Oil shortages, alternative energy and resource wars 13

[josephv]

Where is Engineering going in the next 5 years?

The single most important issue that will dominate engineering in the next couple of years is the unavoidable depletion of the world's oil supplies. Hopefully, engineers everywhere will rise to the challenge by helping with the development of alternative sources of energy.

Of course, engineers can help, but we also need to radically rethink our way of life. Unless, we change our wasteful ways, we risk decades of resource wars.

What do you think of this?

For more information visit:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

 

[sc]

Tend to agree, however, we must remember that oil basically operates our transport system. Research and progress towards energy sources for grid power is already well underway. Have a look at the Enviromission site for one such alternative.

http://www.enviromission.com.au/index1.htm

Wind farms are also "growing" in numerous locations around the world and providing an alternative whilst there is some debate about efficiency of these farms, most of the debate in Australia has more to do with the visual impact.

The real problem for our energy resources is the internal combustion engine. Whilst many engineers are looking at improving the road networks to improve efficiency of travel. (by reduction of grades, stop start driving, surface frictions, etc) there does not appear (in the general press) to be much effort placed on getting rid of the internal combustion engine. We have the hybrid car (still needs the ICE) and we have had battery only cars (extremely poor performance). If there are other options out there I have not come across them yet.

The world is looking for alternative fuels that can be provided efficiently and cheaply, but to date nothing appears to be suitable for the ICE in terms of durability. Sarich has tried improving the ICE to be more efficient with his orbital engine and has had success with small engines for motorbikes and marine applications, but we still don't have a useful car. Still it is only about improving efficiency, not replacing the ICE with real and improved technology.

Remember mankind has inherited the earth and then set about destroying it with a series of short term views. We don't need short term alternatives we need long term technology changes.



Regards
sc

 

[GregLocock]

<josephv> wrote :&quot;The single most important issue that will dominate engineering in the next couple of years is the unavoidable depletion of the world's oil supplies. &quot;

Twaddle

If it dominated engineering then more than 50% of each engineer's time for the next two years would be spent on that useless goal.

Yes, we are using oil up. We are also discovering more oil. It is a moot point whether we are discovering more than we are using.

We are developing alternatives. The turkey guts process looks pretty good.

We are making ICEs vastly more efficient. All that has to happen is for the price of oil to rise and we will start using 30-36% efficient engines as used in the Prius, rather than the more typical 25%.

The reason that we are not chasing efficiency in vehicles is that oil is as cheap as, if not cheaper than, it has ever been since World War 1, in real terms.

The problems are political and social. We have the technology.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[TheBlacksmith]

Greg,

&quot;We are developing alternatives. The turkey guts process looks pretty good.&quot;

I'll bite. What is the turkey guts process?

Blacksmith

 

[josephv]

Greg wrote, &quot;We are developing alternatives. The turkey guts process looks pretty good.&quot;

The &quot;turkey guts process&quot; is slang for Thermal depolymerization, a process that turns waste (e.g. including plastics, tires, turkey guts,and agricultural waste) into oil.

Although Thermal depolymerization, has some strong qualities (i.e. turns waste into oil), it is not a solution to oil depletion. Simply, because &quot;waste&quot; is a product of high grade oil. For example plastics, and diesel in tractors used for agriculture. The &quot;turkey guts process&quot; may give us a couple years, but it will not prevent the crisis.

Furthermore, although we are discovering more oil, the oil that we are discovering is getting more and more expensive to extract (i.e. more inacessible). So the crisis will not occur when we deplete oil reserves, but when it no longer will be cost effective to &quot;mine&quot; oil.

Yes, we can make the internal combustion engine more efficient, but that will only have a minimal impact as oil costs skyrocket.

Greg wrote, &quot;We have the technology.&quot;

No, we do not have the technology. Once we realize this, we can tackle the problem.

 

[uleaum]

Greg wrote, &quot;We are developing alternatives. The turkey guts process looks pretty good.&quot;

josephv wrote:
The &quot;turkey guts process&quot; is slang for Thermal depolymerization, a process that turns waste (e.g. including plastics, tires, turkey guts,and agricultural waste) into oil.

There is a good article on this in the May 2003 issue of Discover Magazine. I think josephv is missing a point. The materials listed above are not the only source that can be used to produce oil. The process turns carbohydrates into hydrocarbons. In the future, municipal waste treatement plants will not &quot;dispose&quot; of sewage, but convert it to oil. There is not shortage of raw material for this process.

We do have the technology. In the past technological innovation because a practical alternative has presented itself. It is not very practical to scrap existing infrastructure for an equally usefull system. Major technical revolution occurs several decades after initial technology emerges. The car took about 20 or 30 years to take off. The computer took at least 30 reach revolutionary status.

It's never physics that innovates, its engineering. In this case a good portion of the engineering is out the way. Looking at previous timelines of revolution we are no more than 15 to 20 years away from converting to this process. Right about the time that the worlds oil reserves are expected to run out.

 

[quark]

I will stick to Mr M Crichton's saying Life finds its own path Courtesy: Jurassic Park.

You have horses anyhow.

 

[josephv]

Hello, and thank you for all your replies.

uleam wrote:
There is a good article on this in the May 2003 issue of Discover Magazine. ... In the future, municipal waste treatment plants will not &quot;dispose&quot; of sewage, but convert it to oil. There is not shortage of raw material for this process.

I read the Discover Magazine article. Please note that in order to produce the advertised 4 Billions Barrels per year one would require 18,000 plants the size of the one in Missouri.

Right now, there are plans to build 1 or 2 plants per year, yet to truly slow down the crisis we would need to be building 1,000 plants per year, right now, today.

The critical point of the curve (i.e. when oil demand is greater than supply) will most likely come this decade.

We are not technologically, politically or economically prepared.

 

[ccfowler]

I have found it best to consider any claims or forecasts for the future with much skepticism and caution. Their accuracy usually falls somewhere in the range from poor to absurdly poor. It seems as though the the more dire the prediction, the poorer its accuracy.

I recall great concern in the 1970s that natural gas reserves were desperately low and that at then-current usage rates, the reserves would be gone by the early 1990s. Quite stringent restrictions on usage were proposed to preserve the precious supply for the most important uses. Interestingly, prices increased and &quot;magically&quot; more resources were found and developed. Gas usage increased yet reserves in the 1990s were significantly greater than during the period of near panic in the 1970s.

The recent rapid deployment of natural gas fueled high efficiency gas turbines and combined cycle units for electric power generation seem to be putting some stress on available gas resources, but if history provides any guidance, rising prices will probably justify the discovery and development of more resources.

Where politics, natural resources, and the environment are involved, it is wise to consider when &quot;concern&quot; for the environment is really more a tool than a cause for some of the key players to provide political leverage. Quite often it seems that well-intentioned but semi-informed people are readily drawn in and used for political and public relations advantage.

The politically-correct desire to do away with Otto-cycle and Diesel-cycle internal combustion engines is admittedly one of my pet peeves. In the size range and applications where they make sense, they are really quite excellent machines particularly in their cleaner forms that have been developed in recent years. Their efficiency, emissions, and burden on all resources (when all aspects are considered including their materials, manufacture, recycling, etc.) actually compare favorably to alternatives.

New and alternative machines and systems should and will be developed. These should and will be deployed when as as they make practical sense. Isn't that the way things have been in the past?

 

[BobPE]

ccfowler:

what was the deal with that imaginary natural gas crisis in the 70's? You are very right though in that in was a markey driven crisis...I am overstepping my area of expertise, but dont our refineries make a high percentage of natural gas from oil then store it in depleted goelogical formations for peak high cost usage?

I agree with your point of trouble when mixing politics, the environment, and natural resources..It's all too common an occurance on the minds of all the environmentally minded SUV drivers out there. I drive a redicously high power sports car and not an SUV so I do my part in saving the environment...lol

As I recall, we were supposed to be out of oil by the end of the 90's as my brainwashed teachers told me in grade skool. I agree its a non-renewable resource and will eventually go the way of the typewriter, but it's what we have to work with right now. I agree with GregLocock that we do have the the technology in place to deal with oils gradual depletion and the ICE will be here for some time. I argue with people all the time about developing resources where ever they are, but the environazis seem to be in control at the delight of oil companies that artifically inflate costs based on their victories. Technology cannot fix this, but common sense could...something that most environmentalists seem to be lacking.

My prediction on oil is that it will be around for quite some time, my rational for this is the fact that I have not seen any of the top 5 oil producers diversify to other business plans like Vivindi leaving the worn out utility market and going to the entertainment industry instead.


I would have to disagree with josephv with the idea that oil will be the basis for future conflict. A majority of the words population is third world with little or no use nor benefit from oil and by the time they do develop the need, the industrialized nations will have the oil gone. Rather, water will be the stuff wars are waged over. We see it already although most of the combatents in the war die rather quickly without too much ado from the non third world in general.

The middle east is ripe with conflict over water with Isreal threatning war over water diversions Jordan is making. Isreal had anounced plans to bomb a water pumping station making agreed upon withdrawals which is just unbelievable in my mind.

We as engineers will have our hands full there is no doubt. Espically since fewer and fewer people are becoming engineers just who will we pass our knowledge on to.

this is a pretty good discussion though.....and these are just my rambling thoughts....

BobPE

 

[owg]

One of Saudi's oil ministers said that the stone age did not end because we ran out of stone, the iron age did not end because we ran out of iron, and the oil age will not end because we run out of oil. I think he is correct. The oil age will end because we run out of carbon dioxide sinks, or we find better ways of doing what we want to do. Check out

http://www.members.rogers.com/fhcurry/Paths.pdf

for a review of what lies ahead.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[owg]

The correct link is

http://members.rogers.com/fhcurry/Paths.pdf

Too bad we can't edit our posts.


HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[josephv]

Excellent discussion.... thanks for the ideas... please keep them coming.

However, there are some common misconceptions that I would like to dispel.

1) My prediction on oil is that it will be around for quite some time, my rational for this is the fact that I have not seen any of the top 5 oil producers diversify to other business plans (BobPE)

This is not true. BP (British Petroleum) now stands for &quot;Beyond Petroleum&quot;. Shell is investing 5 billion into Solar and Wind Energy.

2) ... we do have the technology in place to deal with oils gradual depletion ... (BobPE)

There is no alternative fuel technology that has the Net Energy of oil. Hydrogen and Thermal Depolymerization require lots of Energy to produce, and the Net Energy obtained is relatively small. Other alternatives sources, such as wind and solar are excellent, but do not have the ease of transport or convenience that oil has.

3) &quot;The Stone Age came to an end not for a lack of stones, and the oil age will end, but not for a lack of oil.&quot; Sheikh Yamani (Saudi Arabia's former oil minister)

This is the old apples with oranges comparison, that completely shows a complete lack of understanding of history. The &quot;Stone Age&quot; lasted tens of thousands of years. The &quot;oil age&quot; will last less than 2 centuries. In fact it is incorrect to call it the &quot;oil age&quot;; &quot;oil interval&quot; would be more appropriate due to its short duration.

4) Where politics, natural resources, and the environment are involved, it is wise to consider when &quot;concern&quot; for the environment is really more a tool than a cause for some of the key players to provide political leverage. Quite often it seems that well intentioned but semi-informed people are readily drawn in and used for political and public relations advantage. (ccfowler)

I would not call leading petroleum geologists &quot;semi-informed&quot;. Personally, I trust their opinion more than the opinion of some &quot;semi-informed&quot; economists that believe that petroleum is a infinite resource. Please see the following link for a list of engineers and scientist who warn of the coming global oil crisis.

http://www.oilcrisis.com/experts/

 

[ccfowler]

BobPE,

The natural gas supply situation of the 1970s wasn't imaginary, and it did not involve any great conspiracies. It was mainly the result of an overly regulated market where prices and production/delivery costs got too far separated from reality. The deregulation of the market restored some reality-based balance to the situation.

The current situation of conventional vs. alternative energy systems has significant characteristics. For the inderminable future, oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy sources can function with prices high enough to remain significantly profitable yet low enough to forestall rapid development of alternative sources currently under consideration for substantial deployment. This does not imply the operation of any great conspiracies, it simply reflects the current state of resources and development of technologies.

Alternative energy sources are not free of significant burdens and impediments. When considered with a reasonable measure of skeptimism and proportion, the costs of various energy sources tend to provide useful indications of the relative resource burdens associated with their implementation and operation. For example, alternative energy sources tend to have relatively high capital costs because they tend to involve relatively low energy density sources. Thus, they tend to require relatively large amounts of materials, relatively large land areas, etc. Political considerations can bias the situation for a while through subsidies, tax credits, preferential legislation, etc., but reality must ultimately prevail. (Legislation is not likely to cause gravity to cease its pervasive functionality!)

When new systems reach the point of development where they make realistic sense, they tend to be adopted. An excellent example of this is shown in the case of the railroads of North America in the years following World War II. Coal fired steam locomotives were very quickly and universally replaced by Diesel-electric locomotives because of overwhelming practical and economic considerations.

Environmental considerations are very properly important, but reality is still reality despite politics, political correctness, or good intentions. An alternative energy system should not be deployed just because it is an alternative system. It should be deployed because it offers net benefits compared to the conventional system(s) that it may displace. An alternative energy system may be developed on the basis of good intentions, but good intentions do not assure that deployment will result in net positive benefits. This is where politics and political correctness can do real and substantial harm.

 

[GregLocock]

Best estimates of the recoverable reserves are in excess of 1000 billion barrels of crude oil.

Demand is about 77 million barrels per day.

This gives, /at current rate of use/, 35 years of oil.

If the price goes up demand will fall.

Currently nobody is looking for more reserves, because oil is about as cheap now as it has been since 1985, when US oil production peaked. In 1985 residual fuel oil ex refinery was 60 c per gallon. 2001 55c per gallon. Those prices are in absolute dollars, not inflation adjusted. I chose that rather unsexy product because it is apparent that no-one is interested in it, yet for little real investment it can be cracked. No sign of an oil shortage there.

All figures taken from

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html

Do you think that the DOE is a reasonable source of information?

I do agree to some extent, oil is a finite resource and it will get more expensive until replacements are found. Then people will lose interest in it and it will become an irrelevance. Practically speaking you will start building PWRs again. I hope that happens rather than coal fired power stations.

By the way your second website is connected to the first, it is not an independent source of data. It has an interesting paper

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/Petrotech090103.pdf

Figure 7 suggests that the world peak oil production is likely to occur in 2012, and that oil production (and hence consumption) will fall back to present day values in 2022. Over the following 23 years the production will fall to half the current figures.

Now, I have no idea what the price elasticity curve for petroleum is, but if you are telling me that we have 42 years in which to prepare for a halving in the supply of oil, I have no nightmares. Yes, the alternatives are more expensive. However more expensive isn't necessarily worse. Last time we had an oil crisis cars got better. We threw away carbs and got fuel injection. Now we drive around in small cars with 100 hp instead of 40. They get 35 mpg instead of 25. That's fun.

Figure 8 shows the effect of adding in some other liquid hydrocarbon sources like shales. This rolls back the 50% of present day to 2050-2060.

Finally adding in natural gas as well rolls the 50% number back to 2075.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[RDK]

There is an article called “Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis” written by Prof. Albert Bartlett, Professor of Physics, University of Colorado, Bolder and presented at the 1983 ASHRAE meeting. I have a copy of it published under the Canadian Federal Energy Management Program. A related article called “POPULATION GROWTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT”
is available at

http://www.gsenet.org/library/17pop/grthenvi.php

While some of the examples and references are somewhat dated, there is still a lot of truth in the article. Energy consumption was increasing at 7%. ( I don’t know what the current growth rate is.) Simple arithmetic tells us this means a doubling of the total consumption in about 10 years. In each doubling the total consumed will be exceed the previous total consumed. If we have say 1,000 times the total previously consumed, at 7% growth the supply will last less than 10 doublings or 100 years. Two thousand times the total previously consumed will only last 11 doublings or 110 years. Four thousand times will only be good for 120 years.

We are faced with exponential growth in the consumption of a finite resource.

Yes we can find more oil. This is part of the finite quantity of oil available. Even if the earth was a sphere of oil floating around the universe, it is still a finite amount of oil.

Given exponential growth in the rate of consumption of this finite resource, we will eventually run out of oil.

There is a lot of misinformation out there. Industry claims that the reserves will last thousands of years <small print on> at present rates of consumption <small print off>. This then is used to justify low rates, no increase in energy efficiency of homes, vehicles and processes, resulting in continued exponential growth.

Oil is fat too cheap to be worth conserving. This is because short sighted politicians are responding to the demands of an equally short sighted electorate. The producing nations, also with often short sighted leaders, can produce oil at rates far below current selling prices and this increases the pressures on increased consumption of the finite resource.

To me there is no question, if the human race is to continue to develop.

We have to reduce oil consumption.

We have to find more reserves.

We have to find alternate sources of energy.





Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[PSE]

Efficient use of ANY resource should always be an Engineer's priority irrespective of that resources availability or scarcity.

Regards

 

[josephv]

Hello Greg,

Thank you for you post. I agree with your math, but not with the interpretation.

In your first calculation you mention that there are 35 years left of oil. But you did not mention that with these numbers, oil production will still peak this decade.

Please note that the problems will occur not the day that oil runs out, but when demand exceeds supply. This is unchartered waters.

Our economy is based on growth and is completely dependent on oil; even poor countries need oil for agriculture. Once we hit the peak, there will a world crisis caused by a bidding war for the remaining oil. Every year there will be less and less energy for transportation, heating, agriculture etc...

Regarding the charts, you also did not mention that the addition of natural gas and shale oil (although may help extend the &quot;oil age&quot will not change the peak by more than a couple years.

Further, please note that replacing oil with another nonrenewable fuel (natural gas) that is also peaking is not a wise choice.

Also, note that shale oil requires lots of energy to produce. For every 3 barrels that are recovered, 2 barrels of energy were spent.

Finally, no fuel efficient cars, oil substitutes, oil discoveries will change the peak.

We will reach this peak (and world crisis) sometime between 2004 - 2008.

I could go on and on... but there is an excellent book that describes this...

http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s7121.html

Cheers,

Joseph

 

[GregLocock]

<PSE>
&quot;Efficient use of ANY resource should always be an Engineer's priority irrespective of that resources availability or scarcity.&quot;

Yes, so long as the you use a valid definition of efficiency. It would be very efficient, from an oil use standpoint, to force all American schoolchildren to cycle to school, and all engineers to cycle to their offices.

In society's terms that is not efficient.

Basically if I burn one gallon of fuel, cost two dollars, and get to work 20 minutes earlier, so I can work 20 minutes longer, that is a net improvement in productivity for society of 78 dollars by not cycling.

Similarly, the additional social benefit of driving the fat kids to school must outweigh the (trivial) cost of fuel used.

Joseph - the crisis will not occur at the peak. Prices will start to rise, in real terms, as we approach the peak, because the cost of production will rise as the easy sources get used up.

The reason I chose the level of half present day useage as the measure of when things will get interesting is that present day technologies can already get us to a 50% reduction of oil useage AS SOON AS THEY ARE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. They cannot become viable until the price of oil has risen. I don't know what proportion of oil and gas is used for heating and powering stationary plants, but that is plain ridiculous. Nuclear, coal and assorted green power technologies should be used instead, as a matter of priority. When that happens I'll believe that the world population is even slightly serious about oil useage.

With the exception of aircraft can you give me an example of an oil burning system for which a non-oil based alternative does not exist already, or for which a 50% reduction in oil use is not already available? Why will we have an oil-use crisis in 9 years time (Laherrere's figures)if the technology to reduce our oil use by 50% already exists?

It may not be cheap, but we can do it when we want to. We (society) don't seem to want to.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

Greg,

In my viewpoint time is also a resource (after all I work as an industrial engineering type) so you help me prove my point. You want to optimize your most valuable resources first and then work to improve from there. Oil seems to be the current hot topic within this thread but there are many other resources to consider as well.

Of course the excercise gained from cycling to either school or work has its own benefits and value .

Regards