[MattSavinar]

I think we can all agree that if anything is to replace even a significant fraction (10, 20, 30%?) of our oil and gas consumption, it is going to have to be distributed across the nation, and moreover, the world.

If you're waiting for renewable derived hydrogen, algae produced biodiesel, the entity pazoozoo, etc. . .to come save us, remember that we're going to need some type of system to distribute that stuff wide and far. To understand the scale of what we're talking about, take a look at this:

http://images.pennnet.com/mapsearch/all_pipe.jpgPipeline Map

Remember, this is just a map of North America. Since N. AMerica is entirely dependent on the rest of the world economy (and vice versa) we have to worry about the rest of the globe as well.

Best,

Matt

[MicroHydro]

Hi Matt,

While most of the folks on this forum would like to see humanity take steps to reduce the severity of the oil crash, those who can use a pocket calculator have given up fantasies of the current global energy use being maintained.

[ubercynicmeister]

Hi there are you THE MattSavinar of "www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net fame?

if so, I certainly enjoyed your book and have been re-reading it since I got it.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', 'I') think we can all agree that if anything is to replace even a significant fraction (10, 20, 30%?) of our oil and gas consumption, it is going to have to be distributed across the nation, and moreover, the world.

If you're waiting for renwable derived hydrogen, algae produced biodiesel, the entity pazoozoo, etc. . .to come save us,

[0mar]

excellent map

[EnergySpin]

Is this a map of the sewer network across NA?
I propose we use this system to deliver manure across the nation .... to power this huge sewer grid and prevent instabilities, I propose we feed the NA with beans thrice a week. The natural gas (natural indeed) produced this way will provide a renewable energy source to move human manure
We can sustain agriculture in the suburbs this way
Underwater pipes could link the world and usher a new era of human understanding, based on Human (Shit) Power(TM)
Well at least this proposal is more sustainable than the H2 economy

[Petro]

Howdy Matt!

I don't get the point of this topic at all.

In the cont. US there are over 100k miles of gasoline pipelines alone. Not sure of the aggregate for petro-chems total. But, say something was invented; produced, etc., isnt it a little reassuring that at least there is some form of distribution for liquid alternatives?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Petro', 'H')owdy Matt!

I don't get the point of this topic at all.

In the cont. US there are over 100k miles of gasoline pipelines alone. Not sure of the aggregate for petro-chems total. But, say something was invented; produced, etc., isnt it a little reassuring that at least there is some form of distribution for liquid alternatives?

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Petro', 'H')owdy Matt!

I don't get the point of this topic at all.

In the cont. US there are over 100k miles of gasoline pipelines alone. Not sure of the aggregate for petro-chems total. But, say something was invented; produced, etc., isnt it a little reassuring that at least there is some form of distribution for liquid alternatives?

[Sys1]

If we use solar pannels or windfarms, we can produce and use energy in the same place.

[SHiFTY]

I live in London, and we are constantly reminded of the fantastic civil engineering works that are totally capable without oil. The vast 19th century railway network, so shamefully neglected and out of favour, is a testamnet to this.

The large numbers of beautiful, massive, solid stone buildings created by hand in the last 400 odd years, again without oil, is more proof. They will easily outlive the showy, lightweight glass towers that have sprung up. The underground trains, the sewer network, many roads, stone and iron bridges are all pre-oil.

Some roads date back thousands of years; the Romans built vast dead straight roads across England with no oil.

You can build any amount of infrastructure with enough labour and most importantly, good leadership. A few more pipelines would be trivial.

[MacG]

I remain seated.

[Raxozanne]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SHiFTY', '
')Some roads date back thousands of years; the Romans built vast dead straight roads across England with no oil.

You can build any amount of infrastructure with enough labour and most importantly, good leadership. A few more pipelines would be trivial.

[Petro]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Petro', 'H')owdy Matt!

I don't get the point of this topic at all.

In the cont. US there are over 100k miles of gasoline pipelines alone. Not sure of the aggregate for petro-chems total. But, say something was invented; produced, etc., isnt it a little reassuring that at least there is some form of distribution for liquid alternatives?

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SHiFTY', '
')Some roads date back thousands of years; the Romans built vast dead straight roads across England with no oil.

You can build any amount of infrastructure with enough labour and most importantly, good leadership. A few more pipelines would be trivial.

[Raxozanne]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')Sex Slavery as well Raxozanne, do not forget that. Although in our modern times both regular slavery (basic wage at Walmarts) and sex slavery is so common that it will not be a cultural shock. People even accept that , but instead they call their slavemaster "free economy".

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')Sex Slavery as well Raxozanne, do not forget that. Although in our modern times both regular slavery (basic wage at Walmarts) and sex slavery is so common that it will not be a cultural shock. People even accept that , but instead they call their slavemaster "free economy".

[Ludi]

Is a Techno-Messiah Waiter something like a Monkey Butler?

[jtmorgan61]

(Stands up)

Matt, you've ignored my email about how you misrepresent thermal depolymerization on your site. We can take it up here if you'd like.

Monte, JohnDenver and I are having a big long argument over whether coal to oil and thermal depolymerization are cheap, effectively scalable technologies that can give 40 mbd replacement by 2020. It's on the thread "Why Oil Alternative Fuels Will Fail." You should swing on over and get in on the action.

Here's a summary:

Based on the fact that 13 mbd production is slated to come online in 2007-8, that oil major ExxonMobil predicts a non-OPEC peak in 2010, that the french energy agency predicts a peak in 2012, and that the Saudis say there is no way they will meet demand in 2020, I'm guessing peak is 2012 or so. Rounded to 2010 to make it easier to work with.

Price will probably go somewhat higher than today, $80-100 barrel. It won't get higher than that because demand won't be there - several sectors of the economy would have to radically reorganize if it got more expensive, and no one can sit on years and years worth of oil because there's nowhere to store it (nor would governments let them). In addition, as I discuss below, there will be enough supply to prevent radical price spikes.

Based on the fact that a majority of insiders predict about a 2-4% decline, decline is set at 3%. Yes, some major fields are declining faster, but 1)some of them will probably be reattacked with tertiary extraction techniques 2)some of them are declining slower (U.S.<2%), and 3)new fields will still be being brought online, counteracting the fastest declining fields.

Based on 85 mbd today and another 13 mbd in 2007-8, we're going to get to at least 100 mbd in 2010. Probably a bit more, I rounded down again.

Monte cites EIA demand estimates of 120 mbd in 2020 by the EIA. I think this is a little high since they expect there will be plenty of oil and people won't find cheaper ways of doing things or even buy slightly more fuel efficient cars (and studies have shown consumer preferences alter radically when price hits $3-4/gallon, as it has in Europe).

I accept his number anyway. Demand in 2020 is 120 mbd, and supply, having declined year on year at 3%, is a bit more than 70 mbd. We need to make up 50 mbd over 10 years or so.

Oil sands and (probably not) shale combine for 5-10 mbd of production. No one's wanted to discuss this figure so far. Thermal depolymerization covers 20 mbd, and coal to oil covers 20 mbd (in reality probably one of these two will "win" the economic war and be used more heavily, but this is just an exercise).

From there, we look at the US specifically to make the numbers a bit easier to handle. We've given the US 1/3 of output capability (it's about 1/4 of the world economy, so this seems conservative). So the US will need 6 mbd from TD and 7 mbd from coal to oil.

Coal to oil: Looks profitable at $40/barrel, so it will be implemented. US has 250 billion tons of reserves. Mines 1 billion tons a year. 1 billion tons of coal, at 70% efficiency, gives 7 mbd oil (see JD's calculations). Nearly all of that 1 billion tons goes to 50% power generation. If gas (cliff in 2025, perhaps?) expands by 10% of power, and nuclear expands 10%, and renewables take up something like 5%, then coal mining needs to expand 40-60% over ten years. It's expanded 47% over the last 25, so this seems reasonable. Total price tag for these plants, including the most expensive power replacement option (all nuclear), has been calculated at $1.25 trillion/decade, or $125 billion/year. See the other thread for raw numbers.

TD: The EROEI of TD is 5.6, not .85 as you state on your site. With free feedstocks production is currently at $60-65/barrel. Price will probably come down with larger plants, but the plants will still be profitable with small plants and today's technology at $80-100/barrel. US has 4 billion tons of agricultural waste and 8 billion tons of industrial waste per year (these numbers won't go down dramatically, because things aren't going to crash, because oil prices will stay moderate). Rounding down, it's about 1 barrel/1 ton of waste, so we'd make about 12 Gby if we converted everything (some waste probably has no hydrocarbon content, but some of it has way more than 1 barrel/ton). We need 6 mbd, or about 2.5 Gby. We can easily cover that. Total cost for these plants has been calculated at $500 billion/decade, or $50 billion a year.

Can we pay $175 billion/year? The global energy industry was $3 trillion last year. That's about $750 billion/US. ExxonMobil alone made $25 billion on revenues of $300 billion, meaning that they personally spent $275 billion, or more than the total cost of these plants. And these plants will be profitable, so they will be funded by private capital. Even public spending of $175 billion/year would not be beyond the pale if it were necessary.

(As an aside, I looked at the steel industry at JD's request and determined that steel shortages for all of this building were highly unlikely - after all we are using steel that otherwise would have been used to build oil rigs or refineries, and steel demand has already peaked in most developed nations).

If we make it to 2020, we have bought more time to develop technology (We can probably buy 5 or even 10 more years with oil production technologies and improved efficiency cars - but you don't want twice the calculations, do you? ). At that point, plug-in hybrids will almost certainly be the standard car type, meaning most people won't burn any oil to commute everyday (indeed, something like 90% of trips are under 5 miles). Getting to a plug-in hybrid that covers 40-80 miles requires very few technological steps and no technological leaps. Since personal transport is almost exactly 2/3 of oil use, that's a huge savings. By 2030, it seems likely we'll either have good battery technology or have fuel cells working.

Electricity, of course, isn't really in play at all since oil is only 3% of our power generation.

Yes, the environment gets screwed in this scenario. Yes, negative cultural factors like suburban sprawl continue to mount unabated. These are bad things. But they are the things we need to focus our energies and efforts on, because oil is not going to bring society down.

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', '(')Stands up)

Matt, you've ignored my email about how you misrepresent thermal depolymerization on your site. We can take it up here if you'd like.

Monte, JohnDenver and I are having a big long argument over whether coal to oil and thermal depolymerization are cheap, effectively scalable technologies that can give 40 mbd replacement by 2020. It's on the thread "Why Oil Alternative Fuels Will Fail." You should swing on over and get in on the action.

Here's a summary:

Based on the fact that 13 mbd production is slated to come online in 2007-8, that oil major ExxonMobil predicts a non-OPEC peak in 2010, that the french energy agency predicts a peak in 2012, and that the Saudis say there is no way they will meet demand in 2020, I'm guessing peak is 2012 or so. Rounded to 2010 to make it easier to work with.

Price will probably go somewhat higher than today, $80-100 barrel. It won't get higher than that because demand won't be there - several sectors of the economy would have to radically reorganize if it got more expensive, and no one can sit on years and years worth of oil because there's nowhere to store it (nor would governments let them). In addition, as I discuss below, there will be enough supply to prevent radical price spikes.

Based on the fact that a majority of insiders predict about a 2-4% decline, decline is set at 3%. Yes, some major fields are declining faster, but 1)some of them will probably be reattacked with tertiary extraction techniques 2)some of them are declining slower (U.S.<2%), and 3)new fields will still be being brought online, counteracting the fastest declining fields.

Based on 85 mbd today and another 13 mbd in 2007-8, we're going to get to at least 100 mbd in 2010. Probably a bit more, I rounded down again.

Monte cites EIA demand estimates of 120 mbd in 2020 by the EIA. I think this is a little high since they expect there will be plenty of oil and people won't find cheaper ways of doing things or even buy slightly more fuel efficient cars (and studies have shown consumer preferences alter radically when price hits $3-4/gallon, as it has in Europe).

I accept his number anyway. Demand in 2020 is 120 mbd, and supply, having declined year on year at 3%, is a bit more than 70 mbd. We need to make up 50 mbd over 10 years or so.

Oil sands and (probably not) shale combine for 5-10 mbd of production. No one's wanted to discuss this figure so far. Thermal depolymerization covers 20 mbd, and coal to oil covers 20 mbd (in reality probably one of these two will "win" the economic war and be used more heavily, but this is just an exercise).

From there, we look at the US specifically to make the numbers a bit easier to handle. We've given the US 1/3 of output capability (it's about 1/4 of the world economy, so this seems conservative). So the US will need 6 mbd from TD and 7 mbd from coal to oil.

Coal to oil: Looks profitable at $40/barrel, so it will be implemented. US has 250 billion tons of reserves. Mines 1 billion tons a year. 1 billion tons of coal, at 70% efficiency, gives 7 mbd oil (see JD's calculations). Nearly all of that 1 billion tons goes to 50% power generation. If gas (cliff in 2025, perhaps?) expands by 10% of power, and nuclear expands 10%, and renewables take up something like 5%, then coal mining needs to expand 40-60% over ten years. It's expanded 47% over the last 25, so this seems reasonable. Total price tag for these plants, including the most expensive power replacement option (all nuclear), has been calculated at $1.25 trillion/decade, or $125 billion/year. See the other thread for raw numbers.

TD: The EROEI of TD is 5.6, not .85 as you state on your site. With free feedstocks production is currently at $60-65/barrel. Price will probably come down with larger plants, but the plants will still be profitable with small plants and today's technology at $80-100/barrel. US has 4 billion tons of agricultural waste and 8 billion tons of industrial waste per year (these numbers won't go down dramatically, because things aren't going to crash, because oil prices will stay moderate). Rounding down, it's about 1 barrel/1 ton of waste, so we'd make about 12 Gby if we converted everything (some waste probably has no hydrocarbon content, but some of it has way more than 1 barrel/ton). We need 6 mbd, or about 2.5 Gby. We can easily cover that. Total cost for these plants has been calculated at $500 billion/decade, or $50 billion a year.

Can we pay $175 billion/year? The global energy industry was $3 trillion last year. That's about $750 billion/US. ExxonMobil alone made $25 billion on revenues of $300 billion, meaning that they personally spent $275 billion, or more than the total cost of these plants. And these plants will be profitable, so they will be funded by private capital. Even public spending of $175 billion/year would not be beyond the pale if it were necessary.

(As an aside, I looked at the steel industry at JD's request and determined that steel shortages for all of this building were highly unlikely - after all we are using steel that otherwise would have been used to build oil rigs or refineries, and steel demand has already peaked in most developed nations).

If we make it to 2020, we have bought more time to develop technology (We can probably buy 5 or even 10 more years with oil production technologies and improved efficiency cars - but you don't want twice the calculations, do you? ). At that point, plug-in hybrids will almost certainly be the standard car type, meaning most people won't burn any oil to commute everyday (indeed, something like 90% of trips are under 5 miles). Getting to a plug-in hybrid that covers 40-80 miles requires very few technological steps and no technological leaps. Since personal transport is almost exactly 2/3 of oil use, that's a huge savings. By 2030, it seems likely we'll either have good battery technology or have fuel cells working.

Electricity, of course, isn't really in play at all since oil is only 3% of our power generation.

Yes, the environment gets screwed in this scenario. Yes, negative cultural factors like suburban sprawl continue to mount unabated. These are bad things. But they are the things we need to focus our energies and efforts on, because oil is not going to bring society down.

[entropyfails]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', '
')Yes, the environment gets screwed in this scenario. Yes, negative cultural factors like suburban sprawl continue to mount unabated. These are bad things. But they are the things we need to focus our energies and efforts on, because oil is not going to bring society down.