×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil
3

RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

(OP)
Not to derail the original thread from its focus of discussion on AGW, but the argument is often made that we are running out of fossil fuels.  

Disclaimer (flashing lights and sirens) I am no geo or petro expert, not even a novice, not even by the furthest stretch of the imagination.  With that in mind, let me bring up the subject of peak oil as it relates to some supposed successes the Soviets had with ultr deep wells and rejuvenation of wells which had apparantly suffered flow reduction to the point where, conventionally, they would have been abandoned and removed from service.

Interesting stuff, and I would very much like to hear back from folks who are genuinely knowledgeable in the field.  Total bunk, something to it, or have we all been handed the deluxe bill of goods from big oil and our collective western governments?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Reading in Forbes recently suggests that the natural gas finds recently are a concern to experts, because the number of expiring leases, and the amount of gas found will result in a sharp drop in gas prices, to the point that the US may become the worlds largest exporter of natural gas.

This point has not been missed on companies who are gearing up to use compressed natural gas in some trucking fleets.

The other concern is that much of the fleet of power plants will switch to natural gas, and become more volitle in energy prices to consumers.

I recomment reading if you can.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

I recall when switching a boiler from fuel oil to natural gas, we got a temporary reduction in boiler capacity. I think it was the low luminosity of the gas flame that cause the loss. Capacity came back to par when we went back on fuel oil. If all these power plants switch from coal or oil to gas, will there be a significant drop in capacity? Perhaps we can match any drop by conserving.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

I believe that abiotic (abiogenic, non-organic, etc.) oil is a possibility.  

The point that scares me about this is what happens if we tap into an extremely difficult (impossible) to control reservoir of it?  

I also believe that the carbon credit issue has arisen because of the knowledge, in some circles, that oil is not really the scarce resource, but oxygen and the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb  the products of combustion.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

In the 1970's, average recovery of oil from onshore oil reservoirs was 30% of original oil in place.  Using 1970's technologies and techniques (wellhead price of WTI crude was around $8) the industry was leaving 70% of the original oil in the ground at abandonment.  Prices increased until in 1986 people were rewriting computer programs to allow for the possibility of three digit oil prices, recovery estimates went to almost 40%.  When the price collapsed in late 1986, research came to an abrupt halt and recovery numbers started trending down.  In the years since, prices have rebounded very slowly, and technology advances have been evolutionary, but steady.  An oil well drilled in 2012 will probably have reserves booked at nearly 50% of original oil in place.

The above should indicate that the price of oil drives the recovery.  If it cost me $25 USD to get a barrel of oil to the surface, then in a $20 USD/bbl market I'm not going to bother, but at $100 USD/bbl I'm kind of excited to increase the number of barrels I get to market and will spend a bit of money.

The old Soviet Union mostly didn't bother.  They had several monster fields that they were just skimming the very top of the cream off of.  This satisfied their demand and refining capacity so why spend an extra Ruble?  A friend of mine spent several years in Baku while it was still Soviet and his estimate was that they would get less than 15% of the original oil in place in that field.  Today, there are good pipelines to deep water ports and the old Soviet fields have access to world oil prices.  Spending money on the old monster fields (some have been producing for over 100 years to recover less than 10% of the oil that is there) makes all kinds of economic sense.  Hence the rejuvenation successes that are being reported today.

Many plants (and vehicles) that have switched to CNG have experienced huge losses of available power.  Not all.  What people try to do is take the old petrol (or fuel oil) lines and try to shove natural gas at very low pressures into them.  The reason for the low pressure is that air supply pressure is low--maybe naturally aspirated or at most a 1.5 compression ratio blower.  If I can get my air pressure up to around 4 bar(a) (call it 43 psig at sea level) and supply the methane at that pressure, I generally don't see any reduction in output capacity, but I do have to pay the fuel price of the air compressor.

The first article I saw on Peak Oil was in 1981, and the authors saw $1,000 USD/bbl oil by the year 2000 because peak oil was 2 years out.  There have been hundreds of meaningless predictions since.  We ain't hit "peak oil" yet, and I don't see it on the horizon.  Peak oil assumes declining supplies with increasing demands.  Macro economics theory would say that you can only balance that equation through rationing (by increasing prices).  At oil price hovering around $100 USD/bbl, people are finding amazing new ways to increase the recovery from old fields (many people said the Permian Basin in West Texas would be totally abandoned by 1990, I was through there last month and saw dozens of drilling rigs and thousands of pump jacks going up and down).  

If the politicians can get out of our way, Shale Gas and bio-gas have the ability to turn the U.S. back into a net exporter of energy.  That assumes that we get serious about developing gas-to-liquids technology to covert methane into a room-temperature liquid fuel.  Existing technologies works, but they have some serious hair on them.  Generating methane from organic wastes (or even from crops) is well-understood technology that works really well.  I think that the only hurdles to increasing this technology is the price of natural gas and the farm lobby that is so focused on ethanol.

David

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Sort of what I thought. The decrease in capacity from switching fuels is in the design of the burner. If the burner is designed for the fuel, then there is no reduction in the heat output, given the exaust mass equasion is also taken into account. But in general, natural gas uses less excess air, so the switch shoulden't be restricted by the lower exaust mass.

With natural gas you may use a compressor, but much of the coal handeling equipment, or attomizing air won't be required. So the over all drag of overhead should come out some what simular.

However, there is a concern from NERC, about the freezing up of natural gas wells in the colder Winter, reducing the short term deliverability.
I myself am concerned about the price volitility of gas or oil, verses coal (which is usually purchased on long term contracts).

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Thanks zdas04, your answer makes sense. I don't think we had air blowers on the boilers in question. I don't have any expertise in power boilers but I am still guessing that those designed to burn oil and/or coal will lose capacity when switching to nat gas.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Freezing gas wells is rarely a well issue, it is much more often an issue with wellsite equipment.  Usually, raw fuel gas and control gas hits a dead-end point and the moisture condenses out and freezes.  

My son is a pumper on a group of gas wells and yesterday he had 30 compressors down due to fuel gas issues.  When natural gas prices were in the $10 USD/MCF range, that number would have been 0-2 because there was money to put on extra staff to do restarts and money to upgrade equipment where there was problems.  At less than $4 USD/MCF, staff is down and equipment has to be seriously broken to get repaired/replaced.  

A wholesale power plant shift to natural gas would put upward pressure on prices; which would encourage long-term contracts (which used to be the norm, but during periods of decreasing prices has fallen out of favor) and improve overall supply reliability.  With current demand I haven't seen very many end-users that couldn't be serviced from line pack during supply outages.

A shift to natural-gas derivatives as a motor fuel would accelerate supply-development.

David  

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

An example power plant which produces 600 MW for an hour will burn 100 Tons of coal/ hour. This is called a base load unit. To replace it with natural gas would require an equivlent BTU value of gas if the plants had the same efficencies.

However, many new combined cycle natural gas plants are more efficent than coal/steam plants, so a reduction of total BTU would be seen.

Is the line pack equivlent to 100 tons of coal an hour?

However, this is all subjective to if it is forseen that nat. gas will be lower in price in a longer term than coal.

In a shorter term nat. gas can compete with intermediat and peaker plants.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Realistically would they convert large power plants to Coal?  I seem to recall in the UK during the 'dash for gas' that they built new plants, but someone like Scotty may be able to correct my thinking.

Still seems a bit of a waste to use NG large scale for stationary power generation when it could be used for transportation, (no I don't necessarily mean after factory conversion kits for cars) reducing demand Oil for that application when it has so many others where NG isn't such a good stand in.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

The greenies HATE coal.  It seems to be an irrational hatred, but that doesn't make it any less virolent.  A few years ago California (truly the land of fruits and nuts) passed a wooly headed regulation banning power from coal-fired plants being used within the state.  Consequently users in CA had to buy themselvs out of long-term contracts with coal-fired plants (at a significant cost).  End result?  Power users and utilities in Arizona and Nevada that had a share of the big hydro plants sold their contracts (at a premium) to California utilities and then sourced their demand (at a discount) from the dirty coal-fired plants.  Net result, California pays more for power and surrounding states pay less.  Not a single gram of pollutants has been prevented.

I've seen similar regulations proposed in other states, but so far those states have dodged the bullet.  When the greenies get their way, all power will come from wishful thinking.  They've hated nuclear for a generation.  They hate hydro because it changes the landscape.  They hate large scale wind farms because they are dangerous to migrating birds.  They don't like large-scale solar because it blocks the ground from sunlight.  If you legislate fossil fuels out of existance, all that is left is wishful thinking.

Right now natural gas is really cheep.  It makes more sense to supply natural gas to stationary sources than as a motor fuel right now.  With improved gas-to-liquids technology, that should turn around, but for now it is a much better fuel for power plants than for trucks.  Not as good as coal in a cost/BTU, but way better than fuel oil.

David

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

I do agree that over the long term we do need to make changes, but we should not allow the force of goverment to direct those. We need to allow the market to deliver those changes, and alternitives.

And I say we need to make those changes not because of carbon, but because the congestion of so many freeways is a tax on our time, just the same as building roads is a tax on our wallet.

I can't say trains or buses are the answer, because neither deliver us door step to door step, and both cost more than other alternitives (cars and planes).

The problem looks like there isen't enough automation in many of the alternitives. Many cities don't have the density required for what they pay drivers to make buses or trains pay for themselves.

What does this have to do with peak oil... In two days, driving to and from work, I have consumed about a gallon of fuel (at 22 MPG). Or about $3. So to get me from my small truck to another form of transportation you need to beat the about cost of $3, or take less than 15 minuites to deliver me to work.
  

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

KENAT - here's my summary of my auto costs in 2011:
Fuel: $2784.09
Insurance and registration: $1622.45
Maintenance: $650.45

That got me to and from work, plus home for lunch every work day (I live 5.7km from work), plus long distance trips totaling 1900km, 1669km, 1650km, and 1280km.  Total distance traveled in 2011 was ~25,000km.  Where I live, in-city public transit would cost $94/month for a pass.  Assuming that the only transit costs would be me (and not my wife or child), transit would cost $1128/year.  One-way transit for commuting would take 50 minutes (driving takes 10 minutes).  Ignoring that I go home for lunch, transit would add 1:20 to my commute.  Every day.  If I valued my time at $60/hr (a discount from what work actually pays me...), over the course of a year, transit would cost me ~$18,320 in my time.  So, adding in the actual cost of the pass, the annual cost of transit for me is in the $20k range - and this does not include the costs for the long-distance travel...

Given that insurance and maintenance are less variable than fuel, my fuel costs would need to be a factor of 10 higher than what they are right now for it to be attractive to me.

Sorry, but you will be pulling my car keys from my cold dead hands before I consider public transit.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Well, what about depreciation/capital costs of the car?  Incidentals like car wash...

Now I'm not particularly interested in pulling anyones keys, you misunderstand my point.  

Cars, especially in many parts of the US, are incredibly convenient.  I used public transport some back in the UK but most of the time car was more convenient except for trips to central London.

So I'm not some anti car greeny.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Public transportation has to have a benefit to be viable.  When I lived in Denver, the bus ride was about 5 minutes longer than driving.  Parking in downtown Denver was $12/day at the lot that was the same distance from the office as the bus terminal.  The buses ran on an incredibly convenient schedule and were safe and clean.  My annual bus pass was subsidized by my employer and cost me $64/year.  In every way a no-brainer.  Now they have light rail from my old neighborhood to near my old office and the time is about 15 minutes faster.  Even more a no-brainer.

On the other hand people in Houston tell me that the only reason to get on public transportation is to buy drugs.  Schedule sucks, price is too high, and the buses are neither clean nor safe.  Again, a no-brainer, but in the other direction.

I think that everyone should run the economics that were mentioned above and see if their situation makes more sense to drive or ride.  If the economics favor one over the other, then that is actually the Green decision.  Environmentalism should be based on actual harm to the environment, not on appearances (a Prius on the interstate has worse fuel economy than most SUV).  Money is an excellent surrogate for consumption.

David

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Car's bought and paid for.  Depreciation is an accountant's issue.  What matters to me is time and money actually out the door.  (And the carwashes are included in maintenance).

Now if I commuted to downtown in my city, the calculus would change substantially.  The time factor would be a wash.  There would be added costs for parking.

I don't begrudge those who choose transit.  As David said, I think that every person really does make the individual calculation themselves.  We do choose the cheapest and greenest options available.  That said, I don't want to pay for their transit (with my tax dollars)...  Oh right, how much of my federal, provincial, and municipal tax go to subsidize transit?  That should be included in the cost of transit, too...

Speaking of subsidies and to bring this topic back around to the discussion of peak oil, I read an article yesterday which said that if consumption in Saudi Arabia maintains its current growth pattern, then Saudi Arabia would become a net importer of oil by the late 2030's.  Right now in Saudi Arabia, gasoline is $0.12/liter, heavily subsidized by the government.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

David,

I have great respect for your contributions to this site,
but "Prius on the interstate has worse fuel economy than most SUV"
Seems way off base. The EPA rating for the Prius is 51mpg/48mpg highway. While inflated, and surely even worse under conditions you're suggesting. Even the most detrimental conditions to a hybrid using braking power recovery systems. An incline, at 80mph, at constant speed, claiming that the mpg is less than 30% of sticker (a fair average SUV mpg on similar conditions would be 15mpg?) is a stretch and I would want to see where the data came from.
On the rest of your point I would have to agree people are led by their wallets more often than not.
 

Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

OK, my little truck is 25 years old, and cost me $10000 new, so to factor that in thats $33/ mounth so far, probally the same for insurance if you subtract the amount of insurance I use for erronds. So far $1.5 for gas+$3.3 for usage and insurance. Add in repair and oil, and maybe $2 more, so the total is $6.80.
The bus would require me to walk about a half mile to the stop, and about half mile from where I get off to work, so a two mile walk each day, plus the time.

However, since I can't move large items from the store to my house on public transportation, I need to have a small truck anyway, so I would pay insurance, and oil even if I did not drive it to work, so it really works out to $4.2 to drive it to work. And because I don't put excessive miles on it my repairs would cost more if I did not drive it.

 

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

CastMetal,
Top Gear did a story a couple of years ago where they took a road trip in a Land Rover LR3 and a Prius.  They found that in general at highway speeds the Prius was running at significantly higher rpm than the LR3 (V8), and at the end of the trip the fuel consumption was about 20 mpg for the LR3 and 19 mpg for the Prius.  Not in any way scientific, but quite an interesting anecdote.  There was a Yahoo! news story last week about a woman suing Toyota for her Prius gas mileage not meeting published expectations.  Personally, I've never been in or bought fuel for a Prius (I have two full-size Land Rover LR4's the get 20-24 mpg on the highway), and probably never will.  If I had a job that required significant start/stop in city traffic I might reconsider that.  I don't.

TGS4,
If you assume that federal, state, and community "public" money is going to be spent on public transit regardless of economics or community preferences then you really can't factor that subsidy into your personal calculations--you are going to contribute taxes to it regardless of your preferences.  I think of it as similar to school costs, I don't have any kids in school anymore and still pay taxes to support the schools.  

The last year I lived in Denver (1997) the city made a big deal that their RTD was self sufficient, paying off their capital bonds, and returning money to the general fund.  I know that is the exception, but it is a heck of a good example that a public transit system that is responsive to community needs can make economic sense.

David

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

You will know when the world is experiencing a real fuel crisis because there will a war that the world has never seen before. Under the oceans there is more fuel available than we could ever use and we haven't even come close to getting all the oil under the land. The whole world uses around 1 cubic mile of oil in a year. The earth is 260 billion cubic miles total. Do you still think we are running out of fuel?    

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

TGS4, cranky108, you two are like I am with cars. I don't worry about the resale value. By the time I am done with them they don't have any:)

Regards,

Mike  

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

In pure $$$$ terms, driving to work is more efficent.

SnMan, If I were to sell my small truck, I might get $1500. It would cost more for me to replace it than I would get to sell it. It gets good millage, and still runs. And even if it did not run, it probally would cost less to fix it than to buy another.

About the only reason I would sell it is if one of these lead footed @#$%^ were to hit it.

The problem is the newer cars are so much more expencive because they have all this complicated stuff that we really don't need.
Air bags? If you are wearing seat belts, what does the airbag do for you?
Electric heated seats? On-star? Power stearing?

If you want to make car more fuel efficent, then get rid of all this extra stuff that wastes energy.
And I mean with reason. Anti-lock breaks do save lives.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Oh, but crank108, the electrically heated seat makes life soooo much better.  My next car will likely also have a heated steering wheel, too.

From where I stand, the NPV of the FV of my current car when I am done with it is essentially zero.

zdas04 - you're right.  But we actually have the "power" to prevent ludicrous spending of public dollars on transit.  I have no issues if spending approaches what you describe happened in Denver.  Unfortunately, that's a 3-sigma outlier.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

OP: peak oil, ultra-deep wells, well rejuvenation?  

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

cranky108, well not to brag, but I have TWO small trucks, each worth less than yours:)

Plus, you can't get small trucks that are SMALL anymore.

Regards,

Mike

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Incremental costs are important once you've shelled out for a car and it's fixed costs (insurance, tax, maintenance).

A return train ticket from my home to Plymouth is more than £100 these days. It costs £70 to fill my car with diesel. That will do the return trip, carry all my luggage and avoid the cost of taxis to/from the stations. If I have a passenger, they go for free.

Plus sticking a few hundred miles on the car makes it go better - fully charged battery, empty DPF, dried out exhaust.

I use the train when travelling into Londinium, partly because of the cost (congestion charge, parking), partly because it's easier and partly because I'll no doubt be on the sauce.

- Steve
 

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

(OP)
Thank-you DVD.  Things do tend to go off on a tangent, even though the two are related! Often guilty of it myself. LOL.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

SomptingGuy, you want to take a train around here you're hopping a freight.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

David:  I'm afraid your ideology is influencing your analysis again, even with the AGW thing off the table in this thread.  

I OWN a Prius, have over 125,000 km of mixed city/highway on it.  My average year-round fuel consumption on the thing is about 5.2 L/100km which is about 45 miles per US gallon.  The car has NEVER gotten anything close to as bad as 20 mpg, even when I was dragging a parachute in the shape of four bicycles on a rack at 130 km/hr!   

I drive this car no differently than I drove my tiny Civic hatchback and the best I did with that thing was ~ 7 L/100 km year-round average.  With my commute, that's made a big difference in my fuel bills.  My foot hasn't gotten any lighter, although I do anticipate my stops a bit more than I did with the Civic.  The Prius has A/C and the CVT, whereas the Civic had a 5 speed and no A/C.  It's a much larger and MUCH more comfortable car.   

5.2 is worse than the EPA mileage stated for the vehicle which is 4.0/4.2 city/highway, but not by much, and that's true for any car.  Based on contact with many Prius owners, my mileage is typical unless you take lots of very short trips.  45 mpg is WAY better than any SUV, much less a freaking Land Rover!

For pure highway driving, you can do modestly better than the Prius with a turbodiesel, but the emissions- the ones we BOTH agree are harmful, not the CO2- are far worse with the turbodiesel, and in North America your turbodiesel choices are few.  The Prius is a super-low emissions vehicle which also happens to have excellent fuel efficiency.

The battery in the Prius has 20 kg of nickel in it.  That doesn't make much of a difference to the embodied energy of the vehicle.  And embodied energy doesn't make much of a difference to the overall energy consumption of a vehicle anyway, unless you pack it in after 100,000km or less.

We agree about the benefits of all this shale gas, and the potential to use this for transport fuel.  We disagree about whether or not gas to liquids technology has much room for improvement.  Currently you end up with less than 1/4 of the feed carbon in the (useful) products- that's terribly energy inefficient relative to upgrading bitumen etc. regardless how cheap your gas is.

Improving reservoir recoveries is an obvious consequence of increased prices.  But that will only take you so far.

As to peak oil:  we'll run out of planetary carrying capacity for the effluent long, long before we run out of gas, oil, heavy oil, bitumen, kerogen, coal, methane hydrates and the like.  But these resources are finite, or renewable but only on the geological timescale, and have higher value uses than as fuels.  Those non-fuels uses are very much more difficult to substitute with renewables or alternatives than it is to use fuels more efficiently.    

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

mltenmetal,
I was just relaying an observation of a popular TV show.  Their analysis was not in any way to be considered a scientific analysis.  Now that I think of it, they may have been comparing a diesel LR3 to the Prius so the range was more likely 48 mpg and 47 mpg instead of the numbers I suggested above, I just remember that the Land Rover did better in miles per unit of fuel.  

I don't like the Prius because everyone I know (or know of) that has one has this annoying holier-than-thou attitude that they are personally saving the planet from us SUV drivers.  Maybe they are.  Don't know.  Don't care.  Just don't want to be talked down two because of the fact that I feel I need two 7,000 lbm SUV's that don't come in diesel in this country.  I would buy diesel Land Rovers if they were available in the U.S., not for conservation but for increased distance between fill-ups.  Transportation fuel is not a significant portion of my budget and until/unless it is, conservation is not an overriding concern.

David

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Distance between fill-ups is why I like my diesel. My odometer is sitting at about 400 miles at the moment and I'm thinking it might be time to fill up again soon, needle below the 1/4 mark.
 

- Steve
 

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

noltenmetal - thanks for sharing your real-world experience with the Prius.  I've always wondered about how they perform in Canada's colder weather, in actual day-to-day use.

With the lower fuel consumption, do you think that you have paid off the higher initial cost?  Have you seen a decline in battery performance - vis-a-vis the lady in California suing Honda over their hybrid Civic?  What's your outlook on replacing the battery?  (I'm just curious - my better half is thinking about buying one, but I don't know anyone who has owned one).

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

I actually like having a small truck, and have had a few offers.

I won't sell because I don't like all the extra stuff in the newer ones. But rear wheel drive can be a drag in winter.

Because of the packages to convert smaller trucks to electric I suspect there will be a market for them, just not enough to make me sell.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

cranky108, the biggest market for them here is for "export" to Mexico. I could sell both mine in a minute if I wanted.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

What are the reasons for the dearth of diesels in the US market?  In the much smaller market of Australia, many of the sedans and almost all of the SUV's and utes (pickups) are available with diesel engines.  For instance, and since David so much likes Land Rover, the 2.7 litre V6 Land Rover Discovery engine is now (since mid 2011) selling like hotcakes in the Ford Territory SUV.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

I was talking to a Mercedes salesman about the time that their diesel SUV was introduced in the U.S. (4-5 years ago) and he said that the EPA test protocol requires several years and costs $3-4 million USD to complete and document.  Then the EPA takes another couple of years to review the paperwork before they send it back because of a typo or two.  He said (and this is just a salesman talking to a prospective purchaser so take it for what its worth) it took them over 10 years to get the design approved and he thought that any change to the engine would require them to start over.  He said that there is no problem with any of the modern turbo-diesel's meeting the standards, it is just that the test protocol is so difficult.  I recently reviewed the EPA test protocol for certifying combuster destruction-effeciency (which is a pretty simple beast compared to an engine) and I don't see how it could be done in less than 6 months.  Those guys are out of control.  

I don't know if it is true that the hold up is the EPA test protocol or not, but my Land Rover dealer says that he could sell 3-4 times as many diesel LR4's (Discovery 4 in the rest of the world) as he's selling of the gasoline engines and he's selling the gasoline engine version as fast as he can get them on the lot, it really is a fantastic vehicle.  I don't think that the dearth is economics.

David   

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

The diesel issue could also be the cost.
Up until a couple of years ago, diesel was a little cheaper than regular unleaded.
Now it is more expensive than premium unleaded.
I see fewer diesel light trucks on the road now than five years ago, but it could just be my perception.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

From what I'm seeing, the cost of diesel isn't a driving factor in the analysis.  The Mercedes dealer I was talking to (when diesel was just slightly higher price than gasoline) said he could sell 3 diesel SUV's for every gasoline.  His clients were setteling for gasoline rather than wait for a diesel.  Now that diesel is 30% higher, I would still run to it to double my range.

David

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Ford Focus, with Lynx engine. Endura, as some call it.

67 mpg (bigger UK gallon though) on a run.
Takes a while to heat up in the winter (too bloody efficient).

 

- Steve
 

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

hokie, for a long time the problem was supposedly that US regs (and I think California may have been even tighter but can't recall for sure) had lower permissible levels of particulates (soot) that were difficult to meet.

However like Zdas mentioned the newest diesels meet those requirements.

If qualification is now the issue that's pretty sad.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Localy an oil company is looking to test drill for oil (This is not known as an oil producing area). So if the current production rate is about 20%, we haven't reached peak oil.

What we may have reached is peak oil at the limits of current technology. Future technology will surely have a peak oil, after several more limits of current technology.

But what will happen is as the price of oil goes up (it might go down too) new developments in both extraction technology, and alternitives will make new oil available, and new alternitives practical.

No peak oil, just a technology limit.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

TGS4:  at $1.25/L, the fuel savings (EPA compared to EPA) came close to paying back the difference in cost at the time I purchased versus a Matrix, but that's an apples to oranges comparison.  The Matrix is a much smaller and less comfortable car.  The Prius is cheaper now then when I bought it.  

The cost difference between the Prius and the new Venza is nearly zero, the cars are very similar in size and shape (Venza's a foot longer) but the Prius fuel economy is double, so that's a no brainer.  Of course, our idiot neighbours across the street bought the Venza...fuel economy matters absolutely squat to some people.

Battery life is no problem- Vancouver taxi drivers have taken them 500,000km without a loss in fuel economy due to reduced battery performance.  You can lose half the installed capacity before the hybrid efficiency is meaningfully affected.

Another benefit:  125,000km and the brakes are barely worn at all.

You need to block the grille in winter to keep it warm- helps noticeably with the fuel economy.  
 

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

moltenmetal - that info is much appreciated.  Thank you.

Do you have a nice-looking grille cozy cover, or do you do like I did in college and use a length of cardboard and twist-ties (on the inside of the hood, of course - on the outside was too uncouth)?

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Ssd indeed about the diesel situation.  Are any of the politicians saying they will rein in the EPA?

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

hokie66, Sen Jim Inhofe and few others try to keep EPA in check, for their efforts they are vilified by the usual suspects.

Regards,

Mike

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

I find it odd and contradictory that the USA is festooned with big trucks, all running on diesel, all running with super-duper tweaks to boost eficiency and combat emissions (fantastic pieces of engineering). Whereas the auto fraternity are still either shunning diesel or being hampered by the government(s).

- Steve
 

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

The SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders) reported (unofficially, we were having a CIMAC meeting in their premises) on the difference in diesel cars sold in the UK Vs Europe and linked it to the fact that in the EU the price of diesel was less per litre than for petrol while in the UK the diesel was more expensive than petrol.
They also said the reason LPG was not a viable fuel option in the UK though it was on the continent was because although the LPG was essentially surplus (whatever that meant) they believed that if they established significant sales in the Uk that the government would then impose far to high a tax on it. (I think this was also the SMMT but can't recall after all these years)

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

I think "essentially surplus" means the following. Oil refining makes a couple of percent of LPG whether we want it or not. Preparing "wet" natural gas for use produces some LPG whether we want it or not. The demand for LPG may be quite low. So its essentially surplus. It may be exported or some may even just be flared.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

"Essentially surplus" means "nowhere nearly as valuable to the refinery as gasoline or diesel".  That's not the same thing at all of course- if everybody started to use it as motor fuel the cost would skyrocket.

TGS4:  I use lengths of split foam pipe insulation sleeve material (the stuff you get from the hardware store for use on your hot water lines), stuffed around the grille trim from the outside and held on with a few black wireties.  Not my idea- got it from a Prius forum- but it's cheap, doesn't look too bad and works well.  Takes 15 mins or so to install.  If you don't use the grille blocking, the engine will not shut down as often as it could.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Strange how different fuels seem to stand out, or stand down in different govermental areas.

Gasoline started as a surplus from the making of Kerosene as lamp fuel.

Presently many farmers use Propane as a fuel. They have conversion kits and they say it keeps the engine cleaner.

If I recall the early diesels in the US were loud, and smelly, so many people diden't want them. But some imported German diesels did not have those problems. So the problems seemed to be limited to Detroit, and what they make, not to diesels themselves.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

cranky108 makes a very good point about co-products. While making whale oil substitute out of crude oil, no-one wanted the naphtha cut.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about early refining. "In the 19th century, refineries in the U.S. processed crude oil primarily to recover the kerosene. There was no market for the more volatile fraction, including gasoline, which was considered waste and was often dumped directly into the nearest river."

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

Wasn't EPA the basic joke in that Simpsons film?

- Steve
 

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

"What we may have reached is peak oil at the limits of current technology. Future technology will surely have a peak oil, after several more limits of current technology.

But what will happen is as the price of oil goes up (it might go down too) new developments in both extraction technology, and alternitives will make new oil available, and new alternitives practical.

No peak oil, just a technology limit."


Well, obviously.... and we've seen how new technology has changed things again and again (seismic in the 1930's; subsea engineering and diverless technology went from 350ft in the North Sea in the 70's- where the Norwegian Trench was too deep for a pipeline- to 10,000ft+ today; multiple fracs in horizontal wells, pioneered in the tight chalk reservoir offshore Denmark have opened up tight shale reservoirs).

Ultimately, unless you belieave in the Russian abiogenic oil theory (and I'm dubious) oil & gas are both a finite commodity.  But there are areas of the world we haven't really looked for oil yet (East Africa, large chunks of India, South Atlantic, and strangly, large bits of the Middle Eat- why explore when you have the Gawhar Field?); and types of reservoir we haven't really exploited yet (offshore heavy oil, shale gas, methane hydrates, oil shales, tar sands).

And then we have increased technology increasing recovery factors: better imaging to see where the bypassed oil is at the field level (4D seismic) and well level (things like NMR logging, azimuthal resitivity logging) and technologies like horizontal drilling and slim hole infill drilling to get at the bypassed oil and stuff like miscible gas/ surfacatant injection to get more of it out (for example for the Clair Ridge development, BP are going against 50 years of North Sea experience and will use fresh water for the water injection, as they now think sea water injection is a bad thing for recovery factors).

Unless somehting very dramatic happens, oil & gas will still be around a century from now as a transport fuel- the use for electricity and space heating may decline (the amount of oil used for electricity generation is almost nill now).  However, the main suppliers of oil & gas may be very diffferent form today and the main useers of oil & gas may also be very differnt from today!

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

So we agree that the limit on oil production is technology and price. Two factors will affect those, as new technology is developed, the older technology will become cheeper, or disappear. The people who make the old technology don't want to go out of business, so they develop new technology, or a cheeper way to manufacture the old technology.

The price depends on development and consumption. If the price goes up, consumption will go down. If it stays up to long the customers will find alternitives. If development exceeds current consumption, (maybe because of cheeper old technology), then the price goes down, followed by an increase in consumption (That Seedoo may become fun again).

The problem is the people who predict these things don't see very far in the future. Or they get paid for saying what people want to hear.

Predicting peak oil is like predicting the horse races. Few of these people got rich on putting there money where there mouth is.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

cranky108 noted "If the price goes up, consumption will go down". This has certainly not been true for crude over the last 15 years as the link "http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/05/354-oil-supply-vs-prices.html" should show. Perhaps he meant consumption will not go up so much. I suppose if world government posted the price at $200/bbl ($100 for the supplier and $100 tax to world government) supply and consumption would go down.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

It'd go down a bit, but not that much. We already know what the USA's domestic oil use would look like in a $200/bbl world, as Europe has been there for ages.
 

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

I supose there are some users that would take longer to reduce there consumption. And you are correct the responce to price changes lags at some time function of the price change.

This can be seen in the sale of car types. Big cars if the price of fuel is low. Smaller cars if the price rises.

I believe the largest change in consumption is in other than transportation fuels. The so called fun uses of motors.

On the other hand, if oil rises in relation to natural gas, there will be a shift to the less expencive fuel. Again it will take time, and may or may not be a sustained shift.

RE: RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil

I didn't read the whole thing, but one statement in the executive summary caught my attention:  "In terms of supply, almost all of the future growth in natural gas demand will come from the electric sector".  This statement seems like wishful thinking to me.  

The industry is scrambling to reverse the huge downward pressure that Shale Gas is putting on prices (2007 prices were over $10/MCF, 2008 was arond $3/MCF, 2011 was back up to around $4, projected 2012 is under $2).  Two gas-to-liquids plants are in the prermitting process and at least three LNG export facilities are being permitted.  Either natural gas as a motor fuel or major LNG capability will create a demand growth that will dwarf electric generation.

The rest of what I read seemed to be pretty cogent for the most part.  

David

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources