peak oil production in 2009? - what next? 18

[davefitz]

There are rumblings that the peak in world oil production may occur in 2009, and that the demand for oil is increasing very rapidly in developing countries ( China , INdia) .

There does not seem to be any effort being made in the USA to reduce the rate of consumption or to reduce demand. Simple efforts such as the following are not being used :
a) increase CAFE ( auto gas mileage )
b) improve mass transit in major cities ( Seatle, Houston, LA, etc)
c) propaganda which is aimed at changing attitudes toward energy consumption.

What is the most likely end result in 2009 if noone takes steps to prepare for this event?

 

[jmw]

Alas for the remaining "renewable" energy resources, the UK's plans to be seen as "green" (despite a minimal Green Party presence in the UK, unlike Germany where, at their peak they influenced some policy decisions....) meet some obstacles.

Offshore windfarms are claimed to be the best way out of the environmental impasse onshore wind farms are entering.

Plans for some onshore windfarms in Scotland have been opposed by the ministry of defence for a variety of reasons of "national security" and now there are voices raised by the Shipowners associations regarding controls on siting of offshore windfarms in a claim about potential hazard to shipping, environmental risks and that if badly sited, the diversion of shipping could see the energy gains offset.

http://www.british-shipping.org/news/index.htm

So, back to the search for small fussion reactors (small enough to run a washing machine would be my objective).

 

[zdas04]

I'm with DaveFitz, more government money on fusion will not accelerate the development of viable fusion sources. What is required is an individual to have a break through. That is just a likely to happen in a pump shop as in an $80 billion lab at Princton.

I love the discussion of "green" energy. I recently did an analysis on the power requirements for a solar-powered pumping unit to get water off of a gas well. With today's solar technology I would have had to deploy 2 acres of panels (down from 6 acres just 5 years ago). The ground under the panels would never again see sunlight and any plants living would die. Seems a long way from "no impact" to me.

Taking an SUV to the corner store is simply accelerating the time when cheep fuel is not an option. Gasoline in the U.S. today is 3/4 the price we paid in 1970 (at constant 1970 dollars). At those prices, it is not a hardship to my budget to drive my SUV, if we paid European prices (i.e., 60-80% of the pump price is taxes), then I would have to reconsider. Government policy in the U.S. is to bemoan the drain on our resources (meaning money) going offshore for imports rather than doing anything about the imports. If you want to reduce the imports, reduce the demand. Isn't that what they said in Economics 101?

All of that is simply economics. The bottom line is that fossil fuels are finite. Someday they will either be gone or a cheeper alternative will surface. If they are used up before the alternative is here, then there will be incredible disruptions in the lives of billions of people. End result, the population will reach a new level at an acceptable use of the available energy. Probably a lot fewer people using a lot less energy per capita. One of these two scenarios will happen if we avoid asteroids and other life-ending energy transients. Hopefully some clever person will have an epiphany and figure out how to make power from lightning bug tails (see "The Roads Must Roll" by Robert Heinlein) or something equally as un-dreamed-of.

David

 

[duck0601]

zdas4

How much energy is generated by those two acres of panels?
Just curious.

Chris

 

[zdas04]

Nine horsepower average over a full day. Peak load calcs to 12 hp. By the time you size for a 1 hour peak transient that occurs at 6 am on a day following a cloudy day, the panels get way out of hand.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

http://www.muleshoe-eng.com

 

[jmw]

There is a problem with governments.
1) They are no good at anything worthwhile.
2) They think first about votes. Most politicians and governments have the long term planning ability of goldfish. (That is, apart from “Thousand Year Reich” schemes)
3) With governments you get what they give you. With commercial forces you get what you want. Why? Industry provides what sells best and that is usually what people want the most.
4) Governments have no idea of what people actually want (apart from less government which they aren’t about to let us have).
Quick example, government loves taxes. People don't, QED.

Market forces are much more dependable.

As an example, take a look at the UK government approach to a telephone system. Under Post Office Telecoms they provided the worst dinosaur of a system imaginable. Of course, once privatised, it leapt into the modern world.

Governments can't help it, it's in their nature to do things the way they do. But if you want something done right, don't let government have anything to do with it.

The best way to get fusion power research moving is to take it away from governments and give it over to the market forces where industry will do its research and give us what we want.

So, as the depletion of fossil fuels looms large, all those industries dependent on supplying us goods that consume energy and the energy providers will recognise the need for an alternative. The more energy we consume, and the more dependent on power the bigger the market at risk and the greater the incentive for the market to develop what the market (and the consumer) needs. That means fusion power.

It also means fusion power plants that are best fitted to society. With the unbundling of national power providers, TPA (Third Party Access schemes) the imperative for huge centralised power plants is already disappearing. Energy doesn’t or shouldn’t need subsidy. There is an abundance of it, now more than ever.

Subsidy in the energy sector is about going where the government wants to go for its own reasons. This may take us away from the path to a real sollution.

This is the “manned spaceflight” vs commercial exploitation of space scenario. In the commercial sector we have a whole array of satellites providing for our every whim, efficiently and cost effectively. We have weather satellites, communications satellites and even GPS in our cars to ensure we don’t get lost on the way to the shops. Pretty soon the commercial forces at play will give us, each and every one, affordable satellite telephones and we can then abandon all those phone masts everywhere.

If we want manned space flight for the people then forget government and let the commercial sector have a go. In fact, there is a competition running for the first privately funded manned space flight with a re-usable vehicle. Who wants to bet that spaceflight will not be available to you an me in the next decade?

We can see the changes in the energy market that are bringing about many of the circumstances we require for fusion power and fusion power as we want it, not how government would like us to have it.
We need to re-inforce those things that take us where we are going and discourage those that don't. Stop subsidising wind farms. Forget limited solutions and go where the futture is.

 

[javac]

Market forces aren't always the answer. Take electrical power generation, for example. You might have heard of the rolling black-outs that hit the northeast last year at the peak of freezing temperatures. What had happened was that power generation had been de-regulated and the companies cut back on the building of new plants to achieve greater efficiency. It was all well and good until the extreme low temperatures caused a spike in power usage and there was no extra capacity available to kick in when it was needed. Market forces don't look far enough ahead into the future to anticipate swings like this. Short-term gains always seem to prevail over long-term stability and growth.

As for cold fusion, it's not dead, though it's been pretty rocky up to now.

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03272004/nation_w/151658.asp

 

[funnelguy]

Stirring the pot...

Steel prices have doubled for some products here in our midwestern US location. Local press stories are blaming Chinese consumption for the scarcity and consequent price increases.

The same local paper seems perfectly content to blame increased Chinese oil consumption for the increases in fuel prices. The proposed 4% production cut by OPEC is also considered as part of the problem. No one even talks about refining capacity.

I am somewhat jaded regarding fuel prices. I have watched our refineries gouge consumers in the past and attempt to blame OPEC. A lack of refining capacity seems more plausible to me.

So, soothsayers, what does the future hold?

 

[jmw]

In the UK it looks like a 25% petrol price hike. Between OPEC and their Chancellors need for money, they look like securing the prize for the highest priced fuel on the planet. Of course it may also have something to ddo with the British Governments keeness to be seen as green by the greener Europeans (no pun intended) and by so doing to make the wind farms appear more cost effective....
... meanwhile the Chinese hydro-electric schemes on the MEKONG appear to be threatening the livelhoods of 65million people downstream in various countries who depend on the river for its fish.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

 

[Iskit4iam]

A thought provoking series of posts. So - here are some thoughts.

RDK's comments about the math of geometric progressions reminded me of an old science fiction story. The world's economy was based on replicators, devices that transformed matter into anything you needed. (food, cloths, autos). The closing paragraph was an archalogical discussion about the twin body system of Earth and Moon. Were the two bodies always the same size? The problem with doing the math is the math almost never predicts what eventually happens, but it makes interesting reading. Just read Greg's 1974 National Geographic for confirmation. I guarentee we won't consume an Earth volume of oil in the next 300 years because we can't. We have to do something else and we will.

People are reactive. We drive SUV's (I don't) because we can afford to. But in the 70's small cars were the reaction to $0.50 a gallon gas prices. Got rid of my GTO, bought a Pinto. People reacting make markets. Javac, can you be sure that the rolling blackouts would have been eliminated by regulated power industries? I trust the markets more than I trust regulation, but neither one will be right all the time.

Fusion may be the energy savior, but for private funding to be viable a company has to see profit at the end of the process. As it happens I start a new job next week in the wind turbine industry. Here is an energy source that offers engineering problems we know how to solve but couldn't sell without a tax credit because it cost $0.01 per Kwh more to generate than other plants. Who is going to fund the development of fusion with much tougher engineering problems to solve? We have active development of private manned space flight because someone offered a prize. I admit I'm guessing but I'd bet the total value of the R&D by the companies seeking the prize is significantly higher than the value of the prize. Maybe a prize rather than direct funding is what governments should offer.

 

[oxilume]

Iskit4iam,

The government does offer a prize. It is known as a patent. It guarantees a 20 year monopoly from the date of filing.

Problem - patents are enforced only through civil courts.
Solution - patents should be enforced via criminal courts.

A large company infringing on an independent inventor's technology will always win! As an independent inventor I have been there and I don't intend on taking on Goliath again.

With respect to Peek Oil production in 2009 we need to only look in our own backyards and garages. It starts with the vehicles we drive and the corresponding fuel efficiency of that vehicle.

It is this simple:
(1) Eliminate the $23,000 tax break on vehicles having a GVW of greater than 6,000 lbs that are used for business. Create a tax break of $23,000 for any vehicle that gets over 30 mpg regardless if it is for business, pleasure or personal use.
(2) Convert all highway HOV lanes to High Efficiency Lanes. Soccer moms who are carrying no other legal licensed drivers should not be allowed to drive their gas guzzling SUVs in the HOV lane.

Next, accelerate the development of upgrading oilsand directly to refinery feedstocks. Alberta Canada has enough oilsand to fuel North America for the next 100 years.

Finally, over the next 50 years accelerate the construction of Nuclear Power Plants and convert all coal burning power plants to biomass power plants.

During that time frame gas to liquids (GTL) technology will be mature and clean burning gasoline and diesel will be widely available since natural gas is widely available in the US. Also, demand that all vehicles be hybrid gas/electric. At nightime the vehicles can be recharged with Nuclear Power or renewable power. Thus, the gas is used only for an instant burst of power.

 

[jmw]

I wonder if Fusion power will be obsolete before they even get it off the ground?

I understand that physicists at CERN (Geneva) have been having some success with producing anti-matter. The energy conversion from anti-matter is said to be 100% compared with about 1.5% for fission. Of course, I've seen too many Sci-Fi movies to be completely content with a bunch of anti-matter power stations being run by some of the guys who like to cut back on engineering staff etc in the name of economy and shareholder interests. In fact, I wouldn't trust some of these guys in charge of a wheel-barrow.

Meanwhile i need to check up on some of these figures.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[jmw]

Not to forget the other scientific research groups and the lure of space travel, these two links say enough:

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[davefitz]

I think that if we are looking toward fusion or anti-matter as solutions to the porblem of a reduction in available supplies of oil then we are in deep doodoo. Concentrating on such unlikely measures is tantamount to psychological denial that the problem is on the horizon and that the practical solutions are available , but unpalatable.

 

[crossframe]

I notice a few of you are automotive engineers, and I'd like to throw this out for comment.

I little while ago I read a magazine article about hydrogen powered vehicles. In an effort to improve some aspect of performance, the solution expressed was that an increase in pressure of the hydrogen was required, to something like 10000 psi. So now I'm thinking, small lightweight (plastic) car, and a high-pressure cache of hydrogen. The word that kept popping up was "Hindenberg."

Do hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles have the same sort of volatility?

 

[oxilume]

crossframe,

The problem with a hydrogen economy is twofold. First, the infrastructure does not exist with regards to pipelines for transporting hydrogen. Oh, it exists on the Gulf Coast amongst a few players, Air Liquid, Air Products, Prax Air, etc. for transporting hydrogen to major end users - refineries - for hydrotreating purposes.

Transporting hydrogen via piplines to every single gas station is not feasible. Likewise, transporting H2 via trucks to every gas station is not feasible. If you ever pass a H2 tank truck on the highway, take note of the many small diameter tanks. It is not one large tank such as with butane/propane etc.

The second problem is the source of hydrogen. If it will come from the traditional source - steam reforming natural gas - then what will they do with all of the CO2 produced in the water gas shift reaction? CO2 sequesteration technologies are still in the infancy stage. And isn't that the purpose of hybrid or hydrogen vehicles - low or zero emissions.

With respect to carrying hydrogen onboard, the H2 is pressurized to 5,000 psig. Small tanks are readily available. For example, a small composites company is manufacturing CC (carbon-carbon) composite scuba diving tanks. Very lightweight and very strong. Several Universities and Researchers are using these readily avaliable tanks for testing purposes.

A little about "Hindenberg." First, and foremost many chlor-alkali plants vent copius amounts of hydrogen. So you should look deeper into the recent reports investigating into the cause of the "Hindenberg" explosion. Same problem all chlor-alkali plants strive to eliminate - static electricity.

Although H2 has a much broader explosive range in air as compared to NG, gasoline, etc., H2 still requires a catalyst or ignition source (high termperature, spark, static electricity etc.) in order to undergo oxidation (combustion with oxygen). Hence, the catalyst used in PEM fuel cells combines hydrogen with oxygen to form water and DC electricity.

Likewise, the spark plugs in your car are used to "explode" (detonate) the fuel/air mixture in order to forcefully push the piston in order to rotate the crankshaft.

Now, what I firmly believe is very feasible is the injection of hydrogen in combination with gasoline or diesel to lower NOx emissions. This would only require a small bottle of hydrogen to produce 30% less NOx emissions.







Todd

http://www.oxilume.com

 

[CanEngJohn]

I don't think anyone in the Auto Industry is seriously considering Hydrogen fuel cells as a possible short term alternative. There is still research going to determine feasibility of a long term solution but there are several safety issues for which it is not known if there is a plausible solution for.

The key focus on vehicles these days is Power on Demand engines, magnetic/electric/gas hybrids and biodeisel alternatives. The two which appear to be the most aggressive are the hybrids for general consumer use and biodiesel for heavy vehicles and equipment.

POD engines don't see the same gas savings as a hybrid. Their advantage is that there isn't any loss to performance or power. Biodiesel is gaining popularity since you can use it in existing diesel engines and its costs are coming down. Current prices are about the same as typical gasoline as opposed to current diesel costs. There are 6 new biodiesel filling stations opening in Ontario as I type this.

There are several hybrids on the market these days. The Pruis, the Insight and the Civic are coming to mind. The Accord will have a hybrid option later this year as I recall. This is the industry's short term focus for dealing with this issue. Research is ongoing and I wouldn't be surprised if by 2010 we are past the 100 mpg range.

 

[zdas04]

I keep looking at the fueling problem. The CNG/LNG commercial fuel stations are pretty daunting, H2 would be way worse.

We had CNG on fleet of 60 vehicles for oil-field workers for several years and 2-3 vehicles a year were burned to the ground by these competent, savy workers. These fires were always traced back to the fuel-transfer process.
In the years before and after that experiment, we had zero fuel-related fires (we did have one spill when a guy drove away from the pump with the nozzle in the fill neck, I don't even want to think about the consequences if the hose had been H2). Just think about the stereotypical techno-phobe "granny" using even more complex equipment. It just ain't going to happen.

David

 

[GregLocock]

Yet, oddly, in Australia a large percentage of cars use LPG, and they don't burn to the ground in any great numbers.

Why is LNG worse than LPG?



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[zdas04]

Greg,
I don't know that it is.

My experience was with CNG (compressed natural gas) which has a fraction of the energy per unit volume of LNG/LPG (notice how I deftly avoided specifing units there?). Maybe the difference is that you have to fill the CNG so frequently that the opportunity for mishap is greater?

Maybe the group I was working with were dunderheads (but they do operate a fairly large natural gas field with an excellent safety record)?

Maybe we got defective equipment (it did all come from the same vendor made during the same time period)?

Whatever the reason, our experience with a product that is gaseous at ambient temperature was not a roaring success.

David

 

[GregLocock]

Ah, no I misread your post. I know CNG is more difficult to handle, I thought you had problems with LNG.



Cheers

Greg Locock