[OilWatch]

Sorry guys, but you can't have it all.

I offer solutions and you say no, because they cause too much pollution. That's not a legitimate reason. Peak oil centres around economics and supply and demand. You cannot disregard economic solutions by saying "they cause too much pollution". This is not a debate about pollution, this is a debate about economic growth. Hell oil is one of the most polluting fuels in the world, so if switching to some other polluting fuel is the answer, then its going to happen. Economics don't take pollution into effect, they take profits. Until something like thermo deploymerization or nanosolar take over, then we're going to keep using polluting fuels its as simple as that.

Aaron, since you noted that you're 15, you might want to take some courses on economics before posting things such as

"It is simply not possible to maintain the growth economic model we have enjoyed this last century with a decrease in net energy available. "

At $35 per barrel, shale sands are becoming producable. Meaning, all the shale sands in the world can now be economically ADDED to the global supply of oil because it now costs the same as the light sweet crude sold on the fair market. So how is this any sort of loss of energy?? A barrel of oil is a barrel of oil! Now the supply which has previously been noted as 1.3 trillion barrels of light sweet crude has been vastly expanded to what 2 trillion 3 trillion barrels of equivalent oil?? This will more than make up for any decrease in ligth sweet crude production because its no longer cheaper than producing oil using other methods. What you said makes absolutely no sense.

As long as a barrel of oil (which is a barrel of oil, they're all the same) can economically be produced, irregardless of whether they're making a $5 profit per barrel or $25 profit per barrel, the global supply of these barrels of oil has just drastically increased, you cannot deny that. That is the bottom line and that is how it is going to sustain economic growth.

[Pops]

OilWatch said:
“ This is not a debate about pollution, this is a debate about economic growth.
I think you are right; pollution is only a worry if we’re intent on unlimited economic growth. But the debate is not about HOW to sustain growth indefinitely, because it simply won't happen without cheap energy.

In case you didn’t have a chance to click the link I posted earlier:

"Humankind can follow Plan War merely by continuing on its present course, planning for further growth even as the necessary resource basis for that growth is depleted. Given that some societies use energy resources at a higher rate than others do, that resources are not evenly distributed geographically, and that military power is also unevenly distributed among nations, the eventual results are not difficult to predict."
------------

So the goal is unlimited growth forever?

Another snip:

“By the year 2060, if the world maintained a mere 3 percent annual economic growth rate and all the world's people were to benefit equally, world economic output would have to increase to 80 times its current rate.”
----------------

And on the lesser amount of net energy in non-conventional oil (Although repeating Aaron’s point and probably to no effect, and no link - that's a waste of time), from The Death of the Oil Economy
by Ted Trainer, From Earth Island Journal, Spring 1997:

“Economists argue that scarcity will result in price increases, making it more profitable to access poorer deposits. That seems plausible only if one thinks only about dollar costs. The fact is, as an oil field ages, increasing amounts of energy must be exerted to pump the oil out. The cost of this energy must be subtracted from the total value of the energy in the oil retrieved.”
-------------

This goes for non-conventional oil as well as declining fields.


Who cares about the profit in a barrel of oil? Well of course it is the people who produce it. Take away the incentive to produce and you will get no production whatsoever. Which, OilWatch is of course your main point -The Market, remember.

And as for non-conventional oil increasing the total available, AGAIN from museletter):

“Still another important level of detail concerns non-conventional oil sources - heavy oil, polar oil, deepwater oil, tar sands, and natural gas liquids - which are typically more expensive to produce than is conventional oil. In the early 1970s, these sources made up an insignificant part of the total global oil market, but today they account for nearly twenty percent of total oil produced. The EIA gives current oil production at about 76 mb/d, of which nearly 15 mb/d is from non-conventional sources. A consumption curve that takes these sources into account shows oil production growing more steeply from 1984 on, as compared to a graph of conventional oil only, though even the EIA figures for combined conventional and non-conventional oil reveal flat or negative growth since 2000.”
-------------

Do non-conventionals help? Yes. They already are and are indeed extending the plateau. But extending it long enough to allow changes in the basic structure of society? That of course is the real solution, not merely prolonging Plan Snooze.

OilWatch stated: “That is the bottom line and that is how it is going to sustain economic growth.”

So the goal is unlimited growth forever? Ain’t gonna happen.

Pops

[Aaron]

You may want to check the posts again, since the only one here who is 15 is my son.

And thanks for the economics tip, but your personal jabs aside, it’s really quite simple.

$1 buys me X quantity of energy today. If the price of this energy increases by 2% tomorrow, my same dollar buys me 2% less energy… with me so far? I may choose then to buy only ½ the quantity of energy because the price went up. The third day the producer may decide to lower prices to stimulate sales. This is called supply & demand.

With that out of the way, it takes no great deductive powers to understand how higher priced energy equates to slower economic growth. The higher the price, the slower growth. My point is therefore that the explosive economic growth over the last 100 years requires an ample supply of energy, and the higher the cost of this energy, the less growth we can maintain. It does not matter at what point alternatives become economically viable, any alternative must be able to meet global production declines, or we are short. The idea that shale oil will replace light crude in time to avoid shortages is suspect. But even if it does, permanent $35 per barrel prices would devastate many economies around the world today. Not factored in, will be increases in the costs of processing shale oil, as $35 a barrel oil costs are passed through the economy adding to inflation.

I certainly think producing lower grade oil will help the crunch, but it is not realistic to assume converting to a less efficient form of the same thing is anything… but less efficient.

[dmtu]

Don't forget the rate of production. Even with 14 trillion barrels of tarsands etc I think there will be a slowdown in production. Mining is far more labor intensive and slower than pumping sea water in and getting oil out, so to meet current consumption in light sweet crude you need to add a lot of miners to the payroll. On steam injection; I don't know what kind of production they are getting at the well heads but I can say with near certainty that it's not what they get from a Saudi well head.

[Graeme]

NEW REPORT SHOWS HYDROGEN VEHICLES WILL DRIVE CHANGE
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')oday, the National Hydrogen Association released a new report called the "Energy Evolution: An Analysis of Alternative Vehicles and Fuels to 2100." The Energy Evolution shows that a scenario which initially includes a mix of alternative vehicles, and is later dominated by hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles sales is the only way to simultaneously cut U.S. greenhouse gas pollution by 80% below 1990 levels; reach petroleum quasi-independence by mid-century; and eliminate nearly all controllable air pollution by the end of the century. The report also shows that an expansion of hydrogen stations is more affordable than most people think.

[vision-master]

Hydrogen is not a fuel.........

Hydrogen power is dead.

[Schmuto]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he report also shows that an expansion of hydrogen stations is more affordable than most people think.

[ian807]

Hydrogen is only a carrier of energy. And did I miss something? I didn't see anything that said that anyone has a way of making hydrogen as fuel that's net energy positive.

That being said, there is a possibility. If there's enough electricity, and it's cheap enough, then hydrogen becomes more viable as a fuel because we can afford to be inefficient. If we had enough dams, wind or other renewable power sources, we'd probably have enough very cheap electricity to make portable hydrogen power viable.

Unfortunately, this comes with a cost. Dams, for example, are an ecological disaster, but governments love them because they employ voters on a big scale. Putting thousands of small scale wave generators, low power tethered turbines, et al. into every river in the USA has no political sex appeal. All it does is solve the problem and what politician cares about that?.

[Aaron]

ALL CAPITOL SUBJECT LINE CARRIES MORE IMPACT!!!!#!!@!!!




A recent study by the completely unbiased Institute for the Promotion of Capitalization (IPC) has concluded that capitalization directly influences how influential the influence of capitalization is.

http://lmgtfy.com

[TreeFarmer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'H')ydrogen is not a fuel... Hydrogen power is dead.

[TheDude]

DAMN AARON BEAT ME TO THE ALL CAPS JOKE

SERIOUSLY, COME ON, YOU PROVIDE A STUDY DONE BY THE NATIONAL HYDROGEN ASSOCIATION THAT FINDS THE MOST VIABLE ENERGY SOURCE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE US IS...HYDROGEN?

SOME ANALYSTS, JOHN RUBINO IN HIS BOOK Clean Money, FOR INSTANCE, THINK HYDROGEN MAY HAVE SOME POTENTIAL FOR STAND-ALONE APPLICATIONS - PROVIDING BACKUP FOR WIND FARMS, SAY. BUT FOR THE VEHICLE FLEET THERE JUST SEEM TO BE FAR TOO MANY HITCHES FOR IT TO BECOME ECONOMICAL, NEVER MIND ALL THESE INTANGIBALE NON-BOTTOM LINE ISSUES OF PROVIDING FOR THE "sOCIETAL gOOD" THAT LEAD THEM TO CONCLUDE HYDROGEN WILL WIN OUT.

WELL?

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-')-fuel cells are not the way to go--expensive, use rare materials (titanium etc.)

[Graeme]

Sorry Aaron, The title of the report just happened to be in capitals. It was easier to copy the title. In future I will retype titles in lower case because other posters just might get the idea that they are not getting enough attention!

Seriously though, this report was written by the National Hydrogen Association AND reviewed by other US EXPERTS.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o new research was done. Instead, the NHA gathered a comprehensive collection of existing peer-reviewed, credible transportation research from organizations such as the U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, the Electric Power Research Institute, the National Resources Defense Council and the University of California, Davis. The data were run through well-respected models and the results have been reviewed by experts at the following organizations to confirm that the methods and conclusions were sound: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Fuel Cell Council.

[Aaron]

[Graeme]

U.S. Drops Research Into Fuel Cells for Cars


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ars powered by hydrogen fuel cells, once hailed by President George W. Bush as a pollution-free solution for reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years, the energy secretary said Thursday, and the government will cut off funds for the vehicles’ development.

Developing those cells and coming up with a way to transport the hydrogen is a big challenge, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in releasing energy-related details of the administration’s budget for the year beginning Oct. 1. Dr. Chu said the government preferred to focus on projects that would bear fruit more quickly.

The Energy Department will continue to pay for research into stationary fuel cells, which Dr. Chu said could be used like batteries on the power grid and do not require compact storage of hydrogen.

[Graeme]

Toyota may accelerate hydrogen car plans


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')espite previous indications that Toyota would begin selling a fuel cell car by 2015, it’s thought that the Japanese vehicle manufacturer may be pushing ahead with its plans sooner than expected.

Toyota said in January that it would begin selling a fuel-cell car by 2015, according to a report by The New York Times.

However, the US newspaper also notes that the dollars-and-cents imperatives of California’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate may now move that timetable forward, to late 2014.

The US’ Department of Energy has recently proposed the elimination of funds for hydrogen fuel cell motor vehicles and when asked about the company’s plans in light of this, Toyota spokesman John Hanson reportedly responded, “Toyota is planning to go ahead with its program in certain world markets by 2015, if not sooner.”

“We’re shooting for 2015, but it could happen sooner than that. So much of what happens is directly related to the California ZEV mandates — they’re followed by at least 14 states, and they affect nearly half of the cars on the market in the United States,” he explained.

“Phase IV of the mandates covers model years 2015 through 2017, so that means we could begin complying in late 2014.”

[Frank]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TreeFarmer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'H')ydrogen is not a fuel... Hydrogen power is dead.

[Graeme]

California Air Resources Board Pushes for Restoration of DOE Funding for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles; Tackles the “Four Miracles”

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')alifornia Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols met with US Energy Secretary Steven Chu in May and followed up that meeting with a letter, urging the continuation of funding to support research, development and deployment of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Nichols is also requesting a follow-on meeting between ARB technical staff, DOE technical staff and the several automakers pursuing fuel cell vehicles to continue the “dialog and investigation”.

The Obama Administration’s 2010 Department of Energy (DOE) budget proposes cutting the federal hydrogen fuel cell research and deployment budget by more than two-thirds ($130 million), eliminating funds for the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle program and market transformation programs. (Earlier post.)

In an interview with MIT Technology Review, Secretary Chu made what has become known as the “Four Miracles” comment—essentially that issues with fuel cell durability and cost; hydrogen production; hydrogen storage; and hydrogen distribution infrastructure all required significant development, resulting in “four miracles” that needed to occur before hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would be viable in transportation. This assessment was the basis for his decision to apply the funding in that area elsewhere.

In ARB’s analysis, most vehicles on the road in 2050 will need to be electric drive, or ultra low-carbon fuel vehicles—i.e., electricity or hydrogen—by 2050 in order to achieve the required 80% reduction in greenhouse gases. Commercialization of those technologies must start in the next decade, noted ARB Executive Officer Tom Cackette in a presentation at the recent Advanced Automotive Battery Conference. (Earlier post.)

[Graeme]

Toyota plans fuel-cell car by 2015

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')oyota Motor, the world's top automaker, plans to roll out a fuel-cell car by 2015 in its push to stay ahead in the global race for green autos, vice president Masatami Takimoto said.