Mitch Cronin Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 http://www.energybulletin.net/4733.html That's a transcript of a presentation to the US Congress, given by Congressman Roscoe Bartlett - Chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee on Peak Oil, the meaning of, and consequences... Interesting reading... If I'm recalling what I read correctly, we evidently have about 40 years of oil left... less than that before it costs more energy to get it out than is retrieved - ie it'll take more than a gallon of gas to extract 1 gallon from the ground... So that means a lot of things. Our world as we know it now will, by necessity, or by consequence... or both really .... be a very different place. Not least among those differences, and one aspect of concern for those of us in this business, will be what that does to air travel... At some point long before we've run out of oil - how many years will that be? - it will no longer be feasible to pump hundreds of thousands of gallons of kerosene away just to move people around. The idea of biofuels to replace fossil fuels is valid, but how much corn would it take to move one 767 across the continent? I doubt we'll ever find the acreage to grow enough to fuel a single airline for a day! People have to eat as well. So that brings me to our fate?.... If I did read that right, and we've got 40 years left... and if I wild-guess at 30 years before production is too costly to make extraction worth while, ...and at some point well before that happens the cost would increase to a point where an airline would have to charge ridiculously huge fares just to break even, what does that give us?... 20 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pivot Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Mitch, Thanks for the link. I had not heard of "Peak Oil" before either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Mitch. This is one of my favorite topics. First off, I think 40 years is a bit of a scare tactic, but the end of this century, energy usage will change vastly. Before long, the world will realize that it has to conserve fossil fuel for those usages in which it is hardest to replace, like jet kerosene. We can replace oil usage in all electricity generation and in most industrial applications, using gasified goal or methene, biofuels, renewables, etc. We can replace oil usage in all small vehicles, going into either gas/electric hybrid or fuel cells. Garbage and waste (human and animal) are a fantastic source of future energy. Technologies like fast pyrolsis and gas plasma conversion can turn wastes from renewable sources into fuel and save on what we now spend on removing the "raw materials" to landfills or to spread on roads or farms (inherently controversial because of odor). And these technologies can be layered on each other. For example, you can convert wood waste to BioOil, then take the char residue (think charcoal briquets), grind it finely, add water, and gasify it to recover further fuel value. There are a lot of opportunities for new technologies to create new efficiencies, particularly in industrial situations. Take a pulp mill. Most Canadian pulp mills no longer burn oil or coal. They burn their own wood waste, creating ash, and the production of pulp produces a sludge which is treated and then usually landfilled. Some mills are now looking at fast prolysis to convert wood waste first into BioOil, which would not only fuel the main boilers to make steam, but would also displace natural gas in the mills' drying kilns. There is also research into gasifying the sludge and burning it rather than landfilling it, extracting the methane instead of having it emit to the atmosphere. One mill I know which used to be a significant net purchaser of oil/gas/electricity is focussing on technological investment to become a net energy producer. It will produce and generate significant net electricity which it will sell to its provincial utility for a tidy profit. Also for Canada, we are leaders in such areas as hydrogen fuel cells, the more exotic and potential biofuels and energy conversion technology. I have a little portfolio of these small companies, and it is really fun to watch these investments. The higher oil goes, the easier it will be to commercialize. As for aviation, don't fret. The US military will need a hydrogen-fueled engine or other technology for its fighter jets, and that's probably why you read strategic reports about Peak Oil. Got to get Congress spending now on the next boondoggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustainable Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Zounds! Another Dagger Dimension! Here's my favourite... http://www.oceanpd.com/ Hence the handle, Sustainable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Are we running out of oil? Well, yes and no. Evidently we are running out of cheap oil. That is, high-quality, easy-to-refine oil that is easy to get at. Oil is a non-renewable energy source, which means that if we keep using it at the present rate of about 25 billion barrels a year, we'll use up in 40 years, the one trillion barrels (not including the tar sands) we presumably have left. (That assumes no significant discoveries between now and then and no changes in our consumption levels.) About 175 Billion barrels of oil are locked up in the Alberta tar sands. At current production levels - about 1.2 million barrels a day - it would take 400 years to deplete reserves. I would think that more efficient methods of extracting the "gold" from the tar sands would be explored before hydrogen becomes a reality for the Air Force or anyone else... With the amount of electricity required to create hydrogen as a fuel, we would be better off - it would be much more efficient - to convert our home, auto and industrial needs to electricity and cut out the middle man of producing hydrogen... Tough to make and electric plane - I know - but then we'd have more of the petroleum for transportation no? Do we need to look at the depletion of our resources? Yes. Is it as dire and desperate as is being made out in the media and by some scientific quarter's? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yudig Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Hey we can always go back to the sailing ships of yesteyear & of course the old horse & buggy Jobs for sailors, saddlemakers, buggy makers & blacksmiths. Not to mention the exercise we'd get baling the hay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Hey I can get in on Buggy Whips and make a killing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Hey I can get in on Buggy Whips and make a killing! Sorry, you're a day late... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 27, 2005 Author Share Posted June 27, 2005 There are certainly alternative sources of power generation for electrical needs, and that we're beginning to develop them is encouraging... Harnessing waves, and tides, wind, geothermal and solar energy can keep us going... But I'm beginning to believe the airplanes built today may not see the end of their otherwise usefull service life, because we won't be able to fuel them... That 175 billion barrels in the tar sands, for example, doesn't look quite so good if it costs 100 billion barrels just to extract it... (and if it's going to take 400 years to do, there probably won't be much left to use it long before then. ) According to Mr. Bartlett there, we're currently using about 83 and a half million barrels a day, world wide... he says the known reserves are about 1000 gigabarrels, which is where he gets the 40 years from... Now in that, he's obviously discounting any new finds, but he does point out that even though our methods of finding it have improved greatly.... the amount found on a yearly basis has still tailed off significantly. (at the top of the page you get from that link above, there is another link to a pdf file which contains the graphs he used) Electric airplanes...? Maybe not... but "Maglev" technology could eliminate any need for airborne, fossil fuel powered intercontinental travel... maybe it's all going to happen sooner than we think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Are we running out of oil? Well, yes and no. Evidently we are running out of cheap oil. That is, high-quality, easy-to-refine oil that is easy to get at. Oil is a non-renewable energy source, which means that if we keep using it at the present rate of about 25 billion barrels a year, we'll use up in 40 years, the one trillion barrels (not including the tar sands) we presumably have left. (That assumes no significant discoveries between now and then and no changes in our consumption levels.) About 175 Billion barrels of oil are locked up in the Alberta tar sands. At current production levels - about 1.2 million barrels a day - it would take 400 years to deplete reserves. I would think that more efficient methods of extracting the "gold" from the tar sands would be explored before hydrogen becomes a reality for the Air Force or anyone else... With the amount of electricity required to create hydrogen as a fuel, we would be better off - it would be much more efficient - to convert our home, auto and industrial needs to electricity and cut out the middle man of producing hydrogen... Tough to make and electric plane - I know - but then we'd have more of the petroleum for transportation no? Do we need to look at the depletion of our resources? Yes. Is it as dire and desperate as is being made out in the media and by some scientific quarter's? I don't think so. Steam Driven: You've dropped a few zeros somewhere in your posting; if a trillion barrels is good for 40 years then 175 billion barrels is only good for 7 years not 400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Time to start building nuclear power plants to completely remove any burning of fossil fuel for electrical production, provide cleaner air and a cheap source of electricity to produce hydrogen for fuel cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Steam Driven: You've dropped a few zeros somewhere in your posting; if a trillion barrels is good for 40 years then 175 billion barrels is only good for 7 years not 400. At current production levels - about 1.2 million barrels a day - it would take 400 years to deplete reserves. If we only had the tar sands you would be correct assuming production could ramped up to meet demand. Highly unlikely... Even if production were to DOUBLE it would last 200 years. At the current production the quote stands... There are still large untapped reserves of oil in the north east of B.C and off shore. Renewed exploration of the Beaufort Sea/Alaska are alternatives as well. Those added to the tar sands which are conservatively estimated at 175 billion barrels add up to a lot of years of oil left... Canada is the #2 player in the oil reserve game second only to Saudi Arabia when one includes the oil sands... Back in 1978 it cost $20 a barrel to produce the oil in the tar sands. With the new technology SAGD or steam-assisted gravity drilling the price of production is dropping, economies of scale are being realized and with $50 a barrel oil, profits are being made resulting in more investment in the oil sands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Steam Driven: You're still missing the point - the Tar Sands could last 400 years only because we are only using 1.2 million barrels a day. If the other trillion is going to be gone in forty years I think it's a bit misleading to suggest that the tar sands have a 400 year life expectancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest YOW Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Dagger, Any thoughts on "shale oil"? I have read that there could be as much as 3 trillion barrels (or 1 trillion more than we EVER had of light-sweet crude) in the continental US ... they just have to figure out how to get it out efficiently. YOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazionic Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Here's a pretty good article that I posted on the AME forum a few weeks ago. http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?showtopic=192947 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 The point being, Seeker, is that we have quite a large supply here in Canada. The 400 year timeframe is used to illustrate, quantify if you will, the amount of oil in the tar sands. If we were to double our use of oil worldwide it would be gone in 20 years would it not? If we cut it in half it would last 80... The point that I'm trying to make is that we will not run out of oil tomorrow. There are large deposits that are just being exploited and others yet to be tapped. While I find a lot of the "science" to be scare-mongering I believe it will take a little bit of terror journalism to get the public to realize that the days of $20 a barrel oil will not return... Are we going to be driving H2 powered cars in the near term? I doubt it very much. The most efficient way to produce Hydrogen is using Natural Gas... From the depleting reserves. Electricity is the next best way, but you burn more energy in fossil fuel to generate the H2 than the energy "created" in the H2... Nuclear power would seem to be the way to go, but that is a non-starter in many jurisdictions... Lot's of problems, and lot's of ways for smart minds to make a buck or two solving them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Getting back to Mitch's post and where aviation will go if the oil runs out - Biodiesel is an alternative that has been making great progress of late. Still some problems but work is being done... As for vehicles, again biodiesel is an alternative that is looking more and more likely. I've posted a website before for Mitch, here it is again... Greasecar There was an episode of TRUCKS! on Spike that had Stacey make Biodiesel in his garage using used fry oil from a fast food joint. The oil, some lye and the equipment was all that was need to make his Ford F-250 diesel bark down the road and smell like french fries... Tired Of Paying Too Much At The Pump? Become A Refiner -- Make Your Own Bio-diesel Fuel In Your Garage! No Kidding! Episode # 2005-13 Air Dates: Jun. 11, 2005 The price of gasoline and diesel fuel continue to rise and affect our wallets. Well, Stacey decided he'd had enough and this week he shows you how to free your diesel truck from being chained to a station pump. How? By making your own fuel from vegetable oil. Does it work? Well, that's Stacey frying some tires with a tank full! Now you have a reason to hang out at fast food places without getting your waist any thicker! Aviation Market Research Issues The United States Air Force tests and operates planes for hundreds of thousands of miles both within the United States and abroad. Safety and monetary concerns have dictated that these planes must be fueled with a new fuel JP-8. JP-8 replaces Jet A which is an extremely flammable fuel presently used for military aviation. Switching to JP-8 is not an easy task. Military and civilian mechanical engineers have been working nonstop to enable the air force to use JP-8. JP-8, unlike Jet A fuel, has experienced thermal stability problems. Fuel fouling of the ingniters has become the biggest problem for test aircraft. As such, fuel fouling of the ingniters has been identified as the biggest problem confronting the use of the "next generation" aircraft of the United States Air Force. Since JP-8 is not as flammable as Jet A fuel, ignition and lean blow out have been identified as concerns to address when evaluating JP-8 (initial evaluations suggest that these problems are directly linked to the chemical composition of JP-8). Representatives from the United States Air Force have inquired to determine if biodiesel can either reduce or eliminated the issues identified. They are impressed that biodiesel is nontoxic and has a very high flash point of 425 degrees F. They also noted that the oxygen content in the fuel should facilitate its combustion in the jet engine. Due to the inherent properties associated with biodiesel as a fuel for diesel engines, the United States Air Force has indicated their willingness to evaluate biodiesel as a fuel extender/additive for modern air craft. Specifically, thermal stability, fouling and lean blowout tests are recommended for testing with Wright Labs to evaluate Biodiesel as a fuel additive for modern aircraft. Table 4. Anticipated research needs that should be conducted to further the commercialization of biodiesel as a military aviation fuel in the United States. ANTICIPATED AVIATION RESEARCH NEEDS Thermal Stability Injector Fouling Tendencies Lean Blow Out Tendencies Flashpoint Microbial and Biodegradability Tendencies Engine Durability Lubricity =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 The question is where are we going to get all that H2... Airbus H2 Jet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starman Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Canada is positioned perfectly to profit from permanently higher crude oil prices. Let's hope that we can use that springboard to place ourselves in the forefront of emerging technologies that will take over when the age of oil expires. It seems to me that the large fans that power our airliners today are good candidates for electric motors which could be quieter and cleaner as well. The big problem with electric power is the weight of energy storage (ie: batteries). But when you look at bio-diesel/electric or hydrogen/electric designs, the future doesn't look bad at all. It's also possible to transmit energy by microwave and convert it to electric power for use in an engine. Imagine a design with electric motors taking off under its own fuel cell/electric power and then transitioning in cruise to microwave/electric beamed straight to it from a set of geo-sync satellites that get their power from huge solar cell collectors in space. The aircraft could have solar cell film embedded in the topside skin as well to augment the power requirement and keep the customers happy surfing the internet inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.