The End of Oil

[BVC]

Biofuels are not the answer. It sounds like a great idea (lets just GROW our fuel!), however you look at what the recent mass introduction of ethanol has done to corn prices, milk prices, cheese prices and meat prices recently and you will understand why widescale ethanol adoption is not an answer. The problem with ethanol comes down to Do you want to eat, or drive?

Yes oil will be around after we die, however is will be very difficult to get to and VERY expensive.

Pretty much sums it up.  Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are in development or co-development by all the major auto-makers.  By 2030, gasoline will be obsolete.  I wish it would be obsolete by 2008.  BTW, is every major oil-producing country required to be run by a corrupt and unstable regime or what?

[phxcat]

Pretty much sums it up.  Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are in development or co-development by all the major auto-makers.  By 2030, gasoline will be obsolete.  I wish it would be obsolete by 2008.  BTW, is every major oil-producing country required to be run by a corrupt and unstable regime or what?

Yes, this is a requirement of the oil companies.

[Beermo]

Pretty much sums it up.  Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are in development or co-development by all the major auto-makers.  By 2030, gasoline will be obsolete.  I wish it would be obsolete by 2008.  BTW, is every major oil-producing country required to be run by a corrupt and unstable regime or what?

hydrogen is just another fake claim by the auto manufacturers. they've been saying it would be ready and viable in 15 years every year for over 30 years.

[Beermo]

And the power to provide the electricity the cars will use will come from?

coal burning power plants like iatan.

[DaveKCMO]

sssshhh! KCPL calls is "clean coal"! you know, like "dirty soap"!

but seriously... a coal-burning power plant with strict emissions controls powering electric cars would be better than the individual cars each burning their own little stash of fossil fuel we have today. plus, the utility is regulated and can be "enticed" to diversify their energy sources.

[KC0KEK]

hydrogen is just another fake claim by the auto manufacturers.

Actually, the claims have been coming more from folks such as Stan Ovshinsky. He invented NiCds and the battery technology used in every hybrid thus far, and that track record makes me think he has a decent shot at commercializing his hydrogen fuel cells -- provided he can convince automakers.

[Beermo]

Actually, the claims have been coming more from folks such as Stan Ovshinsky. He invented NiCds and the battery technology used in every hybrid thus far, and that track record makes me think he has a decent shot at commercializing his hydrogen fuel cells -- provided he can convince automakers.

wasn't he the guy who came up with some new, improved and much smaller fuel cell batteries that could of been used for an all-electric car. he got bought out by ? and they tossed all of his work.

someone please tell me that i'm not the only person on this board who has seen "who killed the electric car"?

[KC0KEK]

It's this guy: www.ovonic.com.

[K.C.Highrise]

I've seen it. We have the technology for electric cars now, in fact we had the technology 100 years ago. Once oil gets expensive enough, IMO 5 years from now, we will start to switch over. There are some real limiting factors will electric cars though, namely range. That is why I made the statement that it will fundamentaly change the way we live, but don't worry about it go back to living your lives care free.

[KCMax]

wasn't he the guy who came up with some new, improved and much smaller fuel cell batteries that could of been used for an all-electric car. he got bought out by ? and they tossed all of his work.

someone please tell me that i'm not the only person on this board who has seen "who killed the electric car"?

I did. Electricity makes a lot of sense because it seems like the least painful option for consumers and retailers. The range is an issue, but right now they're up to what, 140 miles a plug in? Unless you're taking a road trip, that shouldn't be an issue. And how hard would it to be to have gas stations provide electricity hookups?

[KC0KEK]

And how hard would it to be to have gas stations provide electricity hookups?

It depends on how long a charge takes. If it's longer than the time required to pump a tank of gas -- and I assume it would be -- then the gas stations will have to find room for more cars. If they can't charge (no pun) enough to recover the cost of adding that capacity, then there's not much incentive for them to support electric cars. For them, the worst-case scenario would be owners of gas vehicles getting frustrated by jammed stations and driving to a rival that doesn't have electric vehicles clogging up the area.

[Highlander]

Pretty much sums it up.  Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are in development or co-development by all the major auto-makers.  By 2030, gasoline will be obsolete.  I wish it would be obsolete by 2008.  BTW, is every major oil-producing country required to be run by a corrupt and unstable regime or what?

I do not think many people in this thread are thinking the physics of energy through.  Oil is an extremely efficient energy source; other sources may be more efficient but they are not portable.  It takes very little energy to get it oil out of the ground (although that is changing as oil becomes more scarce) and to further refine it which also makes it cheap.  It is extremely easy to transport which makes it convenient.  The only thing that makes it expensive or potentially obsolete is its relative scarcity.  Hydrogen, on the other hand, does not exist in nature in an energy form, it needs to be converted to a usable form and that process requires a great deal of energy which makes it expensive, and as a fuel, its not easily transported so it just isn't very convenient.  Hydrogen will never replace oil as long as oil remains relatively plentiful and cheap.  Hydrogen is a potential fuel for the future but only because of the lack of availability of alternatives.

Biofuels are also nowhere near as efficient as oil.  They require a great deal of energy to produce and even at 75$/barrel oil, are only commercially propped up by subsidies and environmental policy which favors their use.  These are fuels that must be planted (energy expended), harvested (energy expended), may require irrigation (energy expended), fertilized (energy expended), they have to be collected (energy expended) and refined (energy epended).

The problem with oil, and it should be painfully obvious by now, is that it's supply is finite.  To think American society can shift to other sources of portable fuel without some major disruption in our lives is, frankly, wishful thinking.  The wealth of the western world is based on the relative abundance and inexpensive nature of oil.  The necessary shift towards other portable fuels for our cars, airplanes etc...  is going to be painful simply because the replacements aren't as efficient as oil; they take a great deal of energy to produce so they are required to be more expensive and, hence, a greater part of the GNP including my wealth and your wealth will go towards the production of these less efficient portable fuel sources.  Fuel for cars will be around, no doubt, but it will cost more....more than it does today relative to the percent of one's income.  We can sit around and think wishfully as long as we want but we are always going to be limited by physics regardless of what technology comes up with.  Without the convenience and efficiency of abundant cheap oil, it's pretty hard to see how we are going to be able to maintain the extent of the driving culture we have today.  I'm not predicting doomsday but I would rather see us do something like think big about public transportation then sit around and assume things are always going to be just like the last 50 years.

[phxcat]

I do not think many people in this thread are thinking the physics of energy through.  Oil is an extremely efficient energy source; other sources may be more efficient but they are not portable.  It takes very little energy to get it oil out of the ground (although that is changing as oil becomes more scarce) and to further refine it which also makes it cheap.  It is extremely easy to transport which makes it convenient.  The only thing that makes it expensive or potentially obsolete is its relative scarcity.  Hydrogen, on the other hand, does not exist in nature in an energy form, it needs to be converted to a usable form and that process requires a great deal of energy which makes it expensive, and as a fuel, its not easily transported so it just isn't very convenient.  Hydrogen will never replace oil as long as oil remains relatively plentiful and cheap.  Hydrogen is a potential fuel for the future but only because of the lack of availability of alternatives.

Biofuels are also nowhere near as efficient as oil.  They require a great deal of energy to produce and even at 75$/barrel oil, are only commercially propped up by subsidies and environmental policy which favors their use.  These are fuels that must be planted (energy expended), harvested (energy expended), may require irrigation (energy expended), fertilized (energy expended), they have to be collected (energy expended) and refined (energy epended).

The problem with oil, and it should be painfully obvious by now, is that it's supply is finite.  To think American society can shift to other sources of portable fuel without some major disruption in our lives is, frankly, wishful thinking.  The wealth of the western world is based on the relative abundance and inexpensive nature of oil.  The necessary shift towards other portable fuels for our cars, airplanes etc...  is going to be painful simply because the replacements aren't as efficient as oil; they take a great deal of energy to produce so they are required to be more expensive and, hence, a greater part of the GNP including my wealth and your wealth will go towards the production of these less efficient portable fuel sources.  Fuel for cars will be around, no doubt, but it will cost more....more than it does today relative to the percent of one's income.  We can sit around and think wishfully as long as we want but we are always going to be limited by physics regardless of what technology comes up with.  Without the convenience and efficiency of abundant cheap oil, it's pretty hard to see how we are going to be able to maintain the extent of the driving culture we have today.  I'm not predicting doomsday but I would rather see us do something like think big about public transportation then sit around and assume things are always going to be just like the last 50 years.

Which is why we need to be working to find alternatives now.  I think that we could get by on other energy sources, but we would probably need a combination of strategies- including possibly plug ins for driving around town (but the energy for electricity would need to come somewhere- which would probably need to be mass production of wind/solar power- which would require energy consumption in order to manufacture the infrastructure and solar cells/turbines).  This would reduce the need for oil, but not eliminate it.  We could increase mass transit, but this would take time, and also energy to implement.  I think that one of the biggest problems with our country is free market worship (besides the fact that we really don't have free market anyway).  We need to look at each individual aspect of society on it's own terms- and if we see that the free market is going to move too slowly to adequately address the issue, we need to find other means to do it.

[BVC]

hydrogen is just another fake claim by the auto manufacturers. they've been saying it would be ready and viable in 15 years every year for over 30 years.

It could be fully implemented now but the freaking excuses are a mile long...  Fuel cell vehicles are running around right now in limited quantities, mostly civic uses.

[BVC]

I do not think many people in this thread are thinking the physics of energy through.  Oil is an extremely efficient energy source; other sources may be more efficient but they are not portable.  It takes very little energy to get it oil out of the ground (although that is changing as oil becomes more scarce) and to further refine it which also makes it cheap.  It is extremely easy to transport which makes it convenient.  The only thing that makes it expensive or potentially obsolete is its relative scarcity.  Hydrogen, on the other hand, does not exist in nature in an energy form, it needs to be converted to a usable form and that process requires a great deal of energy which makes it expensive, and as a fuel, its not easily transported so it just isn't very convenient.  Hydrogen will never replace oil as long as oil remains relatively plentiful and cheap.  Hydrogen is a potential fuel for the future but only because of the lack of availability of alternatives.

Biofuels are also nowhere near as efficient as oil.  They require a great deal of energy to produce and even at 75$/barrel oil, are only commercially propped up by subsidies and environmental policy which favors their use.  These are fuels that must be planted (energy expended), harvested (energy expended), may require irrigation (energy expended), fertilized (energy expended), they have to be collected (energy expended) and refined (energy epended).

The problem with oil, and it should be painfully obvious by now, is that it's supply is finite.  To think American society can shift to other sources of portable fuel without some major disruption in our lives is, frankly, wishful thinking.  The wealth of the western world is based on the relative abundance and inexpensive nature of oil.  The necessary shift towards other portable fuels for our cars, airplanes etc...  is going to be painful simply because the replacements aren't as efficient as oil; they take a great deal of energy to produce so they are required to be more expensive and, hence, a greater part of the GNP including my wealth and your wealth will go towards the production of these less efficient portable fuel sources.  Fuel for cars will be around, no doubt, but it will cost more....more than it does today relative to the percent of one's income.  We can sit around and think wishfully as long as we want but we are always going to be limited by physics regardless of what technology comes up with.  Without the convenience and efficiency of abundant cheap oil, it's pretty hard to see how we are going to be able to maintain the extent of the driving culture we have today.  I'm not predicting doomsday but I would rather see us do something like think big about public transportation then sit around and assume things are always going to be just like the last 50 years.

That is very accurate.  Oil is in use because it is cheap to use, cheap to transport, cheap to extrapolate, very efficient, etc., but has a limited supply and unstable nations/regimes that control vast reserves that will eventually force a true crisis.  Conversely, hydrogen is everywhere but very difficult/expensive to extrapolate except for the fuel cell concept.  Battery technology is what is truly lagging and causing the great difficulty in going electric or to the mass-marketed fuel cell vehicle.  However, for the first time, I think real pressure is on to get energy independence on a Democrat's platform and a Republican's platform.  Most importantly, most big business minds these days are on the "green"/energy independence bandwagon.

Personally, I've been holding out for a cold fusion powered car for a while...  

[Beermo]

why couldn't we just buy a car that ran on nuclear fuel, like navy ships do.

[K.C.Highrise]

Check it out http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.j ... oil110.xml

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2d97d75a-2e0c-1 ... 077.0.html

[nota]

I'm more in favor of development of fuels using waste such as cooking oil or byproducts of other manufacturing or even trash or soda bottles than in using corn or other food crops. Seems like a step in the wrong direction to use a "first use" crop for fuel.

And IMHO, we should use nuclear and wind and solar more for our heating, cooling, electricity powers.

And I'd love to see the Saud family and all their ilk sitting on corners with a tin cup in their hands. Not in my lifetime of course, but it could/should be a goal.

[49r]

why couldn't we just buy a car that ran on nuclear fuel, like navy ships do.

HA!  Could you imagine the traffic reports?

"There's a small nuclear meltdown on the eastbound lanes of the Kennedy Expressway"  LOL!

Fender benders could be potentially tragic.

Drunk driving would become something akin to terrorism.

[kcmetro]

HA!  Could you imagine the traffic reports?

"There's a small nuclear meltdown on the eastbound lanes of the Kennedy Expressway"  LOL!

Fender benders could be potentially tragic.

Drunk driving would become something akin to terrorism.

And cars would do 0-60 in 1/2 a second.