World Natural Gas Situation

This is a 15 minute interview with Matt Simmons, one of the foremost experts on oil and gas decline.

"65% of the world's gas supply is now in decline and we're not even sure the rate at which the decline is accelerating. Gas can decline real fast."

Interview

Basically he presents a worrying situation but there is a distinct lack of data to determine how severe the situation really is and how fast natural gas is going to decline.

He's not worried about running out of gas because there are vast amounts of gas available. He is concerned about the huge rate at which demand is growing and the rate at which supply is increasing or declining.

One thing for certain is that the USA depends heavily on natural gas and that it recently came very close to the point were demand would have exceeded supply.

Personally I'm looking at a variety of scenarios which could bring about economic collapse in the USA. Gas or oil shortage would be one of these scenarios.

Certainly at the very least the coming energy crisis will trigger wars over the remaining resources.

Just do a thought experiment and think of what the effect of a booming middle class population in India and China on the oil market. China alone expects that there middle class will reach an estimated 500 million people by 2007!! All of whom will want a car. Peak Oil is coming people and when it hits....well it Ain't gonna be pleasant. I can think of only one way to sidestep this metaphorical tidal wave coming, run a multi-billion dollar contest for the car companies to compete to get the first commercial Hydrogen Fuel cell car in mass-production by 2006. It can be done. The US has done it before, although than WW2 was raging. Will it take WW3 for the west to switch over to hydrogen I hope not!!

Heh, hydrogen is not an energy source it's an energy carrier. Like a battery.

To get hydrogen you can extract it from gas or oil but you would be better off burning the natural gas or oil directly rather than using its hydrogen to make electricity.

You can also electrolyse water but you get alot less energy out of the hydrogen than the electricity that you used to get the hydrogen. You also need a serious amount of electricity, most of which comes from gas and oil currently.

Another problem with hydrogen is that it wants to be free Its the lightest element and is hard to contain, hydrogen escapes from containers very quickly. It also makes metal containers brittle so they break.

There is also the problem that hydrogen is nowhere near as energy dense as gasoline or natural gas. You could not run an airplane on hydrogen for example.

Basically there is no way that hydrogen could be used even on 1 thousandth of the scale that oil and natural gas are being used to sustain the world economy and population.

Most people think that the energy problem will solve itself because humans are generally resourceful and clever. ie. People are generally optimistic that we will find a solution because human civilization has been advancing for thousands of years.

The problem is that for the past 100 years we have been advancing because we found a staggering amount of super cheap, easily recoverable, energy dense, easily transportable chemical energy.

This fossil energy has allowed for the industrialisation of food production and so between 1950 and 2004 the world population grew by 4 billion people.

My Bro works for one of the British gas Companies here in the UK and he came across a report 10 years ago saying we only had access to 40-50 years worth of Oil, coal, gas and problems will start to be felt in 10-15 years. Ie: now.

He said access, we have got tones of resourses to last us hundreds of years,its getting to those resourses that will be dangerous and awkward. So far weve acessed the close-to-the-surface deposits, we need to dig deeper and be more adventurous like abyss style underwater drilling rigs to get it and the money to afford such technology will be on a parof space exploration.

This is a very worrying situation that we are now facing, and maybe, just maybe, make the world governments more actively seek out other methods for energy production....

o and i thought the projected decline for oil production is 2015? is this true or not?

Oil maybe but Gas????

I know ppl who have spent their entire lives in energy and from what Ive been told Gas will be around for a long time, much longer than oil.

Oil will run out first, but with Gas we can create energy needs for the next 200 years.

But its not really about "how much is in the ground" more how cheaply can it be supplied. Due to massive consumption , energy needs to be cheap, if it isnt then it will hit the economy hard.

Like with peak oil. Its not when the wells run dry and the fuel game is over, but when CHEAP OIL is no more that we will begin to suffer.

TenPin, Hi! this link maybe of int'.
www.theage.com.au...
Sanc'.

TenPin,
I guess you have never heard about GM Algea that produces hydrogen when it photosynthesizes.
Algea Hydrogen
Algae: Power Plant of the Future?

As for you comment's on the storage technology and the fact that cars will never run on them, well I guess you've never heard GM HyWire Prototype. Not to mention just about every car company is working on this right now. Every hear of NANOTECHNOLOGY? It's gonna change the game when it comes to hydrogen, ExxonMobile is the World leader in spending on Hydrogen right now, they know where the future is at. The Govanator of Cali is forging ahead with his plans for a post-oil future.

Heres some more links...
Automobiles using Fuel Cells
Hydrogen stored in Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

One point I do agree with you, is that Airplanes will never run on Hydrogen. But homes, cars, buses, etc will run on hydrogen in the near future. BTW Did you know that Fedex is installing 300 Fuel Cells in what is the first big test of the technology.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Just do a thought experiment and think of what the effect of a booming middle class population in India and China on the oil market. China alone expects that there middle class will reach an estimated 500 million people by 2007!!

No need to experiment. China is already using almost as much oil as the US. And, China and other areas of Asia are also responsible, in part, for the rise in beef prices---the old supply/demand curve.

See my thread here:
China and oil

270 million barrels of oil WOW!! I had no idea.... That just goes to show that we are entering into a dire situation that needs to be addressed by investment into renewable, non-pulluting energy sources and storage devices. Increasing fuel effincancy isn't a bad idea as well.

sardion2000, about hydrogen

Certainly the algae thing is pretty cool and will certainly come in handy.

Unfortunately I'm sure it will be too little too late. The inertia we have towards fossil fuels is immense and demands are rising fast.

I'm also certain that we won't be able to use algae to provide the 3 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity that the USA uses every year or whatever (large) portion of that is provided by oil and gas.

Basically if you look at the math involved in replacing oil and gas with renewable the results are almost a joke.

For example if you were to be able to convert 100% of the suns energy that hits the earths surface to electricity you would need to collect from an area 2 times the size of the USA to power the USA.

Not to mention the prohibitive costs and scale of using anything other than oil and gas.

Factor in projected world population growth and the size of certain countries military and you basically end up with a social, economic and geopolitical situation which is bang on target with the book of revelation Oh yeah I forgot terrorism aswell.

We are all doooooooomed

You give solar power too little credit. The solar cells of today are horribly inefficient, the best being only at the 30% mark. The cheapest of solar cells only get about 1.9% efficiency!

There are several methods (easily implemented, such as the SYLCELL method, (www.keelynet.com...) that could increase efficiency to 50% and beyond (www.newscientist.com...), but you would have to get past the greed of the solar cell producers. More efficient cells mean fewer sales of said cells (say that 5 times fast). I guess when it comes down to it, human greed will end up being the DOOM of us all :\

Even with more efficient solar cells, we are in for a pickle in the coming years. Maybe I should go back to Ethanol

If you read my post it says "100% of the suns energy".

I was assuming 100% solar panel efficiency so obviously with current levels of 30% it's just beyond a joke :/

If we could actually get 100% of the suns energy (I wish) it would be approximately 3.8 x 10^23 kilowatt-hours each hour. The amount of energy that reaches Earth, however, would only be about 1,500 watts per square meter.

In 1999, power consumption for the USA was at 3.23 terawatts, and now it�s probably at 3.3 terawatts.

We would need give or take 2.2 billion square meters, or 2.2 million square kilometers, in solar cells. Of course that�s at an unrealistic 100% conversation rate, but again we�re talking about 100%.

With the USA land size being some 9 million square kilometers (actual land being smaller, I think this includes water as well), the USA would need a solar farm approx. � the size of the USA itself. However, with a multi-layering system of solar cells, as well as miniaturizing the solar cells themselves (nanotech), you�re looking at something far more conservative.

How would multi layering or miniaturisation help ? You can't get more energy out than arrives at the earth.

Dropping the 100% thing... according to en.wikipedia.org... you only get ~1.5 watts per sq meter on the part of the earth's surface normal to the sun. There is also the problem of night time and clouds

I shall have to do some sums for wind and wave power now also... What about geothermal too.

Solar tech as it now stands is still pretty primative even though it can help us now. The holy grail in Solar Energy technology is Artificial Photosynthesis. Even though this form of Solar Energy is incredibally complicated there are currently about a dozen labs working on it and probably a number of Energy Blue chips as well. I am also watching a new startup nanotech company called Nanosys and they are working on a method of incorporating photoreceptors into regular building materials. It's still the early days but there is alot of promising technology on the very near horizon.

Getting away from oil is gonna take more than just Solar, or Hydrogen. It's gonna take a combination of clean energy sources that will be dictated by what is around you. For example if you live in the desert Solar and Wind would be a very good idea whereas Geothermal, Hydrogen and Tidal isn't a very good idea. If you live on the coast Tidal and Hydrogen would be ideal. I really can't think of an economical way to use Geothermal on a large scale cuz in order to do that you would have to drill down to the mantle and thats expensive right now.

On a side note, there is one thing that will get rid of the worlds energy problems forever. Workable Fusion Reactors, but as it stands right now we are maybe 50-100 years away from that so we gotta make do. What do you guys think the chances of the ITER Test Reactor of producing a Commercial Fusion Reactor in the next 30 years? My opinion is it's likely to be bogged down in cost overruns and overbeuracracy and cancled before completion.

No, you can't get more energy than arrives, this is true enough. But I'm talking about limiting the amount of space that you need to take full advantage of this energy (miniaturization allows more of said cells to be packed in the layers, taking up even less space). I seriously doubt its 1.5 watts per sq meter; if it is solar power is a jip. A JIP I SAY. The intensity of sunlight on the Earth's surface varies, but on average it's between 1,200 and 1,500 watts per square meter (per hour). If it was only 1.5 watts per square meter, it would take 40 square meters of solar cells just to power one 60-watt light bulb... naw. Howstuffworks has an interesting (albeit not great) article on how many cells (and how much) to power your house. home.howstuffworks.com... MAKE CELLS CHEAPER, I HAVE A SANDWICH TO COOK BAH.

I've never liked wind power. Can't say why. Maybe it's the slaughter of all the birds. *shrugs*.

Wave power is interesting, but I haven�t done much research into it.

Geothermal power is an exciting 'renewable' source of energy. www.worldenergy.org... is a GREAT page about Geothermal Energy.

In 1999, all of North America's Geo energy being used was at 24,635 GWh per year. Half of it comes from the USA, which is about .5% of the USA's total power requirements (lol). Currently only California, Nevada, Hawaii and Utah (according to the website above) utilize geothermal energy... it's a shame in a way. Comparatively, hardly ANY of the geothermal hot spots have been tapped at all... geothermal energy spreads all across the USA, from New York to Alaska. I vote for this and solar all the way, and maybe some good old fashioned nuclear energy (not really).

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by Final_Wave]

In toronto they have been installing the BIG Wind Genorators, the ones that can power on average 300 homes a year for 10 million cnd each its still quite expensive but our new mayor David Miller is planning on putting up 200 more over the next 3 years(legislation pending...).

Originally posted by Final_Wave
I've never liked wind power. Can't say why. Maybe it's the slaughter of all the birds. *shrugs*.
[Edited on 23-5-2004 by Final_Wave]

There was a concern this may happen but as it turns out only the small ones are dangerous to birds cause the rotors spin so fast. The Bigger they are the more complicated the bearings system can be = Its waay more efficient than the 15 ft models(its about 40-50 ft high i think). It never spins more than 40 rpm(thats the cap otherwise the bearings could be damaged. These types of Wind Genorators are just as comlicated as a helicopter motor!!)

BTW These Wind Genorators are standalone meaning they aren't grouped together in giant energy parks.

In 1999, all of North America's Geo energy being used was at 24,635 GWh per year.

Wow thats alot more than I thought it was.

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by sardion2000]

I didn't think about it like that (the bigger the windmill, the slower they rotate, which means the birds can get through without dying.. most of the time hehe). Seems I'll give wind power another looksie, hopefully we can see more of those massive wind generators.

About geothermal... I was surprised as well, but even more surprised to find out how little that it has been tapped. I can see a bright future for geothermal, IF we stop being so greedy.

Here's some more info on our Windmills in Toronto

Wind power is bird friendly

And I have to correct myself on how big it is...

Its three blades, 24 metres long, turn a rotor on a tower 65 metres high.

EDIT: It's also alot cheaper than I thought too 1.3 million cnd

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by sardion2000]

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by sardion2000]