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/

 

[josephv]

"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?" Greg Locock

Although, the technology exists, we would still have to put it into place. So there would be a transition period, where we start replacing oil with other technologies (solar, wind, nuclear, etc...)

Well, let us not fool ourselves. This transition / implementation will be very costly. We are looking at gigantic costs here.

Realistically, it could take decades to make the transition. The problem is we do not have decades.

Our society is heading towards a collapse. Here is an excellent quote from Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies":

"However much we like to think of ourselves as something special in world history, in fact industrial societies are subject to the same principles that caused earlier societies to collapse."

All through out history all Empires eventually collapsed (e.g. Roman, Ancient Greek, Ottoman). Why should our industrial society be any different?

 

[NickelMet]

I was at a professional meeting <NACE/ASM joint meeting) a couple months ago where Dr. B.B. Rath, National Research Lab, gave a talk about using underwater methane as a replacement for oil. I haven't reviewed the myriad of posts above, but the little glimpses I did get seemed to be right along the same venue. Interesting topic...especially for anyone in the petroleum industry these days.

~NiM

 

[streek]

this is a first post attempt.

We are currently trying to design a biodiesel facility that will use animal fat as the basic raw material. The players in this operation are strangly arrayed to say the least. There are the owners, an architect they trust and then the engineers. Then me the "drafstsman"

We are currently bogged down over really simple things like how much separation there needs to be between the various hazardous material storage tanks/vessels and the buildings near them.

The hazardous materials are: Methane, Sulfuric Acid, Caustic Soda, and I am afraid, others that which I am not yet aware. All of the materials are be stored above ground in tanks outdoors.

If you care to respond to this post I will be glad to provide any furthur details that I can.

Streek

 

[rhodie]

Last I checked, there are billions of tons of coal laying around in various parts of the world. It's messy and damaging to mine, but can't we focus on improving our methods?

It might not be the uber-fuel of low sulfur coal that is in such short supply, but why not examine how to make what we have a bunch of burn cleaner and more potently?

 

[bioengr82]

A resource war of the future?

Iraq anyone? anyone?

 

[gwolf]

The arguments about how much old carbon is left are moot given that with an exponentially rising population the oil, and any other old carbon reserve WILL run out.

Right now we are lucky in that we have plenty. We should be preparing for the future when there isn't any - even if that is 200 years away, now is the time to start. I don't think that moving to more efficient carbon machines is any kind of answer because the small linear improvements are insignificant compared to the global, exponential population increase.

My conclusion is that there is no engineering solution to this. It is a social problem, not an engineering problem. I can illustrate the point easily: Imagine someone invents cheap, clean fusion power. No more power problems. The population thinks 'great' and keeps on consuming and growing. You then start running out of fresh water and land space - this is already starting to happen, take an easy example, the depletion of the rainforests on all continents, the water conflicts in the Jordan valley.

We already have ALL of the technology that we need to be sustainable, it's really easy for us now. Nothing new needs to be invented. We have wind, tide, hydro, bio-fuels, all easy. As a simple example, if you wanted to replace all of Europe's oil with bio fuel you would have to plant an area the size of Germany with oil-seed rape. This is impractical. If the population of Europe was 1/5th of what it is now then that is nowhere near as big a deal. And it is carbon neutral with the atmosphere.

In conclusion, we do not have a technology problem, we have a people problem. There is no engineering our way out of this mess so you may as well all put down your drawing pencils.

 

[gwolf]

Oh, and refering to the original post title: "Resource Wars". This will clearly happen in the future. Western democracies will probably not curb their consumption and resort to invading the Middle-East and controling the new Russian oilfields in an attempt to control supplies and............... oops, we're already there.

And for those doubters about the motives for Iraq (and there are some very good reasons other than oil, don't get me wrong), you don't see a similar clamour to occupy Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea et. al, where similar attrocities are being committed. Wonder why that is? Maybe because there's no oil?

 

[BigWallyB]

"A resource war of the future?
Iraq anyone? anyone?"

"Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea et. al,"

Come on. Talk about politically biased thinking.
We are in Kosovo (without UN authorization I might add.) We are in South Korea, tried Mogadishu and Vietnam too. There are literally dozens of other countries we have a military presence in. Where is the oil there? Given the problems we are having in Iraq, I would suggest the above mentioned countries (gwolf) would be far more difficult to "assist" for vastly varying reasons. We can only accomplish so much. Surely as an engineer you understand "best bang for your buck."
Just to be clear, I have no doubt any administration would do as you are indicating if necessary tho. (Ok, maybe not Jimmy, can you say nuclear north korea, Carter.)

Oil shale answers all your questions!! Git er done!! Just kiddin. Does sorta support Gregs supposition tho.

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/npr/NPR_Oil_Shale_Program.html

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html

Life is what happens while we're making other plans.

Wally

 

[davefitz]

Back to the original post.

It seems that the issue of peak oil is being taken seriously by the various governments, and its rate of decline is sufficently slow enough that a catastrophic shock to the economies and populations is not likely .

There has been no major oil discovery since about 1970 , of the size of the saudi arabian fields ( go ahead, check the size of the fields discoverd since then). The largest increase in available oil will likely be due to "tertiary" recovery efforts and also deep sea rigs, while the potential for canadian and venezualen shale oil is enormous but an energy inefient process. The tertiary recovery processes generally require a market in cheap, liquid CO2 to move forward, and this seems to dovetail with recent efforts to build IGCC's with CO2 recovery. This has the potential to nearly double the recoverable oil from existing fields.

The deep sea fields have not been harvested to date due to associated natural gas releases, but this can be now overcome by barge mounted gas liquifaction technology ( as per IHI offerings).

As far as population control goes, there was a step change in fecundity of China and also western developed nations following the publication of the "Club of Rome " report on population issues in the 1960's. The China approach was the "one child one family " policy while the western approach was a (probably deliberate) culture change that included women's lib, attitudes toward abortion and birth control, and "raising the value of women" by incorporating them in the workplace. If one discounts immigration, western countries have negative rate of increase in poplulation.

These same types of population control efforts can be used by those contries that retain the medieval practices of treating women as baby factories.

Also, it is to be noted that some EU countries currently are demosntarting that one can have an incrasing economy while also having a decreasing rate of energy consumption per capita, so that old connection between energy consumption and economic growth has to be questioned.

 

[SacreBleu]

Greg Locock,
Instead of so effortlessly dismissing the idea of bicycling to work as being "inefficient" time-wise, consider the health, quality of life, and environmental advantages of cycling.
I typically cycle 4 days out of the 5-day work week. Round-trip per day is 34 miles. With the increased cost of fuel, I can increase that ratio of cycling 9 days out of 10.
It takes me about 74 minutes (one-way, 17 miles) on bicycle vs. 44 minutes by automobile. Plus, I don't have to spend any time going to an athletic club to work-out.

 

[StressGuy]

But I doubt your coworkers would appreciate the air pollution you'd bring in with you after a 17 mile ride to work. Hope you have a private office.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[gwolf]

BigWallyB,

I take all of your points graciously, but I resent insults like "Come on. Talk about politically biased thinking".

My points about resource depletion, over-population, and the USA only seriously comitting when oil is involved are fair and true. Don't drag Korea and Vietnam into this, they were clearly ideaological not resource based conflicts based on the Cold War 40-50 years ago. They are not relevant to this discussion. You give yourself away with the comment "best bang for your buck."

As we're on the subject of wars, p.s. Thanks USA for saving Britain from initially Hitler and then probably Stalin. Especially as it was an old-world conflict which was rightly not your responsibility. If it wasn't for the USA, Britain would have fallen very quickly. You would be surprised how many older British people are convinced that we did it all and that the USA "just helped out a little bit with supplies".

gwolf

 

[rhodie]

This thread has been "Godwin'd".

Interesting how it always becomes relevant down to the matters of a generation before our own.

 

[BigWallyB]

I apologize for my politically biased thinking. And I thank Britain for its consistant friendship and brotherhood.

It rather torques me when U.S. motives are simplified and twisted. We may be as hegemonic as the next culture, but if there is one culture in this world that can be said to be nonimperialist, that would be us.

As has been said, resource depletion and overpopulation require poltical and social answers as well as engineered answers. All of which require money. Doesn't everything?

Life is what happens while we're making other plans.

Wally

 

[sms]

I don't know where people get the idea that the US invades other countries for oil. We don't have to, we just buy oil and happily. We have not conquered any territory anywhere in order to take advantage of their oil.

Iraq may be about a lot of things,including middle east stability and that certainly effects oil supply, but ultimately it is not about taking their oil. We will pay for any oil that comes from Iraq, over and over and over again.

Don't believe everything you read.... The US Government and George Bush in particular is not as stupid as the world press would have you believe....

-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

 

[Heckler]

SacreBleu - Thanks for doing your part in energy conservation. I to ride my bike to work and it's great start to my day. Actually, we have several people that ride their bikes to work. It's a thought process change as well as a lifestyle change which is required for conservation. The American people (engineering community) have to do something! we can't sit back letting the politicians make the final say on any "new technology" or better yet give the power to organizations like sierra club, earth liberation front & greenpeace.

 

[gwolf]

Hmmmmm.

Wally, apology accepted. The cute and humourous emoticons helped. By the way, how do you incorporate these things into posts, is it part of the set? I suppose I'll see when I hit submit.

sms, "we just buy oil and happily" - are you serious?

rhodie, This thread has been "Godwin'd". I'm unfamiliar with the origins of this specific term but I think I know what you are saying. If there is a humourous background to the term please post a link or explain.

Back to the thread, I maintain my stance that population growth is the real problem, you may be able to ease the problem for 100-200 years by being clever but you will still ultimately end up back at the same point, but this time with an enormous population instead of a huge one.

I have no solution. Maybe engineers should become politicians - now that would be a first.

 

[GregLocock]

Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

From wiki


Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[flamby]

The stress on oil supplies is related to rate of population-growth in a limited way because the number of people required to consume all the oil in no time are already placed on this planet. It is just because of the poverty levels of the most that they do not consume much energy.

As developing countries grow economically, more and more poor people will lay claims on the energy resources to improve their lives and this is quite capable of offsetting all future predictions.

"The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!" sums it all.


Ciao.

 

[QCE]

"I don't know where people get the idea that the US invades other countries for oil. We don't have to, we just buy oil and happily. We have not conquered any territory anywhere in order to take advantage of their oil."

And what happens when countries don't want to sell oil to the USA because they have been bullied by the USA's foireign policies????

Are you really suggesting that the USA plays fairly on the world stage as far as trade relations go. They don't even play fair with Canada their largest trading partner. Imagine how they treat other countries that are not friendly. Take a look at the softwood lumber dispute and the mad cow issues in Canada. Notice the president of China is in Canada this week asking for more trade with Canada. Considering the trade relations with the USA I would bet Paul is all for it.

I think the Hitler/ Nazi thing is related with so kind of time factor. Do you think in the future it will be 9/11, Iraq war comments that cross the line.

I notice these threads have a certain threshold for political debate. 9/11, British bombings and Iraq war are still beyond the threshold unless of course you support the war.