[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')hen why are you wasting your time promoting a peak alternative? Why don't you go back to cataloging booming oil-discovery trends.

[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hen did I ever suggest that people wouldn't want to do something, or even try to do something? Of course I get it.

However, I don't just simply accept, as you do, that such a change will happen overnight. There will be a great reluctance to build another infrastructure alongside the oil one and, even if the attempt is made, it will take a long time to do. I also don't expect a serious attempt to do so, until oil is extremely expensive. When will that happen? Neither you nor I know. But here's a scenario.

No serious attempt to build a parallel infrastructure will be made until the economy recovers to something near pre-recession levels. What happens then? Oil will become increasingly expensive. What event will that cause? A recession, of course. Will a parallel infrastructure be attempted then? Probably not. It would likely take one or two more oil price induced recessions to get governments to sit up and take notice to provide incentives to build a parallel infrastructure. How long might that take? To make significant inroads into oil use, probably quite a few years.

So it's not unreasonable to not expect a parallel natural gas infrastructure for maybe a decade and a half. That's two infrastructures to maintain, because the oil one will take a lot longer to go away. And what would be the cost of building such an infrastructure? Especially if oil is very expensive, and possibly scarce, at the time? Would it ever get built?

All this assumes that natural gas can be produced and delivered at the required rate, which will slowly increase, many many years after oil has peaked and, quite possibly with a world wide natural gas peak looming within another decade (that is, a decade after the natural gas parallel infrastructure has been built) or so. It also assumes that all the major natural gas exporters will play nice.

So I think there is a major question mark over your optimism about natural gas and its ability to keep BAU going for a further decade or two. I realise, though, that your belief system will not allow you to consider alternatives to your rosy scenario. Hopefully, others might.

[Tyler_JC]

Oil was only above $100/barrel for a very brief period, less than 6 months.

We were above $80 for less than a year.

Designing, producing, and marketing a new car takes a bit longer than that.

In the previous major oil shock, crude oil was 4X its previous price level for 13 years (1973-1986). That lead to a huge increase in oil conservation and a massive retooling of the auto manufacturing capacity towards the production of more efficient cars.

We need an extended period of relatively high prices for manufacturers to adjust.

[copious.abundance]

Ad hom deleted
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'Y')ou can even transport compressed natural gas in a truck. Yessiree, your local "gas" station doesn't even need to be next to a gas pipeline!



>>> Big picture <<<

You can buy some of those cylinders here.

Or, you can also transport liquified natural gas via a truck, if u want to!

>>> Another big picture <<

AMAZING!! No nearby pipeline needed!

[Gerben]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '-')-The natural gas delivery infrastructure would need to follow every road where cars and trucks travel (not just highway, but major arteries and important roads etc) Same for trains and ships. A trucking company would need a dual fleet--one for diesel and another for natural gas. This is not just unreasonable, it is impossible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '[')color=#FF0000]Ad hom deleted[/color]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'Y')ou can even transport compressed natural gas in a truck. Yessiree, your local "gas" station doesn't even need to be next to a gas pipeline!



>>> Big picture <<<

You can buy some of those cylinders here.

Or, you can also transport liquified natural gas via a truck, if u want to!

>>> Another big picture <<

AMAZING!! No nearby pipeline needed!

BTW you have yet to reply to this, which I posted last night. This is so obviously true you don't *have* a response to it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '.') . . the fisheries, topsoil, aquifers, etc. that support the six billions are also depleting at awful rates . . .

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')ily the "gotcha" has nothing to do with you pretty meaningless pictures, rather it is the fuse you blew. Or in this case, the gasket you blew.

[HumbleScribe]

The big hurdle for any alternative transportation fuel is distribution infrastructure, and a gaseous fuel makes for a really inefficient distribution system (one reason why the 'hydrogen economy' is hogwash).

Compressed natural gas is fine for fleet installations where many vehicles are refuelled from a central point. A lot of buses here are run that way. But for the big open spaces you really want a liquid fuel.

However, if you used natural gas for all of the *other* things that people do with oil, like power generation, and of course some urban transport applications, then there'd be all the more oil to be used for transportation. You can also make things like MTBE with natural gas, which is a fine blendstock, although Americans went and banned it because they couldn't be bothered to fix leaking gasoline storage tanks in California. Or methanol, which can be blended or used to make biodiesel. I won't rehash the argument about coal/gas/whatever to liquids, but couple them with hybrids and I think there's plenty of gasoline to get by.

The difficulty I see in so many threads on this site is that people want everything to be black and white, either/or, when it seems clear that nothing of the kind can happen. Some conservation, some alternative fuels or blends, there is no 'magic bullet'. You can't do everything oil can do with natural gas. But you can do some things.

All assuming that we are at peak oil of course. I am agnostic on that.

[Maddog78]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') do not debate you to learn things as it is obviously not your intent to share information. Rather you use everything as a bludgeon against those you perceive to be bad for your investments or folks who are "doomers."

You were probably an ardent anti-environmentalist, when such a thing existed. Most people I know who fought to preserve a healthy earth have given up the good fight. We just have fun now. With folks like you.

[TheDude]

Haven't really followed this thread but causal readers listening to OF2's comments about Pakistan should read the criticisms I had in...whichever thread it was. One of his papers was off on the population of the country by something like 30 million; only 8% of the population own cars in the first place so ownership is more prevalent among the relatively wealthy; and two reasons NGVs carry such a premium in the US is that we have strict safety regulations; whether this is the case in Pakistan or Argentina I'm not sure, but are you ready to add on $7k to the sticker price for a new car to feel energy independent?

A commenter at TOD or RR2's blog said the base cost in Europe for the materials in an NGV conversion is more like 2.5-3k Euro or about $4k USD. Still not exactly cheap. Note this other post from Robert: R-Squared Energy Blog: Behind the Costs of CNG Conversions

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne thing that I would like to add (assuming that you didn't already know this or learn it since posting your piece), is that the cost of CNG conversions for existing vehicles is as high as it is because of EPA licensing requirements. For an individual (or shop) to be licensed to do a conversion, the person must pay $10,000 per year, per engine type, per year of manufacture. So that if a conversion shop wanted to do conversions in 2009 for Camrys for the years 1995 to 2005, the shop owner would have to pay the government $100,000 in licensing fees. Then, if he wanted to do conversions on the same models in 2010, he would have to pay the $100,000 again, even though they are the exact same models and engines that he has been licensed on already. And if there is more than one engine involved, i.e., a 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder, the cost would double.

Therefore, if a shop owner wanted to do 10 model years of Camrys and Corollas and Celicas, and well as Honda Accords and Civics, unless there were common engines being used in these five models the licensing cost (for just one engine per) would be a half million dollars, which would have to be paid again in 2010. These fees are, needless to say, ridiculous and are only there to ensure that many don't get done (thanks to the gasoline lobby). The cost of the conversion kits are actually relatively inexpensive. If there was a sensible licensing fee (or no fee) the cost for the work could be just a few hundred dollars.

[HumbleScribe]

A bit off topic I'm afraid, but MTBE was killed by massive farm/ethanol industry lobbying - they had thought the oxygenated fuel standard meant they could get an ethanol bonanza, and when refiners went for a cheaper alternative they were annoyed and worked hard to kill it. The carcinogenicity is a standard accusation thrown at any fuel someone doesn't like, and to say that the evidence is very patchy is to understate quite drastically. I'm sure, given enough time and trouble, people could produce 'evidence' as to gasoline's carcinogenicity.
It *does* also makes water taste brackish, and that poor public perception was part of the furore whipped up that Gray Davis buckled under. It's worth noting that until the California MTBE debacle, the US had run quite happily with MTBE as a blendstock, as have most other countries around the world. The issue was with a handful of old leaking gas storage tanks near aquifers not maintained according to code, not the compound itself.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', ' '). . . are you ready to add on $7k to the sticker price for a new car to feel energy independent?

[Gerben]

In the Netherlands the added sticker price of a mass produced CNG car is about US$ 3k. The price is roughly equal to the diesel version of that same model.

[basil_hayden]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', 'A') bit off topic I'm afraid, but MTBE was killed by massive farm/ethanol industry lobbying - they had thought the oxygenated fuel standard meant they could get an ethanol bonanza, and when refiners went for a cheaper alternative they were annoyed and worked hard to kill it. The carcinogenicity is a standard accusation thrown at any fuel someone doesn't like, and to say that the evidence is very patchy is to understate quite drastically. I'm sure, given enough time and trouble, people could produce 'evidence' as to gasoline's carcinogenicity.
It *does* also makes water taste brackish, and that poor public perception was part of the furore whipped up that Gray Davis buckled under. It's worth noting that until the California MTBE debacle, the US had run quite happily with MTBE as a blendstock, as have most other countries around the world. The issue was with a handful of old leaking gas storage tanks near aquifers not maintained according to code, not the compound itself.

[TheDude]

Human-Health Effects of MTBE: A Literature Summary

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he human-health effects of long-term inhalation or oral exposures to MTBE are unknown [3,15], although several reports indicate that chronic noncancer health effects are not likely to result under the intermittent, low-level exposures experienced by humans [4-6], such as inhaling vapors when refueling automobiles. There are no published findings on the carcinogenicity of MTBE in humans [6,11,16], but MTBE has been shown to cause cancer in rats and mice exposed at high levels via inhalation or gavage (MTBE introduced to the stomach using a tube) over their lifetimes [2,3,8,17].

[HumbleScribe]

Basil, I covered this story for years and watched it happen blow by blow, committee by committee, report by report. I have covered enough chemical health scares now to know that they are always about politics, and all too rarely about science. Formaldehyde is a good example of the latest idiocy. California now wants to reduce ambient air concentrations to levels below that found in human breath.

In addition to its undoubted health/air quality benefits, the Oxygenated Fuel Standard (Clean Air Act Amendment 1990) was originally intended as a sop to US farmers, to guarantee them a market for corn ethanol. Thanks to the law of unintended consequences, it eventually took a nationwide MTBE ban and the Bush Energy Bill to finally achieve that, even when the government continues to subsidise fuel ethanol to the tune of 50 cents per gallon, and has done since the 70s. You only need to look at the number of Congressmen from corn belt states involved in these decisions to see the pork. I am not saying it's evil, it's just politics. I personally think corn ethanol is an inefficient way to do biofuels, but if you want biofuels badly enough then it's certainly affordable by a rich nation like the US.

Anyways, we use MTBE in our gasoline here in the UK. We are not all dying of cancer - at least, not from that.

PS - I apologise for sidetracking the discussion... maybe a mod can threadsplit it?

[basil_hayden]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', '
')PS - I apologise for sidetracking the discussion... maybe a mod can threadsplit it?

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'H')ere you go Tony.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'Y')es, transitioning our transportation to NG as well would take time, but in the meantime we aren't going to be running out of oil any time soon.