The End of Oil

[grovester]

No CO2 emissions from vehicles?

[bobbyhawks]

How does it not address the concerns of burning fossil fuel?

You are still burning gas, and cheap gas gets burned more than expensive gas.  Until we have completely eliminated natural gas, gasoline/diesel, and coal power, or found a way to harvest 100% of the waste from all of those power sources, there is no such thing as a zero carbon footprint.  Someone along the supply chain is likely burning something to get power to something else.  We should absolutely do what we can to diminish this, though.

The acquisition of the rare earth materials, and the energy consumption required to produce batteries, has a huge environmental impact. Some say more of an impact than running a 25 mpg car for ten years.

First of all, that stat makes no sense as it doesn't equate 1 car to a quantity of batteries or a type of battery technology.  Not all batteries use the same rare earth metals.  This is why we need research and development to find better and less harmful ways to store electricity and also to recycle batteries so that they aren't thrown away.

[shinatoo]

No CO2 emissions from vehicles?

Yes, but when the fuel you are burning takes exactly the same amount of CO2 out of the air to create the fuel, the sum is 0.

[shinatoo]

You are still burning gas, and cheap gas gets burned more than expensive gas.  Until we have completely eliminated natural gas, gasoline/diesel, and coal power, or found a way to harvest 100% of the waste from all of those power sources, there is no such thing as a zero carbon footprint.  Someone along the supply chain is likely burning something to get power to something else.  We should absolutely do what we can to diminish this, though.

the idea of this fuel is that it is so inexpensive and easy to produce that everything in the supply chain would eventually be burning it. Since the fuel takes as much CO2 out of the air when it's made, as when it's burnt, the sum carbon footprint is zero. Better still, if you can make it in your back yard there is no delivery cost. You could power your house and your car and not put any more CO2 into the air than you take out when you create the fuel. That's how bio fuels work. The problem with current domestic bio fuels like corn is that it takes almost as much fuel to grow and deliver the fuel as it produces (currently about 2000 barrels per year per acre).

First of all, that stat makes no sense as it doesn't equate 1 car to a quantity of batteries or a type of battery technology.  Not all batteries use the same rare earth metals.  This is why we need research and development to find better and less harmful ways to store electricity and also to recycle batteries so that they aren't thrown away.

What that study was saying was that the amount of fuel spent to discover and mine the rare earth materials, the amount of energy used (probably from a coal fired power plant) to manufacture the battery and the energy used to charge the battery (also coal fired) releases more CO2 than driving a 25mpg gas powered car 120,000 miles. Plus after 100,000 miles you will have to produce another battery to replace the worn out one. I don't know if the study was legit, i don't know where I read it.

Now can we get back on topic.

[grovester]

Big Energy will quash this so fast you won't be able to find this thread.

[shinatoo]

Big Energy will quash this so fast you won't be able to find this thread.

That was one of the possible outcomes on the Brain Stuff blog. And I agree that big oil burying this is a likely outcome.

[FangKC]

How the hell does one grow algae in Kansas?  Wouldn't it require a lot of water?

And how would one grow algae in one's back yard?

And can we use our rain gardens in algae production?  :P

I still think the future is mostly wind and solar.  The problem is storing the power during down times, and creating batteries that can do that. The batteries require certain earth elements, and will we have enough of those to accomplish this task.

On-site power production is very tempting and logical, since presently we lose about half the power created transmitting it in our out-dated electrical grid.  Basically, about half the carbon that has been put into the atmosphere creating electrical power over our industrial history has not resulted in any net benefit for us. It has come at a great cost.

It's like our outdated water delivery system in Kansas City. I read a few years back somewhere that about half the clean water pumped through the KC water system is lost due to leaks in old infastructure.

This is why the USA needs to get on the ball and reinvest in its' infastructure. Updating the national power grid should be our new Manhattan project.

[shinatoo]

How the hell does one grow algae in Kansas?  Wouldn't it require a lot of water?

And how would one grow algae in one's back yard?

And can we use our rain gardens in algae production?  :P

You have obviously never seen any pool I've ever taken care of. I can grow algae in any weather.

[bobbyhawks]

the idea of this fuel is that it is so inexpensive and easy to produce that everything in the supply chain would eventually be burning it. Since the fuel takes as much CO2 out of the air when it's made, as when it's burnt, the sum carbon footprint is zero. Better still, if you can make it in your back yard there is no delivery cost. You could power your house and your car and not put any more CO2 into the air than you take out when you create the fuel. That's how bio fuels work. The problem with current domestic bio fuels like corn is that it takes almost as much fuel to grow and deliver the fuel as it produces (currently about 2000 barrels per year per acre).

I guess I will believe it when I see it.  It is a little far fetched to think that everyone will have a stinky, ugly pool of algae in their backyard, invest in the devices that harvest energy and the time it takes to turn algae into diesel, then run a combustion engine to produce electricity.  I will also believe zero sum emissions when I see them.  Regardless of how our energy is provided, people want it delivered to them without any hassle.  This is why upgrading our infrastructure is the first most important step.  And even if the pie in the sky of zero sum emissions is eventually possible with this technology, there are many other environmental factors to consider like groundwater contamination, the need for fertilizer, emissions of other gasses from the alge, etc.  I would argue that "zero sum emissions" is just a dream right now.  They would have to take out existing CO2 breathing crops, grasses, etc., to clear space for the algae, and pipelines and tanker trucks would still be needed.  I'm not saying this couldn't be very helpful in our push to energy independence, but it is just a band-aid for now.

[kcmetro]

I don't buy that algae crap either.  It seems there's a lot of intelligent people out there who come up with some nifty inventions, but they apparently don't comprehend the magnitude of oil's influence and its vital role in simply sustaining life on this earth.  These people may be book smart, but they're not very realistic.

[Highlander]

I don't buy that algae crap either.  It seems there's a lot of intelligent people out there who come up with some nifty inventions, but they apparently don't comprehend the magnitude of oil's influence and its vital role in simply sustaining life on this earth.  These people may be book smart, but they're not very realistic.

I am more than a little skeptical.  If it were that easy, it would already be making an impact on the market.  Instead, from what I've read, the market is making the impact on the process; as in it is not close to competing with even 100$/barrel oil.  The author of this paper suggests that production costs for some of the methodologies would require 800$/barrel oil to break even.  http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseStudy.pdf

Oddly enough, most oil that is drilled and produced around the world began as algae and other marine/lacustrine life.  Kinetics are such that pressure, temperature and time (lots of time) have provided the end product far cheaper than we can synthesize it from practically the same organic material...at least for now. 

[phna]

Give me some satirical leeway.

Oil "sustaining life on earth", what a bunch of scat. The only thing it sustains is unsustainable activity, like Lawn mowing. If algae can shit enough to just replace petroleum based Lawn mowing, and the pollution associated with it, why not do it? Natural gas for truck haulers, algae shit for lawn mowers! Given recent gas prices I hope your lawn goes brown for lack of funds to mow it or put a catalytic converter on it. Additionally it would save others the second hand fumes and probably achieve a health benefit as a side effect.

WATER is way more "influential" on sustaining life this Earth than fossil fuels. NASA don't go to mars looking for petroleum do They? The scarcity of H2O as a Life sustaining substance will cause more despotism, conflict, war than any anything else on earth "."  If we had all the oil in ANWR to solve our gas gluttonous habit we would utilize it all to find the last drop of water on earth.

OriginOil Announces Successful First Phase of Commercial Algae-fuel Pilot Program
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:CLNE
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/world ... .html?_r=1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294164/

[kcmetro]

You don't seem to understand oil's influence on our lives.  It drives our entire economy.  If we expect to keep our current way of life going, then we're going to need oil (and I'm not talking about mowing lawns).

If humanity would all agree to go back to living in dense villages, where we all grow our own food and we all walk to our place of employment, then yes, oil becomes less of a necessity.  But I'd like to see you try to get humans to revert back to that way of life without bloodshed.

[phna]

I completely understand that oil has provided us with the plastic bottles that fill our landfills after we drink the water in them.

[aknowledgeableperson]

End of oil?????????????????????????????

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110331/bs ... ntresearch

At a time when companies are redoubling their efforts to find alternative energy sources, the idea is to reproduce and speed up a process which has taken millions of years and which has led to the production of fossil fuels.

"We are trying to simulate the conditions which existed millions of years ago, when the phytoplankton was transformed into oil," said engineer Eloy Chapuli. "In this way, we obtain oil that is the same as oil today."

The microalgae reproduces at high speed in the tubes by photosynthesis and from the CO2 released from the cement factory.

Every day some of this highly concentrated liquid is extracted and filtered to produce a biomass that is turned into bio-oil.

The other great advantage of the system is that it is a depollutant -- it absorbs the C02 which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.

"It's ecological oil," said the founder and chairman of BFS, French engineer Bernard Stroiazzo-Mougin, who worked in oil fields in the Middle East before coming to Spain.

"We need another five to 10 years before industrial production can start," said Stroiazzo-Mougin, who hopes to be able to develop another such project on the Portuguese island of Madeira.

[NDTeve]

Anybody read any of the apocalyptic books about the end of oil? Love the genre and have noticed many on Shelfari and Amazon.com ....Scary stuff. 

[Highlander]

Anybody read any of the apocalyptic books about the end of oil? Love the genre and have noticed many on Shelfari and Amazon.com ....Scary stuff. 

I've read the Last Oil Shock and The End of Oil by Strahan and Roberts respectively with the latter being the better of the two books (although it is becoming dated). 

I just read this article yesterday, and while I cannot vouche for casinos, cell phones or health care providers, his ideas regarding the future of petroleum and the impact on alternative energy are absurd.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ti ... 53034.html

For gas prices to drop to 1$ per gallon, the price of crude oil would have to fall dramatically.  The idea that shale oil/gas will counter depletion of convention oil sources and have a depressing impact on price is totally flawed.  Unconventional oil and gas is available now because the crude oil price is 100$ barrel; they simply are not economically feasible at low crude or natural gas prices.  If there ever was enough oil coming on stream from these sources to impact price, then drilling would dry up.  Unconventional oil and gas is from induced fractures in impermeable rock.  Production declines rapidly so the overall production per well is relatively small and it takes an intense steady drilling program to keep production at a steady rate.  If low prices make unconventional oil/gas marginal, the production will drop rapidly...it's not like we are finding years of high volume supply per field development.

On the other hand, as costly as unconventional oil/gas is, it certainly is more economically feasible than any alternative energy.  Even at 100$/barrel, alternative energy must be heavily subsidized to compete and there still is no replacement for transportation fuel other than the limitations of the electric car so the author isn't totally wrong.

[shinatoo]

I've read the Last Oil Shock and The End of Oil by Strahan and Roberts respectively with the latter being the better of the two books (although it is becoming dated). 

I just read this article yesterday, and while I cannot vouche for casinos, cell phones or health care providers, his ideas regarding the future of petroleum and the impact on alternative energy are absurd.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ti ... 53034.html

For gas prices to drop to 1$ per gallon, the price of crude oil would have to fall dramatically.  The idea that shale oil/gas will counter depletion of convention oil sources and have a depressing impact on price is totally flawed.  Unconventional oil and gas is available now because the crude oil price is 100$ barrel; they simply are not economically feasible at low crude or natural gas prices.  If there ever was enough oil coming on stream from these sources to impact price, then drilling would dry up.  Unconventional oil and gas is from induced fractures in impermeable rock.  Production declines rapidly so the overall production per well is relatively small and it takes an intense steady drilling program to keep production at a steady rate.  If low prices make unconventional oil/gas marginal, the production will drop rapidly...it's not like we are finding years of high volume supply per field development.

On the other hand, as costly as unconventional oil/gas is, it certainly is more economically feasible than any alternative energy.  Even at 100$/barrel, alternative energy must be heavily subsidized to compete and there still is no replacement for transportation fuel other than the limitations of the electric car so the author isn't totally wrong.

Did someone beat him up and take his lunch money on the way to the studio? He looks like 6 miles of bad road. Also, he's an idiot.

[aknowledgeableperson]

From an internet newsletter I received.

When was the last time you heard someone talk about the demand for gasoline in the United States falling off the proverbial cliff? Chances are you haven't heard it. It doesn't fit the narrative that the economy is improving and that things are getting better...if slowly? Ben Bernanke just this week addressed the optimism about the economy with caution, saying that things may not necessarily be as they seem. He is still concerned about Deflation, rather than Inflation for the next two years at least. Why else would he keep interest rates at near zero through the end of 2014? Certainly not because he thinks the economy is roaring back.


So let’s get to the point of this article; gasoline deliveries. This is an important indicator, I believe, of economic activity or the lack thereof. Gasoline is delivered, for the most part, on a "just-in-time" basis which means that by the time the tanker truck pulls into the gas station's lot to fill their underground tanks; those tanks are nearly empty. There is not a lot of excess storage capacity at the typical gas station. What we have seen in the past is that daily deliveries increase with increased economic activity, and tend to fall in reaction to, or because of, reduced economic activity.


According to data from the US Energy Information Agency, since the early 1980's daily gasoline deliveries have been well north of 50 million gallons. In fact, from November of 1983 to November of 1984, as the US emerged from the deepest "postwar" recession then on record, daily gasoline deliveries climbed from 50.1 million gallons per day to 58 million gallons per day. That began a steady march of daily delivery increases that peaked in July of 1998 at 67.1 million gallons per day. There was a dip in deliveries during the '01-'02 recession that bounced back up to 66.8 million gallons per day by August of 2003.


Going into 2007, deliveries were averaging between 55 million and 61 million gallons per day. In July of 2008 daily deliveries were at 54.8 million gallons, and by July of 2011 that number had fallen all the way to 42.4 million gallons. That's a 21% decline in daily deliveries in 3 years. By November of 2011, that number had completely tanked, and hit 30.9 million gallons per day. Another stunning 27% drop in 4 months. From the peak in daily deliveries to the November 2011 current low, we have seen an unprecedented 53.9% drop in the amount of daily gasoline deliveries. That's hard to imagine, and flies in the face of what we're being told is happening in our economy. How in the world can we be seeing all this "good" economic news, and at the same time be using 53.9% less gasoline than we were in 1998?

...

This can also be traced in the number of miles driven on all roads in the United States, which is now in decline, and is already back at 1998 levels. To understand this phenomenon, consider the "soccer mom" who was busily running her kids back and forth to and from every activity known to man on a daily basis. Well, her numbers are now in decline, and she's not doing the running around she once was. The family vacations that were a part of their life each year, where they packed the kids into the car and headed to their favorite destinations are a thing of the past. Today they jump on a plane instead, and fly to see their kids wherever they may have landed once they left the nest. An interesting fact--according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2000 we used an average 1.7 gallons of gas, per person, per day. By December of 2011 we were using less than .9 gallons of gas, per person, per day. This supports the EIA data, and the miles driven data too.

[Highlander]

From an internet newsletter I received.

When was the last time you heard someone talk about the demand for gasoline in the United States falling off the proverbial cliff? Chances are you haven't heard it. It doesn't fit the narrative that the economy is improving and that things are getting better...if slowly? Ben Bernanke just this week addressed the optimism about the economy with caution, saying that things may not necessarily be as they seem. He is still concerned about Deflation, rather than Inflation for the next two years at least. Why else would he keep interest rates at near zero through the end of 2014? Certainly not because he thinks the economy is roaring back.


So let’s get to the point of this article; gasoline deliveries. This is an important indicator, I believe, of economic activity or the lack thereof. Gasoline is delivered, for the most part, on a "just-in-time" basis which means that by the time the tanker truck pulls into the gas station's lot to fill their underground tanks; those tanks are nearly empty. There is not a lot of excess storage capacity at the typical gas station. What we have seen in the past is that daily deliveries increase with increased economic activity, and tend to fall in reaction to, or because of, reduced economic activity.


According to data from the US Energy Information Agency, since the early 1980's daily gasoline deliveries have been well north of 50 million gallons. In fact, from November of 1983 to November of 1984, as the US emerged from the deepest "postwar" recession then on record, daily gasoline deliveries climbed from 50.1 million gallons per day to 58 million gallons per day. That began a steady march of daily delivery increases that peaked in July of 1998 at 67.1 million gallons per day. There was a dip in deliveries during the '01-'02 recession that bounced back up to 66.8 million gallons per day by August of 2003.


Going into 2007, deliveries were averaging between 55 million and 61 million gallons per day. In July of 2008 daily deliveries were at 54.8 million gallons, and by July of 2011 that number had fallen all the way to 42.4 million gallons. That's a 21% decline in daily deliveries in 3 years. By November of 2011, that number had completely tanked, and hit 30.9 million gallons per day. Another stunning 27% drop in 4 months. From the peak in daily deliveries to the November 2011 current low, we have seen an unprecedented 53.9% drop in the amount of daily gasoline deliveries. That's hard to imagine, and flies in the face of what we're being told is happening in our economy. How in the world can we be seeing all this "good" economic news, and at the same time be using 53.9% less gasoline than we were in 1998?

...

This can also be traced in the number of miles driven on all roads in the United States, which is now in decline, and is already back at 1998 levels. To understand this phenomenon, consider the "soccer mom" who was busily running her kids back and forth to and from every activity known to man on a daily basis. Well, her numbers are now in decline, and she's not doing the running around she once was. The family vacations that were a part of their life each year, where they packed the kids into the car and headed to their favorite destinations are a thing of the past. Today they jump on a plane instead, and fly to see their kids wherever they may have landed once they left the nest. An interesting fact--according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2000 we used an average 1.7 gallons of gas, per person, per day. By December of 2011 we were using less than .9 gallons of gas, per person, per day. This supports the EIA data, and the miles driven data too.

From an internet newsletter I received.

When was the last time you heard someone talk about the demand for gasoline in the United States falling off the proverbial cliff? Chances are you haven't heard it. It doesn't fit the narrative that the economy is improving and that things are getting better...if slowly? Ben Bernanke just this week addressed the optimism about the economy with caution, saying that things may not necessarily be as they seem. He is still concerned about Deflation, rather than Inflation for the next two years at least. Why else would he keep interest rates at near zero through the end of 2014? Certainly not because he thinks the economy is roaring back.


So let’s get to the point of this article; gasoline deliveries. This is an important indicator, I believe, of economic activity or the lack thereof. Gasoline is delivered, for the most part, on a "just-in-time" basis which means that by the time the tanker truck pulls into the gas station's lot to fill their underground tanks; those tanks are nearly empty. There is not a lot of excess storage capacity at the typical gas station. What we have seen in the past is that daily deliveries increase with increased economic activity, and tend to fall in reaction to, or because of, reduced economic activity.


According to data from the US Energy Information Agency, since the early 1980's daily gasoline deliveries have been well north of 50 million gallons. In fact, from November of 1983 to November of 1984, as the US emerged from the deepest "postwar" recession then on record, daily gasoline deliveries climbed from 50.1 million gallons per day to 58 million gallons per day. That began a steady march of daily delivery increases that peaked in July of 1998 at 67.1 million gallons per day. There was a dip in deliveries during the '01-'02 recession that bounced back up to 66.8 million gallons per day by August of 2003.


Going into 2007, deliveries were averaging between 55 million and 61 million gallons per day. In July of 2008 daily deliveries were at 54.8 million gallons, and by July of 2011 that number had fallen all the way to 42.4 million gallons. That's a 21% decline in daily deliveries in 3 years. By November of 2011, that number had completely tanked, and hit 30.9 million gallons per day. Another stunning 27% drop in 4 months. From the peak in daily deliveries to the November 2011 current low, we have seen an unprecedented 53.9% drop in the amount of daily gasoline deliveries. That's hard to imagine, and flies in the face of what we're being told is happening in our economy. How in the world can we be seeing all this "good" economic news, and at the same time be using 53.9% less gasoline than we were in 1998?

...

This can also be traced in the number of miles driven on all roads in the United States, which is now in decline, and is already back at 1998 levels. To understand this phenomenon, consider the "soccer mom" who was busily running her kids back and forth to and from every activity known to man on a daily basis. Well, her numbers are now in decline, and she's not doing the running around she once was. The family vacations that were a part of their life each year, where they packed the kids into the car and headed to their favorite destinations are a thing of the past. Today they jump on a plane instead, and fly to see their kids wherever they may have landed once they left the nest. An interesting fact--according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2000 we used an average 1.7 gallons of gas, per person, per day. By December of 2011 we were using less than .9 gallons of gas, per person, per day. This supports the EIA data, and the miles driven data too.

Not sure what your point is. US gasoline demand has probably peaked but we still a disproportionate share of the world's fossil fuel supply and worldwide demand is at an all time high and growing.