, but I think his prediction for global peak was in the mid 90's. Folks are saying '04 or '05 are the years. There are many more variables that kicked in, but his estimate is still very sound.

Hubbert stated that production would hit a maximum. Of course once you hit a maximum, prices go up as you go back down. Production was very high, there was a lot of petrol. Once it hit the peak and the backed-up supply began to funnel out, you have to raise the price so that supply won't vanish too fast, causing a shortage.

Hubbert's research was anything but biased if you're insinuating that.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Naturally I'd like to believe that... however there are limits to the concept. If I fell from a tall building, it would be necessary for me to invent some way to save myself, but most likely impossible, due to a lack of material and resources on hand.

Solar, electric, and various types of renewable sources of energy stirred up initially during the Oil Crisis our parents had to deal with. They're dormant on the surface but things are churning underneath. The mass amount of America and other nations may seem "dumb" about this, but the powers-that-be know about peak oil. Things are being created and tested, but the majority is concerned about maintaining the status quo. Just because you don't see/read about it much doesn't mean that it's dead-in-the-water.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Well, Alice, it'll hit $3-4/gal if this Iran thing goes apeshit. Iran can cut off all oil to us since we're supporting Israel (if Isreal jabs at them and they get jittery). Venezuela can just as well cut things off.

If we were drilling in ANWR or off the coast of Florida more, we'd be in the clear. But you have environmental groups opposing any and all drilling activity in the regions. If we could tap into those, we'd be able to support ourselves more, or fall back on it in instances like this. Older drilling sites are receiving upwellings of oil, and we're starting to tap back into those. But still, making use of ANWR and the continental shelves more would be a very good thing.

Bear in mind that the media in general runs around like a chicken with its head cut off at points like this. Bad news sells, as we all know. The analysts could've been two guys they asked at a coffee shop that morning who said "four dollars" without crunching numbers. Wait and see, of course.

If gas gets pricier, it just gets pricier. You just set aside more money for fuel. Shortages are where it gets scary. And this pricing is to help cushion that. I'd advise installing locks on your gas tanks like the good-ol'-days.

A major point Prosthetic doesn't touch on is that sure, oil and gas are going to peak. But they won't empty out at the same time. Nor will they COMPLETELY vanish. When things start getting tight, the researchers on alternatives will get lots of funding, and will strap down to find an answer. Given technology and how advanced it is, it's a matter of attention and funding to find alternative sources. Man-kind can do a lot if it puts its time into it.

The points he bullets are the absolute worst-case scenario. This will be seen over the horizon, it won't just go *BAM* done and everything goes horribly wrong.

I still hold to the Global Warming one being a crock. If anything, you'd see lots of smog, issues with respiratory functions in certain regions, and lots of acid rain.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Once a nice alternative is found that works, it'll be blown up across the news and tons of companies will huddle into the industry. Maybe DVD players would be an example? Or maybe not. Anyhow, once something comes up that works and can successfully be subbed in, it'll be a huge, booming industry. It might just be for the "connected" or well-funded at first, sure. But that's how these things work.

As they go to the alternative, petroleum will alleviate as the demand decreases. Some folks might actually stick to petroleum.

Most amazing jew boots

Yes, the US hit peak oil between 1965 & 1970. Somewhere in there. Peak Oil world-wide supposedly peaked in December of '05 at 85 Million Barrels per day.

And pardon me if I'm shifty about that Aquygen stuff. I don't feel like holding my breath over that creation.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Like I've said, I want to believe that. However, you must admit that since we aren't hearing about it, I have no basis on which to know that it is actually happening. I'm not challenging you to cite a source, but I've heard very little about alternative fuels recently, and I look in what I would have thought were the right places.

I direct you to the Aquygen stuff forementioned. You have hybrids trying to harness electric and gasoline. You have folks who are trying for Ethanol (worthless endeavor...). You have Hydrogen Fuel research (not viable because of Kaboom~). Got the various solar-powered cars that are chugging around on the news on TV as well as in books & articles elsewhere. Then you've got Biodiesel, which isn't effective either as it doesn't nearly have the oomph of petroleum. A few months back, I saw footage about some guy mining coal in Montana who claimed he found a way to cleanly burn coal (I was skeptical). A few years ago, a brief excitement was stirred when Texas A&M supposedly pulled off Cold Fusion. It was a misconception of sorts or some junk. My bottom line is that people *are* researching and working on this stuff.

If you haven't heard about alternative fuel sources lately, pardon my rudeness as it may sound, but you must've been under a rock. I don't think I even need to point to an article on this... It's happening but it doesn't score news. Bad news sells and the media reports on things such as gas prices spiralling out of control or scandals or war coming soon, etc.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Dullenplain

I've mentioned this before in the global warming thread (or perhaps I didn't), but I strongly think that global warming (nee: climate change) is the wrong thing to focus on when it comes down what we put out in the air. Like you, I am more interested in reducing the local and regional affects of air pollution which would have a far greater impact on our well-being than chasing after reducing global temperatures a degree or two. Focusing on smaller-scale effects would invariably mean we will have to reduce our emissions to create a healthier living environment. But instead, we get the sort of thing that grabs people's attentions: global warming. That's hype propaganda for you.

Unfortunately no. As a geology major, I am knee deep when it comes to catching wind of the affairs of oil companies (though I'm quite far in the telephone line), so I can't provide you with more neutral sources. To be honest, given the increase in demand for people like me from these companies, it seems like they are embarking upon a new age of exploration and acquisition as we get into more sophisticated processes to get what we cannot earlier, or as I am also told, there is a severe generation gap in the industry and we are filling in for the retiring Baby Boomers.

There is a huuuuuge generation gap. I'm Geophysics and plan on jumping into oil while the getting is good. The average employee working in the oil industry is about 55 years of age. Just barely younger than my father. Right now, the total number of Geoscientists working in petroleum are half of what they need. Get out of college, secure a spot, and you're bound to climb the ladder and *fast*.

Global warming is just an agenda-pusher. Global cooling was the big scare in the '70s, and all the major backers for cooling are now for warming. They've never heard of scatter-plot data before, evidently. Hell, I was doing work under a fellow in that Atmospheric Sciences department here who was doing aerosol research. We built hardware that could actually analyze particles in the air to see if they were cloud-builders per se. Could figure out if they were going to cause rain, even. A huuuuge meteorological climb if it gets further along.

Well, Tom DeLay got busted, all the items he championed were up for grabs as a result. One of which was a huge chunk of federal funding toward Atmospheric Science studies across the state of Texas. Federal funding for these public universities is a huge part of our funding. The state funding is pissant in comparison. So, his money that was set aside for our research was snagged up and put toward Global Warming research. Just like that, we lost 70% of our funding. I had to quit shortly thereafter, since there wasn't much to do and I didn't want to be a leech on my boss' thinning wallet. Was a shame because I loved that job. Even if it wasn't my cup of tea (Meteorology), the tools I got to use and the engineering skills I had to make use of to build hardware was invaluable. Wish I scored more welding experience...

So, I've got personal issues with this political item that run deep.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

To judge from your posts, I'd say that you are probably more capable of recognising these shortcomings than I am, so you must understand where I'm coming from. There has been lots of news about grand, glorious follies of science, but almost nothing that was even remotely credible. We're still in the same position. There's nobody who is visibly working on anything that seems likely to solve this problem. If for some reason Aquygen isn't really the dead end that it seems to be, then I'll eat my words, but I'll need you to explain why, since I fail to see it.

Well, lots of science is just trial & error. Even if we find an alternative source, you run the problems of mainstreaming it, but you have to go through various avenues (ie: EPA) to make sure you aren't stepping on toes or letting loose something potentially bad on a major scale.

Aquygen seems just like a lot of alternative plans. I've seen many glorious & wonderful supposed alternative sources crop up, but something arises that shows it as a flop. For starters, let's look at a few things...

I'm reading on the website right now. This fellow pract near invented this in his garage with a bucket of water. After decades of people pushing for alternative sources, Joe Schmoe from Maple Avenue found out how to make an alternative fuel source-running engine in his garage by working on it a couple hours a day for a few months! "LOOK OUT, OIL", says Foxnews.

The first indicator that went off. "Aquygen" is such a horrible name. It just screams non-Chemist. Oxygen plus Aqua? I was skeptical of it right there. I read up more on this "Aquygen". Mein gott, he invented something like this himself! Is he a genius? Noooooo. Aquygen is a neo ghetto-name for Brown's Gas. This is nothing new in itself. It's just like in the olden days, where some guy would be selling a tonic for Twenty-five cents that could cure cancer and rid your family of baldness. It gets coverage and attention by the desperate. No offense to the folks in this thread, but as soon as it was tossed up, it snagged a good amount of attention. This is what they thrive off of.

Claiming this as credible is like a fourth grader messing around with chemicals on a petry dish discovering a cure for cancer on sheer accident. There is lots of money & resources pitched toward this field, and a hefty amount of effort. It'll probably come from government-funded research. All this "Klein" yahoo did was take Brown's Gas, rename it as Aquygen in his own usage, and patent a generator. But generators have run off of Brown's Gas for quite some time. He's applying it to a car? Cute. Doesn't take a ton of effort to convert a generator into the fuel source for a car if you put the effort into it. Hell, you could run a car off of peanuts or grow corn and harvest your own ethanol if you wanted to, but it sure as hell wouldn't be feasible.

The pot is boiling but the soup isn't done yet. Give it time and something will come of this, trust me. It's all trial, error, and being under-the-hammer that'll give rise to the alternative. Until then, plan on Hybrids being mainstreamed along with cars with very good gas mileage. Gas will go up in price, but the demand per person will alleviate.

For extra reading, even this Brown fellow was a nutcase/non-credible. It's a foolish fuel source alternative founded by another fraud. Aquygen isn't worth the time of pulling out your credit card -- ignore it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?