The end of the age of oil? I think not!

Originally posted by jgbjgb
And then there is fuel from low grade coal,

For interest sake check this out:

www.sasol.com...

"We operate the world's only coal-based synthetic fuels manufacturing facility at Secunda in South Africa, which uses unique Sasol Fisher-Tropsch technology to manufacture synthesis gas from low-grade coal. This is converted into a large range of petrochemicals"

I do not think we will have a fuel problem in my lifetime - just hope the ones with the nukes does not destroy "our" planet too soon

Coal is all fine and good, for ripping the surface crust off of the planet, destroying countless eco-systems, being a very dirty energy source, and costing WAY more than oil, gas, and coalbed methan extraction processes. Its cheaper to steam-inject heavy oil and super heat oil and gas to separate water from the mix, than it is to strip mine or even dig old-fashioned death trap cavern mines of old. mSure, we have tonnes of coal, but, why finish off the planet and run a loss economically for not only the producers, but the consumers in the long run?

Coal is NOT a viable alternative to the complete loss of extracted oil and gas. There has to be alternatives. Have you ever seen a strip mine operation? Just take a trip to Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, to see what it entails. Enjoy, and check your constitution at the door. You have NO idea what mining on this level encurs. NONE. And I don't give a damn what pappy said. Work it to see it, and seeing is believing.

Hi Torus

Working in a coal mine is not the cleanest of jobs (was there (worked in one) - will never be there again).

Just touched another reality in life - like it or not, coal will be a substitute for countries with no oil (but with the means) Actually create a lot of jobs. You will further be amazed at the level of land reclaiming in SA (they cover up there mess and repopulate natural growth. Come to SA and see for yourself!

Possibly the safest and cleanest energy source is the SUN itself - lack of energy very unlikely to ever be the planets problem....self destruction via nuclear / chemical/ biological means are things to worry about.

Mr. jgbjgb, I think you miss Mr. Torus' points.

Whether you can get coal out of the ground is not a question; you can.

Whether you can refine coal, tar sands, etc. into oil or even gas, is not a question; you can.

Whether you can build plants or retrofit existing ones to burn that oil or gas cleanly while still producing power is not a question; you can.

The question is whether you can do it cost-effectively.

You can't.

Now I personally disagree with the belief that fusion power is going to be a significant player in either my or my kid's lifetime. Fusion has been promising for decades and so far we don't even have a demonstration power plant.

If we can get it out of the lab and into a location where it actually produces power, I may change my opinion; but even so, you will see the same people who believe nuclear fission is wrong because it will Turn Into A Gigantic Bomb And Blow Us All Up, will demonstrate against a fusion plant (probably enlisting the aid of the Hollywood experts to show that fusion, too, will Turn Into A Gigantic Bomb And Blow Us All Up.

I have mentioned that I spent two years in the Systems Engineering department of a Photovoltaics house; I could, once again, provide reasons why PV and wind turbines are not cost effective for large-scale power generation (but prefer not to).

There are other technologies that are a lot more promising that controlled fusion, including Stirling-cycle generators running of temperature deltas of the ocean or even harnessing the tides in places like the Bay of Fundy to drive hydroelectric generators. The engineering challenges are daunting; but at least we know we CAN do it.

Nonetheless, none of that stuff is going to happen in the near future; the only way I can see our society being preserved (and I believe Mr. Edsinger will agree with me)is to attempt to educate the people on nuclear fission and start to build the plants.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by Off_The_Street]

Originally posted by TorusCoal is NOT a viable alternative to the complete loss of extracted oil and gas. There has to be alternatives. Have you ever seen a strip mine operation? Just take a trip to Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, to see what it entails. Enjoy, and check your constitution at the door. You have NO idea what mining on this level encurs. NONE. And I don't give a damn what pappy said. Work it to see it, and seeing is believing.

Actually I do! I lived in Indiana and some of the open pit mines as to which you refer are some of the best places for Hunting and fishing now. They have been reclaimed and now serve a 'wildlife' purpose.

Treehuggers would rather save a 3 toe titmouse than a human being.

As for you science discoveries in which you speak, so I can buy one at Wal-Mart in the next 10 years? I am in the power industry and I am telling you that that stuff is 20-30 years out at the earliest. The Technology just is not there....yet.

Originally posted by Off_The_StreetNonetheless, none of that stuff is going to happen in the near future; the only way I can see our society being preserved (and I believe Mr. Edsinger will agree with me)is to attempt to educate the people on nuclear fission and start to build the plants.

Oh I do! See the problem with Fusion is the fields to contain it have to be magnetic and the fields power requirements are more than the output as of yet. Plasma is some wicked #!

As for the foreseeable future, technology will adapt and change and modify as the 'market' dictates. High taxes are not the answer to get people off oil and I for one am not convinced that we are causing the Global Climate change. It can be said that we are delaying an ice age even.
No one has bothered to answer how olives grew in Germany in the 1300's before the Industrial revolution even took place.

Look we know things are changing, is it us? Did the Hurricanes of the 60's happen because of man or are we in a cycle that we are effecting in some way?

Well this is some out of the box thinking hear so plz don't flame my ideas and keep an open mind

There are many potential sources of power in the future and there is not going to be one thing that will solve all our needs for at least 50 years at the minimun so I agree with you on that ed. If we want to prolong the enevitable to give us time to innovate the a number of things have to happen.

1: Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal must be exploited as new technology permits. The onlything standing in the way to more reliance on renewables are twofold. First is the effiency and cost per watt is still many times worse then conventional methods. Second is the manufacturing costs must come down and this is happening right now as more plants producing solar panels and wind turbines come on line and add more products into the pipeline which will bring prices down(btw demand from Europe is amazing right now, they are eating up alot of the products wich is one of the reason the price is higher than it should be).

2: Hot Fusion is the most promision and Thermonuclear reactions are pretty well understood, as ed said the only problem is the containment but I believe with new nanotech materials that obstacle can be overcome within 20-30 years.

3: Developing nanotech enabled filters to alleviate emission and maybe even designing a combustion engine based on Nanotech from the bottom up instead of top down. Potentially getting a major effiency boost.

4: All alternatives should be researched and not supressed because if it seems to good to be true then it has to be a hoax. One example is Aquafuel, which for all intesnts and purposes WORKS. But why hasn't it been the subject of a scientific paper is what gets me.

Mr. jgbjgb, I think you miss Mr. Torus' points.

Whether you can get coal out of the ground is not a question; you can.

Whether you can refine coal, tar sands, etc. into oil or even gas, is not a question; you can.

Whether you can build plants or retrofit existing ones to burn that oil or gas cleanly while still producing power is not a question; you can.

The question is whether you can do it cost-effectively.

You can't.

Isnt the great American idea, to spend billions now for long term acheivement? (see deep probe thread] Surely thats a better way to spend 420 billion a year than defence! So much for planning for the future, America must think the rest of the world is coming to get them, so paranoid.
Solar power and other alternate non fossil fuel power could easily be developed, but the worlds ecomomy is based on oil. Imagine the upheaval if oil was suddenly worthless, geez then America could pull out of iraq eh!

instar, solar technology is developing at a fairly rapid pace. Either way you cut it, it will not become a mainstream product for at least 10 years. The efficency must be above 25 %.

Originally posted by sardion2000Well this is some out of the box thinking hear so plz don't flame my ideas and keep an open mind

Good ideas all but they are not going to happen in the next 20 years.

Originally posted by instarIsnt the great American idea, to spend billions now for long term acheivement? (see deep probe thread] Surely thats a better way to spend 420 billion a year than defence! So much for planning for the future, America must think the rest of the world is coming to get them, so paranoid.Solar power and other alternate non fossil fuel power could easily be developed, but the worlds ecomomy is based on oil. Imagine the upheaval if oil was suddenly worthless, geez then America could pull out of iraq eh!

Do you realize what technology comes from defense spending and research? Oil will not be worthless for a long time. We are not in Iraq for oil as I have stated many times, the payback in what we have already spent is not realistic.

hmm big problem lets see around 2006 whe will have reatched maximum production - in other words whe will produce more then now , there will be enof oil for evrybody but prices will from then on only go up , in other words evry year it will cost more to fill your tank a lot more , for you in the US compare it to filling up you SUV gas tank whit red wine from france , after a few years let say around 2012.
Country's like china , India and other country's are still building up there economy somme of them almost dubbel there fuel consumtion evry year.
So there is enof oil till maybe 2060 the problem will be the cost of it .
the second problem is to replace it whit somthing else there is still NO!!! REPLACENT at this moment - whe can use solar energy , wind energy , nucleair energy but do you imagine a 40 ton truc on solar or wind energy I can tell you i don't . Wind will be used like in the middel ages to drive wooden chips acros the oceans if whe start building them again befor its to late . The big problem is indeed transport all transport needs fuel , and the only fuel whe can use is oil , Dont dream about Hydrogen or other , the production cost is to high- and most off them need fossiel fuel even in small quanteties to be produced .
After 2060 u will use your legs or those off other animals to transport your selve , i hear sombody say Bike ??? yes maybe for 50 more years then by absence of fast transport for exchange of nowlege and goods your bike will be broken and nobody will be able to repair it , rubber for your weels will be gone .
In modern world all poeple are specialized , we all do a littel part of a big job a guy cuts a tree a other one transports it , a other one cuts planks of it an finaly sombody make furnitur with the planks , you think one of these guy's has any Id how to make the iron tools the use ?
I don't think whe will be extinct but whe will be back living in caves for a few 100 years till whe learn living whit a lot less again .
You whant to survive ?? well if you like to have somme training forget you have a truc and public transports , chut down your electricitie , gas and water - and try to hold out for a week it will give you good hints -
hmm and sorry i forgot 85% off all fertelizer used to grow plants for people or animal consumption is produced from crude oil

Originally posted by Torus
OH!

Not true my friend. The Sandia rapid fire thermo-nuclear explosion and Z-pinch experiments? The power output of a Z-pinch? 80 times the entire power out-put of the entire planets power facilities combined (in X-ray watts) at any given moment. All fired from a machine plugged into a wall outlet (with the assitance of a few capacitors....HUGE capacitors).

I think you better go back and tell me how they intend to control and harness the energy? remember the fuss over cold fusion a while back?

Find it! Drill it! Pump it! Refine it! Burn it! Convert it! Drink it, if you want to. Of what use is petroleum to anything but humans. The first well ever drilled for the express purpose of pumping oil was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859 and humanity had been here for, well, pick your theory. When the stuff is all gone the environmentalists will all be happy and dead within a year, because they won't be able to live without what industry provides them.

www.washtimes.com...

Oil is by far the cheapest, most abundant, and cleanest source of energy we have. Nearly every advantage we enjoy today can be traced back to the energy provided by the petroleum industry. Yet the men and women who make our civilization possible are too often treated as pariahs who are damaging the environment. This is a shame. The environmental impacts of petroleum exploration and production are virtually negligible in comparison to the benefits they provide.

We all want to preserve and protect the natural environment, but much of the modern environmental movement is based upon the myth of a primitive harmony with nature that has never existed. Life without oil and technology is a life that is short, dark and impoverished. Let us give thanks that we have been lifted out of darkness and poverty.

www.washtimes.com...

[edit on 05/2/19 by GradyPhilpott]

Great link Grady!


I do think it odd when you have these enviro-wacko's complain and bitch and then get in the Excursions and go home to their 4500sqft house will all the lights on....talk about hypocrisy!

just a thought...looking at the numbers, say we have 20yrs before it gets too bad...that's a rather conservative figure....now, while we have no alternatives currently, think about technological improvements over the last 20 years, keeping in mind that technology has seen expotential growth.....now let me ask, why are you concerned?

Originally posted by saturnine_sweetnow let me ask, why are you concerned?

I am not for the most part.

Well considering that there is now a PEAK OIL section, I think this article needs a bump.

Bump.

The Sandia rapid fire thermo-nuclear explosion and Z-pinch experiments?

I hadn't herd of it before but after reading it I've determined that it's nothing special you see you missed the part where all that energy only took place over a few billionths of a second. Since power is multiplied by the time it's running for I think some calculations are in order. First of all I'm going to assume that this takes place over 5 billionths of a second meaning that assuming that they've already spread their power out over the entire second it's down to 80555555 KW/h the base measurement for your power bill. World production currently is around 15900000000000 KW/h.
www.scaruffi.com...
Now perhaps they were assuming in their comparisons to world figures that they could keep their little gizmo running for a full second or maybe even an hour, but they didn't and they can't. We've been capable for quite some time to make a fusion reaction, the tough part is controlling it for a reasonable amount of time. Right now the international project towards this has achieved the break even point www.iter.org... and are planning on making a bigger and better reactor elsewhere. The reason they can't get energy out is the same reason why Z-pinch isn't that impressive, they can't sustain it for long(though much longer then Z-pinch).

I think you better go back and tell me how they intend to control and harness the energy? remember the fuss over cold fusion a while back?

Further ITER has consistenly put sustainable energy amoung the top goals for their project, meaning that it will have to be contained and continue producing power for long periods of time. Z-pinch avoided this and made something interesting but essentially useless beyond proof of theory and scientific benefits.

No one seems to take seriously the fact that old wells are refilling even with 'different' oil. What if this theory is true?

Then we'll keep on using oil until the air is black........ then we'll have an even bigger problem on our hands. Peak oil may be bad but it may be the only thing that can save us from doing ourselves in via pollution and ecological disruption.

Oh Ok I see now, the EnviroNazi's don't care about the actual theory of 'no' oil, they just want that unachievable utopia again. I see now.