xyz
11-25-05, 07:17 PM
Do you think peak oil is going to be the beginning of the end for the car culture?
View Full Version : Cars and Peak Oil...
Roody
11-25-05, 07:24 PM
No.
pedex
11-25-05, 07:51 PM
first casualty will be air travel
Thor29
11-25-05, 10:09 PM
Yes.
Car culture is unsustainable. Biodiesel won't save it. Hydrogen won't save it. Nuclear power (electric cars) won't save it. And hybrids definitely aren't going to do it.
Car culture is unsustainable. Biodiesel won't save it. Hydrogen won't save it. Nuclear power (electric cars) won't save it. And hybrids definitely aren't going to do it.
lilHinault
11-26-05, 02:31 AM
Yes.
But we'll see mules/horses/the poor masses being used to pull the cars of the rich for a while.....
But we'll see mules/horses/the poor masses being used to pull the cars of the rich for a while.....
lilHinault
11-26-05, 02:33 AM
Will peak oil mean cars are unsustainable?
lilHinault
11-26-05, 02:34 AM
Blah that's not easy to do....
humancongereel
11-26-05, 02:46 AM
No. We see how attached people are to those four-wheeled prisons all the time, do you thnink that because they can no longer fuel them as they have been, they'll simply give up? things might be hectic for a while with finding something new (hydrogen's a pretty easy conversion, i'm told, for example), but most people will gravitate towards whatever new car is there as soon as it's available.
Death of car culture? nah, maybe death of gasoline, blah blah blah, but not car culture. it's a culture, and the majority one at that. it'll be tough to make that ******* die.
Death of car culture? nah, maybe death of gasoline, blah blah blah, but not car culture. it's a culture, and the majority one at that. it'll be tough to make that ******* die.
natelutkjohn
11-26-05, 05:55 AM
Maybe so, it all depends if they find a better sustainable way to run them.
New2Cycling
11-26-05, 07:21 AM
I think many Americans are so obsessed with the car that it (the automobile) won't go away. It's unfortunate. I'm actually thinking of getting the oil age poster and hanging it in the employee lounge.
cooker
11-26-05, 10:33 AM
do you think that because they can no longer fuel them as they have been, they'll simply give up? things might be hectic for a while with finding something new (hydrogen's a pretty easy conversion, i'm told, for example).
Hydrogen has to be produced using energy, which has to come from somewhere. Right now, hydrogen is produced using fossil fuel energy. It won't be so easy when there's hardly any fossil fuel left.
Hydrogen has to be produced using energy, which has to come from somewhere. Right now, hydrogen is produced using fossil fuel energy. It won't be so easy when there's hardly any fossil fuel left.
Brad M
11-26-05, 01:20 PM
I certainly hope so.
BeTheChange
11-26-05, 02:13 PM
The personal automobile will probably be much less used as more efficient forms of public transportation must take hold without cheap energy. Where using trucks and whatnot is the most efficient way to move things that is where there will still be autos I'm guessing. I doubt we will ever see absolutely no cars in our lifetime. I'm with Brad M though, I hope they get phased out so our species (or any species for that matter) can live here in 500 years.
becnal
11-26-05, 05:13 PM
What oil age poster?
linux_author
11-26-05, 05:38 PM
- there is no such thing as peak oil for us... the U.S. has, unlike some other continents, unlimited resources and a conducive environment and climate in which to mine or create fuel for internal combustion engines: coal, ethanol, vegetable, and so on...
- until the advent of some next 'age,' which i would guess would be the Age of Energy (upon some revolutionary discovery or development of inexpensive, non-polluting source of fuel), the U.S. will continue to use automobiles, which will remain essential for individual long-distance travel...
- the disconnect of liberal (and European) thought concerning American use of energy is the failure to recognize that there is an ingrained sense of 'individualism' in our culture... are there people who live their lives without driving, an automobile, or a driving license in the U.S.? certainly! but those people are way out of the mainstream...
- can bicycles and mass transit work? of course! but there has to be an incentive... in U.S. urban areas, mass transit is implemented when people-moving is more efficient via mass transit AND there is a lack of parking and other facilities for vehicular movement... (e.g. Boston vs. DC, NOT Tampa vs Atlanta)...
- there is no way our economy could move to mass transit or car-free travel in the next 10-, 20-, or 30-year time frame...
- moving back towards the horse or other beasts of burden brings up other problems...
(although i do like steak tartar [the equine version] like our European brethren; i prefer mine on thin pumpernickel w/chopped onion and lots of salt and pepper; btw, the U.S. is the biggest export of horsemeat to Europe, IIRC)
:-)
- until the advent of some next 'age,' which i would guess would be the Age of Energy (upon some revolutionary discovery or development of inexpensive, non-polluting source of fuel), the U.S. will continue to use automobiles, which will remain essential for individual long-distance travel...
- the disconnect of liberal (and European) thought concerning American use of energy is the failure to recognize that there is an ingrained sense of 'individualism' in our culture... are there people who live their lives without driving, an automobile, or a driving license in the U.S.? certainly! but those people are way out of the mainstream...
- can bicycles and mass transit work? of course! but there has to be an incentive... in U.S. urban areas, mass transit is implemented when people-moving is more efficient via mass transit AND there is a lack of parking and other facilities for vehicular movement... (e.g. Boston vs. DC, NOT Tampa vs Atlanta)...
- there is no way our economy could move to mass transit or car-free travel in the next 10-, 20-, or 30-year time frame...
- moving back towards the horse or other beasts of burden brings up other problems...
(although i do like steak tartar [the equine version] like our European brethren; i prefer mine on thin pumpernickel w/chopped onion and lots of salt and pepper; btw, the U.S. is the biggest export of horsemeat to Europe, IIRC)
:-)
KrisPistofferson
11-26-05, 05:49 PM
- there is no such thing as peak oil for us... the U.S. has, unlike some other continents, unlimited resources and a conducive environment and climate in which to mine or create fuel for internal combustion engines: coal, ethanol, vegetable, and so on...
- until the advent of some next 'age,' which i would guess would be the Age of Energy (upon some revolutionary discovery or development of inexpensive, non-polluting source of fuel), the U.S. will continue to use automobiles, which will remain essential for individual long-distance travel...
- the disconnect of liberal (and European) thought concerning American use of energy is the failure to recognize that there is an ingrained sense of 'individualism' in our culture... are there people who live their lives without driving, an automobile, or a driving license in the U.S.? certainly! but those people are way out of the mainstream...
- can bicycles and mass transit work? of course! but there has to be an incentive... in U.S. urban areas, mass transit is implemented when people-moving is more efficient via mass transit AND there is a lack of parking and other facilities for vehicular movement... (e.g. Boston vs. DC, NOT Tampa vs Atlanta)...
- there is no way our economy could move to mass transit or car-free travel in the next 10-, 20-, or 30-year time frame...
- moving back towards the horse or other beasts of burden brings up other problems...
(although i do like steak tartar [the equine version] like our European brethren; i prefer mine on thin pumpernickel w/chopped onion and lots of salt and pepper; btw, the U.S. is the biggest export of horsemeat to Europe, IIRC)
:-)
Was that a joke?
Anyway, I think peak oil will make automobile "culture" unsustainable to the extent we have it now. Fat cats will be driving in gas-guzzlers for the foreseeable future, but the days when even the super-impoverished were able to afford an automobile are already gone. I don't really foresee a Mad Max-style society coming, unless some other more abrupt disaster befalls us. It will, I think, happen slowly enough for people to adapt to it, if a little begrudgingly.
- until the advent of some next 'age,' which i would guess would be the Age of Energy (upon some revolutionary discovery or development of inexpensive, non-polluting source of fuel), the U.S. will continue to use automobiles, which will remain essential for individual long-distance travel...
- the disconnect of liberal (and European) thought concerning American use of energy is the failure to recognize that there is an ingrained sense of 'individualism' in our culture... are there people who live their lives without driving, an automobile, or a driving license in the U.S.? certainly! but those people are way out of the mainstream...
- can bicycles and mass transit work? of course! but there has to be an incentive... in U.S. urban areas, mass transit is implemented when people-moving is more efficient via mass transit AND there is a lack of parking and other facilities for vehicular movement... (e.g. Boston vs. DC, NOT Tampa vs Atlanta)...
- there is no way our economy could move to mass transit or car-free travel in the next 10-, 20-, or 30-year time frame...
- moving back towards the horse or other beasts of burden brings up other problems...
(although i do like steak tartar [the equine version] like our European brethren; i prefer mine on thin pumpernickel w/chopped onion and lots of salt and pepper; btw, the U.S. is the biggest export of horsemeat to Europe, IIRC)
:-)
Was that a joke?
Anyway, I think peak oil will make automobile "culture" unsustainable to the extent we have it now. Fat cats will be driving in gas-guzzlers for the foreseeable future, but the days when even the super-impoverished were able to afford an automobile are already gone. I don't really foresee a Mad Max-style society coming, unless some other more abrupt disaster befalls us. It will, I think, happen slowly enough for people to adapt to it, if a little begrudgingly.
cooker
11-26-05, 06:02 PM
- there is no such thing as peak oil for us... the U.S. has, unlike some other continents, unlimited resources and a conducive environment and climate in which to mine or create fuel for internal combustion engines: coal, ethanol, vegetable, and so on...
:-)
Create fuel for internal combustion???? Just how do you create fuel? The ethanol you mentions comes from agriculture, which at the moment is heavily dependent on petrochemical fertilizer and mechanized equipment. With less and less oil, agriculture will become less productive, and when it comes down to a choice of fuel or food, which one will Americans pick?
:-)
Create fuel for internal combustion???? Just how do you create fuel? The ethanol you mentions comes from agriculture, which at the moment is heavily dependent on petrochemical fertilizer and mechanized equipment. With less and less oil, agriculture will become less productive, and when it comes down to a choice of fuel or food, which one will Americans pick?
pedex
11-26-05, 06:03 PM
- there is no such thing as peak oil for us... the U.S. has, unlike some other continents, unlimited resources and a conducive environment and climate in which to mine or create fuel for internal combustion engines: coal, ethanol, vegetable, and so on...
- until the advent of some next 'age,' which i would guess would be the Age of Energy (upon some revolutionary discovery or development of inexpensive, non-polluting source of fuel), the U.S. will continue to use automobiles, which will remain essential for individual long-distance travel...
- the disconnect of liberal (and European) thought concerning American use of energy is the failure to recognize that there is an ingrained sense of 'individualism' in our culture... are there people who live their lives without driving, an automobile, or a driving license in the U.S.? certainly! but those people are way out of the mainstream...
- can bicycles and mass transit work? of course! but there has to be an incentive... in U.S. urban areas, mass transit is implemented when people-moving is more efficient via mass transit AND there is a lack of parking and other facilities for vehicular movement... (e.g. Boston vs. DC, NOT Tampa vs Atlanta)...
- there is no way our economy could move to mass transit or car-free travel in the next 10-, 20-, or 30-year time frame...
- moving back towards the horse or other beasts of burden brings up other problems...
(although i do like steak tartar [the equine version] like our European brethren; i prefer mine on thin pumpernickel w/chopped onion and lots of salt and pepper; btw, the U.S. is the biggest export of horsemeat to Europe, IIRC)
:-)
peak oil for the US itself happened 30 years ago, production has been declining steadily ever since
unlimited resources? Not hardly
if the US were to switch to coal only and not make any changes in consumption and continue to increase consumption at current rates, coal would be gone in under 60 years
current replacement fuels are not even close to being capable of meeting current needs even if you could snap your fingers and make it happen now all at once
the economy is gonna suffer, its inevitable, unlimited growth is based on unlimited resources which nobody possesses
US economy is tied directly to energy, energy represents money for all practical purposes, once world oil production peaks which is likely right about now, energy costs will start climbing fairly rapidly, our easy motoring society wont be able to cope, it isnt set up for this, neither is our economy
looking at alternative fuels:
ethanol using corn is a net loss, the ROI is negative
biodiesel.......net gain but impossible to grow enough feedstock to even produce 1/2 of the fuel being used today
hydrogen........current tech means using natural gas or lots of electricity and water
tar sands or shale oil........also uses natural gas in huge quantities
bottom line, unless really big changes are made, we are in for a bumpy ride
- until the advent of some next 'age,' which i would guess would be the Age of Energy (upon some revolutionary discovery or development of inexpensive, non-polluting source of fuel), the U.S. will continue to use automobiles, which will remain essential for individual long-distance travel...
- the disconnect of liberal (and European) thought concerning American use of energy is the failure to recognize that there is an ingrained sense of 'individualism' in our culture... are there people who live their lives without driving, an automobile, or a driving license in the U.S.? certainly! but those people are way out of the mainstream...
- can bicycles and mass transit work? of course! but there has to be an incentive... in U.S. urban areas, mass transit is implemented when people-moving is more efficient via mass transit AND there is a lack of parking and other facilities for vehicular movement... (e.g. Boston vs. DC, NOT Tampa vs Atlanta)...
- there is no way our economy could move to mass transit or car-free travel in the next 10-, 20-, or 30-year time frame...
- moving back towards the horse or other beasts of burden brings up other problems...
(although i do like steak tartar [the equine version] like our European brethren; i prefer mine on thin pumpernickel w/chopped onion and lots of salt and pepper; btw, the U.S. is the biggest export of horsemeat to Europe, IIRC)
:-)
peak oil for the US itself happened 30 years ago, production has been declining steadily ever since
unlimited resources? Not hardly
if the US were to switch to coal only and not make any changes in consumption and continue to increase consumption at current rates, coal would be gone in under 60 years
current replacement fuels are not even close to being capable of meeting current needs even if you could snap your fingers and make it happen now all at once
the economy is gonna suffer, its inevitable, unlimited growth is based on unlimited resources which nobody possesses
US economy is tied directly to energy, energy represents money for all practical purposes, once world oil production peaks which is likely right about now, energy costs will start climbing fairly rapidly, our easy motoring society wont be able to cope, it isnt set up for this, neither is our economy
looking at alternative fuels:
ethanol using corn is a net loss, the ROI is negative
biodiesel.......net gain but impossible to grow enough feedstock to even produce 1/2 of the fuel being used today
hydrogen........current tech means using natural gas or lots of electricity and water
tar sands or shale oil........also uses natural gas in huge quantities
bottom line, unless really big changes are made, we are in for a bumpy ride
humancongereel
11-26-05, 09:39 PM
to my knowledge, all that's necessary to separate the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen in water is an elctrical current, which could be as easily from a battery, a solar panel, etc, as a fossil fuel source.
now, in bush's proposal to develop hydrogen, you won't find any of that, just ways to use oil to make hydrogen to replace oil...the man amazes me. how does he get people to buy into what he says? when he's not saying something stupid, he's telling a lie.
now, in bush's proposal to develop hydrogen, you won't find any of that, just ways to use oil to make hydrogen to replace oil...the man amazes me. how does he get people to buy into what he says? when he's not saying something stupid, he's telling a lie.
xyz
11-26-05, 10:35 PM
to my knowledge, all that's necessary to separate the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen in water is an elctrical current, which could be as easily from a battery, a solar panel, etc, as a fossil fuel source.
now, in bush's proposal to develop hydrogen, you won't find any of that, just ways to use oil to make hydrogen to replace oil...the man amazes me. how does he get people to buy into what he says? when he's not saying something stupid, he's telling a lie.
What proposal is that? I have heard him speak of solar and wind power before. The problem is that these methods will not be enough by a longshot. Anyway, the plan is to use coal, not oil, to produce hydrogen. If congress will allow any new coal plants to be built, that is.
now, in bush's proposal to develop hydrogen, you won't find any of that, just ways to use oil to make hydrogen to replace oil...the man amazes me. how does he get people to buy into what he says? when he's not saying something stupid, he's telling a lie.
What proposal is that? I have heard him speak of solar and wind power before. The problem is that these methods will not be enough by a longshot. Anyway, the plan is to use coal, not oil, to produce hydrogen. If congress will allow any new coal plants to be built, that is.
humancongereel
11-26-05, 11:32 PM
What proposal is that? I have heard him speak of solar and wind power before. The problem is that these methods will not be enough by a longshot. Anyway, the plan is to use coal, not oil, to produce hydrogen. If congress will allow any new coal plants to be built, that is.
hm, it's been a while since it was in the news much, so i'm speaking from memory there. not always the wisest thing with a mind like mine. you may be right, but i remember distinctly the mention of oil being used in the creation of hydrogen energy.
hm, it's been a while since it was in the news much, so i'm speaking from memory there. not always the wisest thing with a mind like mine. you may be right, but i remember distinctly the mention of oil being used in the creation of hydrogen energy.
yangmusa
11-27-05, 04:43 AM
- there is no such thing as peak oil for us... the U.S. has, unlike some other continents, unlimited resources
Dream on! The USA had peak oil production in the early 1970's, and it's been declining ever since. Are you not aware that the USA imports almost 60% of the oil it currently uses? Consumption is growing by several %/year, at an increasing rate. Now maybe you understand the real motivation for W to invade a certain oil rich country...
Dream on! The USA had peak oil production in the early 1970's, and it's been declining ever since. Are you not aware that the USA imports almost 60% of the oil it currently uses? Consumption is growing by several %/year, at an increasing rate. Now maybe you understand the real motivation for W to invade a certain oil rich country...
BeTheChange
11-27-05, 07:58 AM
linux_author I am currently working in a biochemistry lab at my university. The new biochemistry professor used to work at a company called novozymes who's work was to create enzymes for industrial ethanol manufacturing. Although it sounds good, right now you only get 1.23 times the energy out that you put in to make the ethanol. Now if someone comes up with an enzyme that can quickly break down cellulose we could make ethanol from all sorts of fibers and wood products. This may help but you have to realize that biodiesel and ethanol are coming from food sources right now. Cooker is right, if we have to choose between food and driving I think most sane people will pick food. All of the nitrogen fertilizers we use come from the haber bosch process wich fixes atmospheric nitrogen with the help of emense pressure in heat which requires a great deal of energy. And where do we get that energy from? And the survey says... fossil fuels!
I wish people wouldn't just rely on us scientists to fix all of their problems so they can go on living without having to make any moral decisions that may make their lives harder. We didn't learn much from the 72 American oil production peak and we didn't invest much at all trying to find new sources of energy. So we are pretty much starting now when it is getting very late. Hopefully most of us are wrong and we will find an environmentally friendly energy solution that will keep everyone alive and happy. But from someone who is going into the alternative energy field it's not looking too bright as of yet. (keep your fingers crossed)
I wish people wouldn't just rely on us scientists to fix all of their problems so they can go on living without having to make any moral decisions that may make their lives harder. We didn't learn much from the 72 American oil production peak and we didn't invest much at all trying to find new sources of energy. So we are pretty much starting now when it is getting very late. Hopefully most of us are wrong and we will find an environmentally friendly energy solution that will keep everyone alive and happy. But from someone who is going into the alternative energy field it's not looking too bright as of yet. (keep your fingers crossed)
BeTheChange
11-27-05, 08:11 AM
Why in the hell would it be a good idea to use fossil fuels as an energy source to create hydrogen? Because the carbon polution is happening somewhere else than in the hydrogen car? Energy is going to be lost by changing the energy in fossile fules to the enrgy in hydrogen so it will actually be worse for the environment if we use hydrogen produced with the use of fossile fules.
There are other ways of making hydrogen. Right now scientists are bioengineering photsynthetic bacteria to produce more hydrogen from sunlight energy. I really believe this will be the way to go. But, this is the field I am going into so it would make sense that I think it's great :D. It may seem like it would help get carbon out of the air too because adding photosynthetic organisms that use CO2 take carbon from the air and fix it into sugars. But a new study done in europe has found that there is just more throughput of CO2 through the photosynthetic organism. So if you hear about some company being "carbon neutral" by buying a bunch of plants in the rainforest, they really aren't doing anything for their carbon emissions. To be fair they couldn't have known this since the study if very recent. But, they have done some good by maybe keeping some forest's diversity intact.
When I hear people who don't know about where hydrogen comes from talk about how hydrogen cars will save us I realize that we really are an incredibly scientifically illiterate nation. It's not the people's fault though, it is the scientists (like me) that don't teach or reach them. Hopefully we can fix this problem because we need strong public support if we are going to solve the energy problem.
There are other ways of making hydrogen. Right now scientists are bioengineering photsynthetic bacteria to produce more hydrogen from sunlight energy. I really believe this will be the way to go. But, this is the field I am going into so it would make sense that I think it's great :D. It may seem like it would help get carbon out of the air too because adding photosynthetic organisms that use CO2 take carbon from the air and fix it into sugars. But a new study done in europe has found that there is just more throughput of CO2 through the photosynthetic organism. So if you hear about some company being "carbon neutral" by buying a bunch of plants in the rainforest, they really aren't doing anything for their carbon emissions. To be fair they couldn't have known this since the study if very recent. But, they have done some good by maybe keeping some forest's diversity intact.
When I hear people who don't know about where hydrogen comes from talk about how hydrogen cars will save us I realize that we really are an incredibly scientifically illiterate nation. It's not the people's fault though, it is the scientists (like me) that don't teach or reach them. Hopefully we can fix this problem because we need strong public support if we are going to solve the energy problem.
New2Cycling
11-27-05, 09:04 AM
What oil age poster?
www.oilposter.org
It's very eye opening to say the least.
www.oilposter.org
It's very eye opening to say the least.
some_guy282
11-27-05, 09:56 AM
This is a copy/paste of a reply of mine to a thread on mtbr.com.
The Hydrogen economy is a chimera. There is no way it will ever exist. As someone else has already pointed out, hydrogen is is not an energy source, it's an energy carrier - you need massive amounts of electricity to make the hydrogen. On top of that, hydrogen fuel cells are a net energy loser. It takes more electricity to make the hydrogen than you get ouf of using it. There are other problems. Currently, the materials used to make hydrogen fuel (fool) cells are very exotic and expensive. Platinum is one of them. If we were to replace every internal combustion engine for automobiles on the planet with hydrogen fuel cells, it would require us to totally exhaust all known platinum reserves on the planet. How would we make more fuel cells for the emerging chinese middle class, and everyone else who wants to drive cars? Making experimental fuel cells in the laboratory is one thing. Producing them on a mass scale is another.
There are other problems that James Howard Kunstler documents in his book The Long Emergency. Hydrogen is a very light element, so it is very difficult to contain. This has a couple of drawbacks. Drawback #1 is that no matter what kind of container you place the stuff in, it will escape through creases relatively quickly. You know those big tankers that bring gasoline to gas stations? They carry 25 tons of gasoline on them. A similar sized truck would only be able to carry half a ton of hydrogen. Because hydrogen is a net energy loser, it problably wouldn't even be worth it to make the trip. The fuel tanker would use more hydrogen making the delivery than it drops off at the station. Using pipelines similar to the ones we use with oil to deliver hydrogen is a possibility, but not likely to happen. Hydrogen is also very corrosive, so we couldn't use the existing natural gas and petroleum pipelines. We would have to build an entirely new pipeline system parallel to the current one, building them out of special materials that are resistent to hydrogen's corrosive effects.
Bottom line? There will be no hydrogen economy. It's all a load of BS that the politicians are giving the people because they don't yet have an answer for what the world will run on after oil and gas are used up, which will be much sooner than you think. They don't have an answer because there isn't one. The economy can't grow forever on a planet of finite resources. In North America natural gas production is already peaking, and projected to be completely depleted by 2020. Oil will also be peaking soon, if it hasn't already.
Peak Oil. Google it.
Is Peak Oil the end of car culture? Abolsutely. It's also the end of the way of life that made car culture develop in the first place: suburban sprawl that requires easy motoring. The Suburbs (Exurbs) that are very far away from cities will be the slums of the future. There is a documentary on Peak Oil called The End of Suburbia. I highly recommend it. You can check out the website here. (http://www.endofsuburbia.com/)
This coming winter may be a real bad one if it gets really cold. If that happens, demand for oil (to be used as heating oil) could easily increase by 2 to 3 million barrels by day. Right now we're running at complete capacity. There isn't any slack in the system. So if demand increases by that much, it will surpass supply. Basic economics, when demand outstrips supply bad things happen to the price. And when you are talking about a commodity with an inelastic demand like oil, VERY bad things happen to the price. Energy investment banker Matt Simons recently said in an interview that if demand for oil outstrips supply this winter, we could easily see the price of oil increase by 5 to 10 times. The same thing happened in the energy crisis of the 70's. Before the arab oil embargo (which created a supply shortfall of 10%), the price of oil was mere pennies. Afterwards it skyrocketed by a hell of a lot more than 5 to 10 times. People were still lining up to buy gasoline. Sure things went back to normal when the embargo ended, but Peak Oil will create a similar situation that will never end.
The Hydrogen economy is a chimera. There is no way it will ever exist. As someone else has already pointed out, hydrogen is is not an energy source, it's an energy carrier - you need massive amounts of electricity to make the hydrogen. On top of that, hydrogen fuel cells are a net energy loser. It takes more electricity to make the hydrogen than you get ouf of using it. There are other problems. Currently, the materials used to make hydrogen fuel (fool) cells are very exotic and expensive. Platinum is one of them. If we were to replace every internal combustion engine for automobiles on the planet with hydrogen fuel cells, it would require us to totally exhaust all known platinum reserves on the planet. How would we make more fuel cells for the emerging chinese middle class, and everyone else who wants to drive cars? Making experimental fuel cells in the laboratory is one thing. Producing them on a mass scale is another.
There are other problems that James Howard Kunstler documents in his book The Long Emergency. Hydrogen is a very light element, so it is very difficult to contain. This has a couple of drawbacks. Drawback #1 is that no matter what kind of container you place the stuff in, it will escape through creases relatively quickly. You know those big tankers that bring gasoline to gas stations? They carry 25 tons of gasoline on them. A similar sized truck would only be able to carry half a ton of hydrogen. Because hydrogen is a net energy loser, it problably wouldn't even be worth it to make the trip. The fuel tanker would use more hydrogen making the delivery than it drops off at the station. Using pipelines similar to the ones we use with oil to deliver hydrogen is a possibility, but not likely to happen. Hydrogen is also very corrosive, so we couldn't use the existing natural gas and petroleum pipelines. We would have to build an entirely new pipeline system parallel to the current one, building them out of special materials that are resistent to hydrogen's corrosive effects.
Bottom line? There will be no hydrogen economy. It's all a load of BS that the politicians are giving the people because they don't yet have an answer for what the world will run on after oil and gas are used up, which will be much sooner than you think. They don't have an answer because there isn't one. The economy can't grow forever on a planet of finite resources. In North America natural gas production is already peaking, and projected to be completely depleted by 2020. Oil will also be peaking soon, if it hasn't already.
Peak Oil. Google it.
Is Peak Oil the end of car culture? Abolsutely. It's also the end of the way of life that made car culture develop in the first place: suburban sprawl that requires easy motoring. The Suburbs (Exurbs) that are very far away from cities will be the slums of the future. There is a documentary on Peak Oil called The End of Suburbia. I highly recommend it. You can check out the website here. (http://www.endofsuburbia.com/)
This coming winter may be a real bad one if it gets really cold. If that happens, demand for oil (to be used as heating oil) could easily increase by 2 to 3 million barrels by day. Right now we're running at complete capacity. There isn't any slack in the system. So if demand increases by that much, it will surpass supply. Basic economics, when demand outstrips supply bad things happen to the price. And when you are talking about a commodity with an inelastic demand like oil, VERY bad things happen to the price. Energy investment banker Matt Simons recently said in an interview that if demand for oil outstrips supply this winter, we could easily see the price of oil increase by 5 to 10 times. The same thing happened in the energy crisis of the 70's. Before the arab oil embargo (which created a supply shortfall of 10%), the price of oil was mere pennies. Afterwards it skyrocketed by a hell of a lot more than 5 to 10 times. People were still lining up to buy gasoline. Sure things went back to normal when the embargo ended, but Peak Oil will create a similar situation that will never end.
xyz
11-27-05, 10:22 AM
hm, it's been a while since it was in the news much, so i'm speaking from memory there. not always the wisest thing with a mind like mine. you may be right, but i remember distinctly the mention of oil being used in the creation of hydrogen energy.
I have the same problem. Back when I was younger I had a near photographic memory for things I read but now I have so many cliff claven type facts in my head they are getting mixed up.
Anyway, some oil will be used to produce hydrogen as oil is still being burned to produce eletricity. We have been moving away from oil towards coal but such a shift takes a long time(even more when congress does not allow it), I think 10% of the worlds eletricity still comes from burning oil.
I have the same problem. Back when I was younger I had a near photographic memory for things I read but now I have so many cliff claven type facts in my head they are getting mixed up.
Anyway, some oil will be used to produce hydrogen as oil is still being burned to produce eletricity. We have been moving away from oil towards coal but such a shift takes a long time(even more when congress does not allow it), I think 10% of the worlds eletricity still comes from burning oil.
brokenrobot
11-27-05, 10:23 AM
hm, it's been a while since it was in the news much, so i'm speaking from memory there. not always the wisest thing with a mind like mine. you may be right, but i remember distinctly the mention of oil being used in the creation of hydrogen energy.
Yep. Well, fossil fuels anyway. Making hydrogen requires a LOT of electricity - you need to put about 300 times as much energy into making it as you can get back out of the hydrogen itself. It's better understood as an energy storage medium than as an energy source, because it requires vastly more energy to create than you can get out.
And the electricity to make hydrogen requires fossil fuels in a big way. Our electric infrastructure runs primarily on fossil fuels, mostly natural gas and coal; only something like 15% of our electricity needs can be met through wind / hydro / solar / etc even if we max out all possible domestic locations where those things can be built, and hydro is likely to become less useful in the relatively short term due to silt problems; already most of our major dams are seeing reduced production as they "silt up". The only *real* alternative to fossil fuel electric plants would be nuclear, but those plants are pretty hard to build in today's political climate, and by the time shortages are severe enough to change those political realities, shortages may well be too severe to make building enough new nuke plants feasible - they take a lot of work to build.
End of car culture? No; that'll be just a side effect. I think running out of fossil fuels will spell the end of modernity and everything we associate with it: not just cars, but also modern health care (such as it is), suburbia, large-scale grocery stores, import and export, domestic tranquillity, the separation of church and state... on and on.
Yep. Well, fossil fuels anyway. Making hydrogen requires a LOT of electricity - you need to put about 300 times as much energy into making it as you can get back out of the hydrogen itself. It's better understood as an energy storage medium than as an energy source, because it requires vastly more energy to create than you can get out.
And the electricity to make hydrogen requires fossil fuels in a big way. Our electric infrastructure runs primarily on fossil fuels, mostly natural gas and coal; only something like 15% of our electricity needs can be met through wind / hydro / solar / etc even if we max out all possible domestic locations where those things can be built, and hydro is likely to become less useful in the relatively short term due to silt problems; already most of our major dams are seeing reduced production as they "silt up". The only *real* alternative to fossil fuel electric plants would be nuclear, but those plants are pretty hard to build in today's political climate, and by the time shortages are severe enough to change those political realities, shortages may well be too severe to make building enough new nuke plants feasible - they take a lot of work to build.
End of car culture? No; that'll be just a side effect. I think running out of fossil fuels will spell the end of modernity and everything we associate with it: not just cars, but also modern health care (such as it is), suburbia, large-scale grocery stores, import and export, domestic tranquillity, the separation of church and state... on and on.
xyz
11-27-05, 10:34 AM
Why in the hell would it be a good idea to use fossil fuels as an energy source to create hydrogen? Because the carbon polution is happening somewhere else than in the hydrogen car?.
Because hydrogen is not about saving the enviroment, it is about saving the car culture. We will burn coal instead of oil to move cars around and that will buy enough time to figure out a way to contain a fusion reaction(maybe, everything is a gamble).
It took hundreds of millions of years to capture the sunlight that created the fossil fuel we are going to burn up in less than 200 years, using renewable sources will help, but it is not going to be able to provide the amounts needed to make a complete shift.
Someone else threw out a number I don't find unreasonable, if we burn coal to move cars around then the coal supply will last 60 years instead of 300. But that is at the present rate of efficienty. If we can make cars 5x more effient then it will last much longer and at the same time the renewable sources will have a much bigger impact. Maybe in another 50 years autos will be effient enough for renewables to do the job by themselves but that is a long ways away.
Because hydrogen is not about saving the enviroment, it is about saving the car culture. We will burn coal instead of oil to move cars around and that will buy enough time to figure out a way to contain a fusion reaction(maybe, everything is a gamble).
It took hundreds of millions of years to capture the sunlight that created the fossil fuel we are going to burn up in less than 200 years, using renewable sources will help, but it is not going to be able to provide the amounts needed to make a complete shift.
Someone else threw out a number I don't find unreasonable, if we burn coal to move cars around then the coal supply will last 60 years instead of 300. But that is at the present rate of efficienty. If we can make cars 5x more effient then it will last much longer and at the same time the renewable sources will have a much bigger impact. Maybe in another 50 years autos will be effient enough for renewables to do the job by themselves but that is a long ways away.
xyz
11-27-05, 10:38 AM
Cooker is right, if we have to choose between food and driving I think most sane people will pick food.
Rich people will pick fuel and poor people will pick food. Who do you think will win that bidding war?
Rich people will pick fuel and poor people will pick food. Who do you think will win that bidding war?
xyz
11-27-05, 10:40 AM
www.oilposter.org
It's very eye opening to say the least.
That's cool, to bad you have to buy it and waste fuel having it shipped to your home.
:rolleyes:
It's very eye opening to say the least.
That's cool, to bad you have to buy it and waste fuel having it shipped to your home.
:rolleyes:
some_guy282
11-27-05, 10:52 AM
Because hydrogen is not about saving the enviroment, it is about saving the car culture. We will burn coal instead of oil to move cars around and that will buy enough time to figure out a way to contain a fusion reaction(maybe, everything is a gamble).
And if we do manage to get fusion power going (or Zero Point energy, or any of the other exotic energy sources), what then? Getting fusion with our current economic and belief systems would be the absolute WORST thing that could possibly happen. Why? Because our monetary system requires exponential growth. It has to keep growing in order to survive. Everyone recognizes that human population can't increase forever, but at the same time rational economists talk about how good it is that the economy keeps growing. In order for the economy to grow, you need to produce more and more things (products) and have more and more people to sell them to (consumers). The products are currently by and large made out of oil (plastic), and transported by oil (diesel fuel or gasoline). If we have an alternate energy source to replace oil to meet our energy needs, we'll just keep growing. Eventually, we will run out of something needed to keep the economy growing that we can't replace. Like freshwater. Or arable land. Or some mineral like copper, or platinum, or silver.
People who are new to the concept of Peak Oil talk about it like it's the only problem, and once we find something to replace oil everything will be fine. It wont be, because Peak Oil is not the problem. Peak Oil is a symptom of a larger problem, and that larger problem is exponential growth. There is an EXCELLENT lecture on the subject by Professor Albert Bartlett. You can view it here (http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram) or you can download it here. (http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.rm)
And if we do manage to get fusion power going (or Zero Point energy, or any of the other exotic energy sources), what then? Getting fusion with our current economic and belief systems would be the absolute WORST thing that could possibly happen. Why? Because our monetary system requires exponential growth. It has to keep growing in order to survive. Everyone recognizes that human population can't increase forever, but at the same time rational economists talk about how good it is that the economy keeps growing. In order for the economy to grow, you need to produce more and more things (products) and have more and more people to sell them to (consumers). The products are currently by and large made out of oil (plastic), and transported by oil (diesel fuel or gasoline). If we have an alternate energy source to replace oil to meet our energy needs, we'll just keep growing. Eventually, we will run out of something needed to keep the economy growing that we can't replace. Like freshwater. Or arable land. Or some mineral like copper, or platinum, or silver.
People who are new to the concept of Peak Oil talk about it like it's the only problem, and once we find something to replace oil everything will be fine. It wont be, because Peak Oil is not the problem. Peak Oil is a symptom of a larger problem, and that larger problem is exponential growth. There is an EXCELLENT lecture on the subject by Professor Albert Bartlett. You can view it here (http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram) or you can download it here. (http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.rm)
pedex
11-27-05, 11:32 AM
And if we do manage to get fusion power going (or Zero Point energy, or any of the other exotic energy sources), what then? Getting fusion with our current economic and belief systems would be the absolute WORST thing that could possibly happen. Why? Because our monetary system requires exponential growth. It has to keep growing in order to survive. Everyone recognizes that human population can't increase forever, but at the same time rational economists talk about how good it is that the economy keeps growing. In order for the economy to grow, you need to produce more and more things (products) and have more and more people to sell them to (consumers). The products are currently by and large made out of oil (plastic), and transported by oil (diesel fuel or gasoline). If we have an alternate energy source to replace oil to meet our energy needs, we'll just keep growing. Eventually, we will run out of something needed to keep the economy growing that we can't replace. Like freshwater. Or arable land. Or some mineral like copper, or platinum, or silver.
People who are new to the concept of Peak Oil talk about it like it's the only problem, and once we find something to replace oil everything will be fine. It wont be, because Peak Oil is not the problem. Peak Oil is a symptom of a larger problem, and that larger problem is exponential growth. There is an EXCELLENT lecture on the subject by Professor Albert Bartlett. You can view it here (http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram) or you can download it here. (http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.rm)
Yep, many many civilizations have fallen because of man's failure to grasp a very simple equation.
Anyone ever notice how growth is usually expressed as a percentage...ie 3.5% or whatever, funny how its never put in terms that actually mean something. 3.5% is huge, it means a doubling every 20 years, and at present US growth we will need 16 million bpd of oil just for gasoline and diesel versus the 8 million bpd we use now, guess what, aint gonna happen. Unrestrained growth with zero plan for the future supply of resources is the REAL problem, and weve been growing w/o a plan for more than 100 years. Just the psychological aspect of this alone means we are likely in for a very rude awakening. Anybody know of any civilizations in history that have survived it? I dont. What happened in the past was always limited to small portions of the planet, we are global now !! Its some very sobering and scary stuff to think about I think.
People who are new to the concept of Peak Oil talk about it like it's the only problem, and once we find something to replace oil everything will be fine. It wont be, because Peak Oil is not the problem. Peak Oil is a symptom of a larger problem, and that larger problem is exponential growth. There is an EXCELLENT lecture on the subject by Professor Albert Bartlett. You can view it here (http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram) or you can download it here. (http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.rm)
Yep, many many civilizations have fallen because of man's failure to grasp a very simple equation.
Anyone ever notice how growth is usually expressed as a percentage...ie 3.5% or whatever, funny how its never put in terms that actually mean something. 3.5% is huge, it means a doubling every 20 years, and at present US growth we will need 16 million bpd of oil just for gasoline and diesel versus the 8 million bpd we use now, guess what, aint gonna happen. Unrestrained growth with zero plan for the future supply of resources is the REAL problem, and weve been growing w/o a plan for more than 100 years. Just the psychological aspect of this alone means we are likely in for a very rude awakening. Anybody know of any civilizations in history that have survived it? I dont. What happened in the past was always limited to small portions of the planet, we are global now !! Its some very sobering and scary stuff to think about I think.
becnal
11-27-05, 12:22 PM
Dude, EVERYTHING uses energy. =)
cooker
11-27-05, 01:23 PM
Rich people will pick fuel and poor people will pick food. Who do you think will win that bidding war?
Not as simple as you think...there'll be a lot less "rich" people than there are now.
Not as simple as you think...there'll be a lot less "rich" people than there are now.
some_guy282
11-27-05, 02:21 PM
Have you read Jared Diamond's recent book, Collapse: How Civilizations Choose to Fail or Succeed? Excellent read. He deals with these same issues on other societies. The entire book examines previous societies, most of which collapsed. IE, Roman Empire, Mayan Empire, and Easter Island. Mismanagement of resources is the biggie. I'd highly recommend the book.
pedex
11-27-05, 02:29 PM
No, but ive read several others, I will be sure to check that one out.
BeTheChange
11-27-05, 02:43 PM
Some guy- I think you have really hit the nail on the head. My dad was trying to tell me that the world can never be too populated. He said that it would just be the population density of new hampshire. But I told him that living close to your neighbors isn't the problem. Finding energy for these people and finding what to do with their polution is the problem. He had never even thought about it. Thanks for the tip on that book as well. I've been trying to find more to read on oil age stuff but didn't think to read about how civilizations work or don't work. I'll be sure to read that over winter break. Any other recomendations on the same theme?
I'm afraid most people don't get that it is population growth that is what will destroy us with finite resources in mind. I've already talked to my girlfriend about this and we have decided if we ever have kids we'll have two of our own and adopt more if we feel the urge. Maybe only have one of our own and then adopt. The population growth problem is serious and we can't expect someone else to fix the problem.
I'm afraid most people don't get that it is population growth that is what will destroy us with finite resources in mind. I've already talked to my girlfriend about this and we have decided if we ever have kids we'll have two of our own and adopt more if we feel the urge. Maybe only have one of our own and then adopt. The population growth problem is serious and we can't expect someone else to fix the problem.
BeTheChange
11-27-05, 02:45 PM
xyz- I wish people would say "saving our environment" instead of "saving the envirnoment". We distance ourselves from our surroundings making it seem like we aren't dependant on them (another problem with the car culture). Just a thought.
some_guy282
11-27-05, 03:04 PM
Any other recomendations on the same theme?
You asked the right person. :D I'm a Peak Oiler first and a biker second. The reason I bought my bike in the first place is because I found out about Peak Oil. If I had to recommend only two books about Peak Oil, it would be these two.
The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=VZ3fTIcChx&isbn=0865715297&itm=2) , by Richard Heinberg - This is the Peak Oil bible. Heinberg starts off by talking about energy in general, and how it is used in nature. How different organisms adapt to get energy. He then applies these principles to human societies. Then he moves on to the problem of Peak Oil. He shows reserve data to prove we will peak relatively soon. What about alternatives? Wont be enough and he illustrates that next, followed by suggestions on what we as a society should be doing to address the problem. If you want to listen to a great audio interview with Heinberg, you can find one here:http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/146 In that interview he basically gives an overview of the entire book.
And the other book....
The Long Emergency, by James Kunstler (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=VZ3fTIcChx&isbn=0871138883&itm=1) In blunt language, Kunstler describes what kinds of problems the world is going to face because of Peak Oil, and why we're here in the first place. Kunstler is great. You can listen to him talk about The Long Emergency here: http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/362
You asked the right person. :D I'm a Peak Oiler first and a biker second. The reason I bought my bike in the first place is because I found out about Peak Oil. If I had to recommend only two books about Peak Oil, it would be these two.
The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=VZ3fTIcChx&isbn=0865715297&itm=2) , by Richard Heinberg - This is the Peak Oil bible. Heinberg starts off by talking about energy in general, and how it is used in nature. How different organisms adapt to get energy. He then applies these principles to human societies. Then he moves on to the problem of Peak Oil. He shows reserve data to prove we will peak relatively soon. What about alternatives? Wont be enough and he illustrates that next, followed by suggestions on what we as a society should be doing to address the problem. If you want to listen to a great audio interview with Heinberg, you can find one here:http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/146 In that interview he basically gives an overview of the entire book.
And the other book....
The Long Emergency, by James Kunstler (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=VZ3fTIcChx&isbn=0871138883&itm=1) In blunt language, Kunstler describes what kinds of problems the world is going to face because of Peak Oil, and why we're here in the first place. Kunstler is great. You can listen to him talk about The Long Emergency here: http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/362
pedex
11-27-05, 03:14 PM
read the stuff by Defreyes(sp?), Matt Simmons, and Michael Ruppert too
some_guy282
11-27-05, 03:17 PM
I'm a subscriber to Ruppert's site. I met him in person at the Petrocollapse Conference in NYC last month. But some of his stuff is pretty harsh for the uninitiated. Simmons is also a goodie. His book Twilight in the Desert shows Saudi arabia (the world's largest oil producer) is much closer to peaking than most people think. If their Ghawar field dies soon, it would be a worst case scenario in terms of production worldwide.
pedex
11-27-05, 03:56 PM
Simmons is one of GW Bush's energy advisors..........thats a scary thing that explains alot methinks.
There's a halfway decent website called energybulletin.net that has fairly good look into current happenings in the energy world. I was suprised to see that congressmen are now really starting to at least talk about the issue, there is some hope, just wish it had been taken seriously 30 years ago. I dont have any faith though that many have either the guts or the will to even try to really make a concerted effort at dealing with this, the problem is just too big, the solution will likely be forced on us Im afraid.
There's a halfway decent website called energybulletin.net that has fairly good look into current happenings in the energy world. I was suprised to see that congressmen are now really starting to at least talk about the issue, there is some hope, just wish it had been taken seriously 30 years ago. I dont have any faith though that many have either the guts or the will to even try to really make a concerted effort at dealing with this, the problem is just too big, the solution will likely be forced on us Im afraid.
Guest
11-27-05, 03:58 PM
The two threads are merged.
Koffee Brown
Forum Moderator
Koffee Brown
Forum Moderator
pedex
11-27-05, 04:06 PM
Miss Brown, you have powers :)
some_guy282
11-27-05, 04:13 PM
I dont have any faith though that many have either the guts or the will to even try to really make a concerted effort at dealing with this, the problem is just too big, the solution will likely be forced on us Im afraid.
Actually, they do. And that's what's scary. We have a plan of action for peak oil. It's called "The War on Terror." As far as the solution being forced on us, you're 100% right. The solution is the end of our way of life. It's going to be forced on us by nature.
Actually, they do. And that's what's scary. We have a plan of action for peak oil. It's called "The War on Terror." As far as the solution being forced on us, you're 100% right. The solution is the end of our way of life. It's going to be forced on us by nature.
some_guy282
11-27-05, 05:47 PM
Just found a better audio link for Kunstler. Ignore that other one. This is him speaking at the Petrocollapse conference in NYC. I was there in person.
http://www.petrocollapse.org/resources/audio/20051005-1119-Kunstler.mp3
He's much more of his charismatic self in this one.
http://www.petrocollapse.org/resources/audio/20051005-1119-Kunstler.mp3
He's much more of his charismatic self in this one.
KrisPistofferson
11-27-05, 06:13 PM
Just found a better audio link for Kunstler. Ignore that other one. This is him speaking at the Petrocollapse conference in NYC. I was there in person.
http://www.petrocollapse.org/resources/audio/20051005-1119-Kunstler.mp3
He's much more of his charismatic self in this one.
Thanks, I'm listening now. :beer:
http://www.petrocollapse.org/resources/audio/20051005-1119-Kunstler.mp3
He's much more of his charismatic self in this one.
Thanks, I'm listening now. :beer:
some_guy282
11-27-05, 06:35 PM
That audio is taken from this page.
http://www.petrocollapse.org/
When you go down to conference audio, the previous file is James Howard Kunstler. Duh. The one after that, Panel #2, is a question and answer question with him and a science advisor to Congressman Roscoe Bartlet, the only member of Congress currently talking about this issue.
And while I'm at it, I may as well list the rest of the big Peak Oil sites.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ - This is the site that introduced me to Peak Oil.
http://www.peakoil.com - Peak Oil news and discussion board.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com - Peak Oil related audio.
http://www.theoildrum.com - another news and discussion site.
http://www.kunstler.com/ - This is Kunstler's site. His blog is titled "Chronicles of the Cluster**** Nation"
http://www.petrocollapse.org/
When you go down to conference audio, the previous file is James Howard Kunstler. Duh. The one after that, Panel #2, is a question and answer question with him and a science advisor to Congressman Roscoe Bartlet, the only member of Congress currently talking about this issue.
And while I'm at it, I may as well list the rest of the big Peak Oil sites.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ - This is the site that introduced me to Peak Oil.
http://www.peakoil.com - Peak Oil news and discussion board.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com - Peak Oil related audio.
http://www.theoildrum.com - another news and discussion site.
http://www.kunstler.com/ - This is Kunstler's site. His blog is titled "Chronicles of the Cluster**** Nation"
531phile
11-27-05, 06:48 PM
Repeat after me, necessity is the mother of...
I'm sure there will be other newer technologies being developed as we speak. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I don't own a car anyways.
I'm sure there will be other newer technologies being developed as we speak. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I don't own a car anyways.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.