Crude Calculations (peak oil)

"If you do not include OPEC , we are at the peak of oil production. And if OPEC production is included, peak production is pushed out five years or so," says Felix Zulauf, founding partner of Switzerland's Zulauf Asset Management and a member of the Barron's Roundtable. "Before the end of the decade is over, we will have $60 oil," he concludes.


http://www.smartmoney.com/barrons/index.cfm?Story=20040315

with a new efficient energy source, that cannot be used and manipulated by a group of greedy, grasping, sob's? I've heard about the hybrid car and it is very expensive right now. Can't we start work on a fuel that America has a lot of and can be converted for use as a fuel. Oh...I forgot...VP Cheney was asked that question 3 years ago and he basically said, "No."

Hydrogen power--obtained from methane (CH4). This is a fossil fuel subject to Peak Oil problems. Getting it from water takes more energy than can be obtained by using the hydrogen.

Wind/Solar--petroleum products (think plastic) are needed to manufacture the wind mills, turbines, and photovoltaic cells. Though using tidal energy is also conceivable, we would probably need plastic for the tidal harnesses as well. Not to mention fluctuations in the weather. If we want to utilize such sources, we better do so RIGHT NOW.

Fusion--currently it takes more energy to produce a fusion reaction than can be derived from it (due to technical problems with containing the ultrahigh temperatures needed to get and maintain the fusion reaction).

Burning straight ethanol--possible, but we would never be able to grow enough, especially once farms demechanize. And it would divert a possible food crop away from hungry mouths.

Nuclear--disposal of radioactive waste and possibility of meltdown.

Creation of synthetic fossil fuels--production would take more energy than could be derived from burning them. Stupid laws of thermodynamics!

I suppose after we run out of coal (which will be the last fossil fuel remaining after oil and gas), we could resort to wood, but that would lead to massive deforestation.

As you can see, I'm not overly optimistic, though if I'm missing something, I'd be happy to look at it.

Here's your qoute:

"Getting it from water takes more energy than can be obtained by using the hydrogen."

---

Here's why your thinking is flawed:

You act as if Hydrogen were the energy source. It's not.

Hydrogen fuel is just a conveyor of energy. It acts like a battery
or gas in your car. It just stores the energy in chemical form.

---

Wrap your head around this: When the sun is at high noon 1400
watts per square meter fall on the atmosphere, by time it gets
to the earth part of it is filtered out but you still get about 450
watts per square meter. That's like 4.5 100 watt light bulbs per
square meter or 900 100 watt light bulbs on in an average 2000
square foot home. Do you realize how hot and bright your house
would be if you had 900 100 watt light bulbs burning? That's not
to mention the size of your lot or the 22 acres I live on.

There's plenty of free energy.

What's lacking is the will to use it.

I am optimistic. We just need to dare to dream.

The coal-fired power plant down the road?

My point was that it takes energy to set up all of these alternative sources--initial "investment" in fossil fuels required. While I hope that someone will figure out a way to get around this, I'm not holding my breath.

All energy that we use now has come from the sun at some
point.

Sunlight - > photosynthesis - > Plants - > Oil - > Gas - > car go vroom!

:)

You are right, the initial investment is a big hurdle but after that it's all gravy.

When intel makes a new chip it takes a billion dollars to make the first one, then $0.19 for each one after that first one. It's a similar thing with this whole energy bit. The problem is they don't want to switch to green energy because they can't put sunlight into a pump.

Right now we subsidize Oil far past what we would need to do with alternative energy in the long run.

For instance: $187 Billion for Iraq was really $187 Billion for access to mideast oil (and Bush's Holy Crusade).

Check out www.apolloalliance.org

That's a good place to start.

Vegetable? I know this is being done already.

Hemp? Is that possible?

Burning straight ethanol--possible, but we would never be able to grow enough, especially once farms demechanize. And it would divert a possible food crop away from hungry mouths.

We would have to grow huge quantities of plants to extract the oils/hemp from. We wouldn't be able to grow enough to satisfy current needs, imo.

From what I've read, hemp grows really fast which is why it's touted as a great replacement for using wood for paper & such.

What about a combination of these ideas?

And to a large extent they go toward raising chicken, beef, pork at an energy loss of about 10:1. These feed-producing crops are not even intended for possible human consumption.

If Americans reduced meat in their diet by 50-60%, it would free up a huge amount of farm land. Biofuels could yield vast amounts of energy as long as the particular crops being used can be grown and processed with a high yield and a significantly positive energy balance. Several crops are known for these characteristics: microalgae, palm, coconut, hemp and switchgrass. The dominant energy crops in western countries aren't as productive (esp. corn) but they're grown anyway because political lobbies form around specific crops.

No single energy alternative is going to save us. But I think if for some reason we had to rely on biofuels for all transportation, there would be huge pressures to conserve but we could do it while maintaining a reasonably high quality of life.

Replace 35% and we don’t need Middle East oil and the money stays in the country to make jobs.

Ethanol and Bio-diesel can be mixed, in any ratio, with fossil gasoline and diesel.

fos•sil n.
1. A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded and preserved in the earth's crust.


Fossil fuel is just ancient solar energy

but there is those trivial matters of air pollution, the greenhouse effect, toxic pollution from refineries. Some of us are actually concerned about these issues and believe that the replacement of fossil fuels should begin forthwith.

Oh I forgot. These toxic events and resultant deaths don't count, since radiation is not involved.

Sheesh!

100% of fossil fuels should be replaced on purely environmental grounds. They kill. Let me repeat that in case you didn't get it: They kill. They kill on a grand scale, every day of every year. They poison water, air and earth.

Biomass kills too: Air pollution deaths from burning biomass, according to WHO, are 2 million per year. That's 2,000 Chernobyls each and every year from biomass. WHO Johannesburg declaration, page 7, point #14.

Just because people are indifferent to these deaths doesn't make them any less tragic.

Solar energy that is captured by a means requiring burning sucks. It is very very dangerous. It doesn't matter if the energy was captured millions of years ago, or last month.

"Biomass kills too"

But the document you cited says "from the excessive use of fossil fuels and from biomass burning indoors..."

Leveling such an accusation against "biomass" in an attempt to conflate biodiesel and ethanol with wood-burning fireplaces and such is stooping to make a non-existant point.

And wrapped in perfect NIMBY-ese to boot; I think you've become too pre-occupied with their politics.

You may choose to call my responses "slogans," but that doesn't in fact address the question. I may choose to call your response "handwaving, but the fact remains. The WHO report addresses a well known issue: It points out that biomass has a huge propensity to pollute. Burning biomass, in fact, is the largest single source of air pollution deaths worldwide.

What are YOU claiming? That biomass processed by a huge corporation will magically tranform itself into a perfectly non-polluting fuel because the purveyors of this industry will be scrupulously honest? That processing biomass industrially will be absolutely benign? That the distillers that make ethanol energetically neutral (or even an energetic loss, depending on where you use it) will not put out pollutants? That refineries of biodiesel will harm no one anywhere at anytime?

If memory serves me well, though, I think you were looking for that magical situation where home-spun small manufacturers, numbering in the tens of thousands produce this stuff. This, of course is exactly the situation obtained with wood-burning, a huge, unmanagable plethora of poorly regulated point source polluters to which the only response can be body counting.

Biodiesel, as we've discussed here many times, burns. When it burns it puts out particulates and NOx. It doesn't really matter what the ratio of particulates and NOx to current diesel fuel is, the fact is that fossil fuel diesel is extremely dangerous. The argument that biodiesel is slightly better (under some circumstances, subject to biodiesel composition) is rather, in my mind, like saying a stroke is slightly preferable to a brain tumor.

Is biodiesel preferable to fossil diesel? Probably. Is it a short term solution to ameliorating the problem of "peak oil?" Maybe, depending on how sustainable agricultural practices are. Is it a risk minimized long term solution to the problems of motor fuel? Definitely not.

Obviously an attempt to push a "magical" utopia. Injecting some O'Reiliy-ism into the debate is in order! </sarcasm> B-)

I find these exchanges a drag when concepts like "perfectly non-polluting" are erected as straw men. Perhaps you could show us a casualty report to make your case against biodiesel (think of all those Chernobyls!! :o )... I'll keep waiting for it and until then I'll believe the EPA's assessment.

The three middle paragraphs are complete squirming. I've shown in the past that biodiesel is /far/ cleaner than petrodiesel: The EPA-commissioned study showing over 90% reduction in cancer incidence stands undisputed. I also cited in my last message sources of biodiesel and ethanol that are capable of very high gain, although that seems to be ignored in favor of agonizing over low-gain corn crops. Why not just kill 2 birds at once and attack biofuel industries because burning corn in your fireplace can be dangerous to your health? Yes indeed, think of the potential for abuse at all those point-source polluters... it could be 'corn death' for civilization! :) It wouldn't be any worse than your prior stab at linking the biodiesel industry with Bush's initiative to log giant sequoia trees (news bulletin: biodiesel isn't made from wood, but your favorite fuel DME is.)

Bdog's comments about partially replacing fossil fuel make perfect sense for the near-term. There is no reason why they should be ridiculed when the "pure" solutions won't be online for a very long time.

seen heard or read O'Reilly, except for those few seconds it takes to channel surf. From the very pleasant time we've spent together, I am of the opinion that you really spend too much time explaining the nature of the right wing to me. I don't really care what O'Reilly says or what Thatcher says. I don't have time for that.

But now, back to our subject, let's see what squirming is.

I repeat: The 2,000,000 deaths reported by WHO every year are point source pollution sites from biomass processing; point source pollutants are the most difficult to contain by any measure, as anyone who has tried to dispose safely of a fluorescent bulb can tell you. If biodiesel development is predicated on this idea of "freeing ourselves of evil corporations" (not that this has any technical bearing) as opposed to handing the matter as yet another potential ADM subsidy, you have no guarantee that such point source pollution will not ensue. You cannot prove that cooking oil won't coat streams, effect oxygen tranfer, contaminate water, and yes, pollute the air. You cannot prove that wastes will acceptibly be disposed of, that anti-pollution equipment such as scrubbers will be properly maintained. The fact is that energetic materials will be processed and handled on a large scale by many thousands of people with widely disparate educational, moral, and economic levels. This is very clearly a potential regulatory nightmare.

I cannot prove that any of my objections will come to pass, but on the other hand, I am merely doing what my opponents feel free to do all the time: Focus on what could happen as opposed to what is happening. What is happening is that people are dying to acquire oil, to process oil, to use oil, and from bathing in the waste of oil.
Now we have a proposal to extend the use of oil from an advocate of extremely non-contextual examination of events leading to loss of life in other areas of energy production.

I feel perfectly justified in pointing this out because I am well acquainted with individuals who raise this "let's extend the petro oil with cooking oil" business. A few, with whom I have long experience, shed continuous tears over Chernobyl, screaming to high heaven about the thousand people there, the 48 who died directly in the first year and a few thousand more who MAY have reduced life expectancy at some time in the future. My more contextual argument may have a rhetorical flash; and there is certainly an element which is personal, but the fact remains: Every time energy of any type kills a few thousand people from an energy related cause, it is a Chernobyl equivalent. There has been one (count 'em, exactly one) Chernobyl type event in 50 years of the exploitation of the form of energy I so vocally advocate. I think that's pretty impressive. I demand that all other options meet that standard. Biomass is not immune from being considered on that standard simply because chlorophyll is involved and plutonium is not.

The Iraq war is equivalent to five Chernobyls this year alone. As my much cited article from Science (cited in countless other threads) demonstrates, there are 40 Chernobyls every year in just 4 cities, all deaths from air pollution.

Now it happens that I accept that some people will die no matter what form of energy is chosen, but I want that number minimized. In fact, I not only want the most possible lives saved, I want the impact of energy on ecosystems to be minimized as well. I would agree with the following statement: "Biodiesel is to be preferred to petrodiesel." I do not agree with the statement however that "Biodiesel represents the best possible alternative to minimizing the loss of life and loss of ecological viability resulting from the use of energy." In another thread here, someone has noted that the ocean is chock full of dead zones owing to agricultural run-off. Our own Gulf of Mexico has many such places, all deriving in part from the fertilization of fields in which ethanol raw material is grown. I really think this biomass nirvana deserves a careful look, careful risk analysis, including fault tree analysis. I very much doubt that fault tree analysis exists for the biomass scheme, because it is very easy to talk one's self into thinking that it must be benign, since it's biological. That talismanic thinking is quite common and quite old. I have indeed historically engaged in it myself. Back in the 1970's for example, when I was an anti-nuclear activist, I had a very cute bumper sticker on my VW bug that read: "Split wood, not atoms." It would seem the WHO study shows that I was very wrong about how desirable my bumper sticker's proposed choice was.

The fact is, and remains, none the less, that a 90% reduction in cancer from particulates (if it is real, and I'm not convinced it is) is not preferable to a 100% reduction in cancer deaths from particulates. It is just a matter of simple chemistry to show that fuels having zero carbon-carbon bonds do not form particulates, and those having more than a few carbon-carbon bonds do. Such fuels are available easily from synthesis gas or, if need be, by direct hydrogenation of carbon dioxide. Now, I'm really convinced that you regard this a "magical thinking." Once again, I'm compelled to disagree with you. I call it "science."

Now I am SO glad I posted that message.

Thanks for sharing! :evilgrin:

It's called "thinking."

Even better, Mike tells us all how we can each become pollution point sources ourselves, by giving us a recipe:

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_mike.html

Mike's an honest guy (and I'd guess a very nice guy as well). He writes:

"Wear proper protective gloves, apron, and eye protection and do not inhale any vapors. Methanol can cause blindness and death, and you don't even have to drink it, it's absorbed through the skin. Sodium hydroxide can cause severe burns and death. Together these two chemicals form sodium methoxide. This is an extremely caustic chemical. These are dangerous chemicals -- treat them as such!"

Now, it happens that I'm a chemist, and I agree with everything Mike says about safety. I'm sure that some people might have accidents in which they might be (gasp) injured or killed, but as I say time and time again, all energy processing has a dangerous. The best you can do, is to minimize it.

Someone ought to tell Mike though where that Sodium hydroxide he's using comes from: It's made by electrolysis of sodium chloride, generating chlorine gas, consuming electricity (inefficiently) in the process. Most commercial electrolysis systems, also use mercury anodes and sometimes even mercury cathodes. A very messy business is this mercury cathode/electrode business, and subject of some environmental concern, since Mercury slowly leaches into the environment. (It is often detectable in household bleach.)

Here's site with a picture of a mercury electrolysis plant:

http://www.eurochlor.org/chlorine/issues/mercury.htm

The side product of making chlorine and sodium hydroxide for Mike's point source pollution device, is of course hydrogen. About 1% of the earth's hydrogen is currently made as a side product in this process, the other 99% being obtained by reformation of methane. When we consider that hydrogen is not even being burned as a fuel, we can imagine the scale at which full conversion to biodiesel will involve, not to mention the huge requirements for electricity.

Now, will you tell Mike or shall I?

If you tell him, please comfort him by informing him that it is technologically feasible to replace Mercury electrodes with certain kinds of membranes. It hasn't happened a huge fraction of electrolytic hydrolysis plants yet, but it can some day.

When you talk to Mike, find out what he does to keep himself from "inhaling those vapors?"

market, since he is not a major producer of it. His few hundred gallons a year probably don't matter much, even if he dumps it.

Archer Daniel's Midland has declined to build a glycerin plant in Cedar Rapids (50 million pounds/year) because of a declining customer base.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0FVP/25_254/53504091/p1/article.jhtml

Even before a burgeoning biodiesel market has evolved, just from soap and stuff the capacity and demand are very closely matched. A "declining customer base" is capitalist-speak for "no one wants the stuff." "No one wants the stuff" when applied to a side product usually eventually ends up becoming the words: "This is waste."

This is why producers of vinyl who make their product from vinyl chloride, end up deep welling their hydrochloric acid. Hydrochloric acid is a useful chemical, but there's just too damned much of it. (The production of vinyl chloride creates the largest single demand for chlorine gas, the coproduct of the manufacture of the stuff that is produced to make Mike's sodium hydroxide.)

Don't worry: There is future technology that may remedy this problem long term however, if it becomes feasible to convert glycerol into PDO (1,3 propane diol) glycerol could become a feedstock for the production of a plastic with very good properties known as poly(trimethylene terephthalate), PTT, which is used in carpeting. I certainly hope this option becomes available before we have too much biodiesel production going on. I hope people buy lots of carpet too. I hate waste issues.

The longest journey begins with the first step.

Bio-mass doesn’t have heavy metals like mercury in it.

Using bio-mass with coal reduces pollution.
http://www.alabamaforestowners.com/CILive/CI0205_a.htm

Using bio-mass is living in a symbiotic relationship with the living world around us. It creates local green jobs. Jobs that can’t get shipped overseas.

Technology Review:
Paper pellet use in State of Wisconsin facilities

By purchasing fuels produced in Wisconsin, about $2.6 million was kept in the state economy which would have otherwise been used to purchase out of state coal. In addition, the pellets are about 20 percent less expensive based on energy content than the coal they are replacing. In 1996 11,059 tons of coal were displaced with 16,250 tons of paper pellets. Other alternative fuel testing has been conducted at UW-Whitewater, UW-Eau Claire and UW-LaCrosse, including Tire Derived Fuel (TDF) and shredded wooden pallets.



http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/air/ed/pellets.htm

There are lots of ways of making hydrogen. Methane is merely used today since it is lower cost. If the price of methane rises (as it is doing) alternate means become attractive.

The energy investment in windmills pays for itself in just a few years, after which it produces net energy. This is a silly objection.

Fusion energy passed the break even point several years ago. The impediments are cost and scalability. Even though I don't think fusion technology will be available in this century, but that doesn't mean one can wave one's hands and dismiss it. It will probably debut as a means of producing neutrons for transmutation purposes.

Nuclear energy produces over 16% of the world's electrical energy right now. It has a very low external cost. Nuclear engineers are well acquainted with viable strategies for transmuting and recycling nuclear "waste." This is not a matter of if, but when. In addition, as I have shown here and elsewhere many times, there are theoretical maxima to "waste" accumulation. This is also a bullshit objection. As for the fear of meltdowns, only two of which have occurred in tens of thousands of reactor-years of operation with relatively low loss of life, I assume that you never go out in your car because of your fear of an automobile accident. (A practice that is many, many, many times more dangerous than living near a nuclear plant.)

Why do you assume that farms will demechanize? Is it because you believe that there is no other way to fuel a tractor beyond petroleum? If so, this is a rather niave statement. I may disagree with my biodiesel friends about whether their product is preferable to nuclear produced dimethyl ether, but, in fact, with a price rise, biodiesel becomes cheap enough to use. Worldwide right now there is an agricultural surplus, so famine is hardly an issue today. Right now, as my biodiesel colleagues have lectured me, the price is not exorbitantly higher than petroleum diesel.

In any case, the direct hydrogenation of carbon dioxide is a well known technology. The issue is, again, cost. Right now, oil and coal, are "cheaper," but only because their external costs are dumped on the public. But again, as prices rise, alternate technologies become attractive.

Synthetic fuels are merely energy storage devices like batteries. They may have inefficiencies, but then again all energy systems do. It is pointless to cite "laws of thermodynamics" to claim that energy storage systems are impossible, since day to day experience countervenes that claim. (You can for instance, recharge your cell phone or your computer, even if it "wastes" energy to do so.) We all understand that there are four primary sources of energy on the planet that are not fossil fuels, nuclear energy, geothermal energy, gravitational (tidal) and solar energy. All three are exploitable in different ways for different purposes. The matter is simply one of cost. As the cost rises, the number of feasible exploitation systems (and the will towards conservation) also rise. There's nothing so bleak as you wish to imply. Our energy transitions will involve some pain and some new thinking, but hardly the doomsday scenario you claim.

The tokamak R+D is actually continuing quite steadily. It would be moving along much faster if anyone were funding them with more enthusiasm. I was looking at the international program's website and they said they could have had an energy producing tokamak working now, if they'd gotten the funding they asked for.

I'm just a layman spectator, but my sense of it all is that we could have commericial fusion electricity in 20 years, if we really wanted it. And for a fraction of what we spent this year in Iraq.

It would essentially be yet another apollo-type project.

1. I would hope that electrolysis and other non-fossil fuel methods of making hydrogen become more efficient; I was merely pointing out CURRENT limitations on its production.

2. The energy investment in windmills pays for itself in just a few years, after which it produces net energy. This is a silly objection.
I have already answered this:
If we want to utilize such sources, we better do so RIGHT NOW.
Right now as in while oil is still cheap enough for the mass production of plastics needed to produce wind turbines. The longer we wait, the more expensive this will become. I lumped wind/solar/tidal into one category based on the premise that plastics would be used in the implementation of all three.

3. I stand corrected on fusion; I had some outdated data. Sorry.

4. As far as nuclear power goes, I forgot to mention that uranium is another resource subject to a peak (although such peak will be later than oil). As far as my "fear of meltdowns," I primarily mentioned this because of the very strong NIMBY effect that nuclear power plants tend to have. I know that I am likelier to die in a car accident than in a nuclear meltdown, but try telling that to a neighborhood where residents will believe the hysteria propaganda of a meltdown.

5. As far as your "Is there no other way to fuel a tractor beyond petroleum" question, my response is this:
Burning straight ethanol--possible. However, it would need to be produced in HUGE quantities to get enough to satisfy energy demand. I had a little discussion about this with my chem instructor the other day (he takes it upon himself to teach about global energy sources, problems, etc) where he mentioned an estimate that if all of the Midwest's corn crop went to ethanol, it would only satisfy about 10% of current energy demand. It would help, but it would not be enough, and as far as the "agricultural surplus" goes, it is mostly in industrialized countries that insist that famine-stricken areas pay for their food or see their population starve. Is there an "agricultural surplus" on the continent of Africa? In China?
I also subscribe to the belief that agricultural production has been artificially inflated by mechanization, and when agriculture is forced to cut back on energy use like everyone else, crop yields will fall.
I will see if I can get more info on that 10% figure, btw.

6. Direct hydrogenation of carbon dioxide? I am unfamiliar with this technology; please explain.
if I'm missing something, I'd be happy to look at it.


7. Synthetic fuels are merely energy storage devices like batteries. They may have inefficiencies, but then again all energy systems do. It is pointless to cite "laws of thermodynamics" to claim that energy storage systems are impossible, since day to day experience countervenes that claim.
I am not claiming that storing energy is impossible, only that some energy will be lost when we do so. Furthermore, I referred specifically to the possibility of production of synthetic fossil fuels when doing this (the idea had been floated by some of my friends in a political conversation). Yes, we probably can create artificial hydrocarbons (not completely sure) using existing technology, but that requires energy, inevitably more than can be stored within those hydrocarbons.

8. You also mentioned biodiesel--methinks it would run into the same production limitations as ethanol.

I do not believe that we are all doomed to die out; only that our energy use (I believe) is unsustainable, and while alternative energy sources may/will help to fill the gap between our dwindling supply of fossil fuels and demand, the sheer cutback in energy usage will be painful to many of us.

Edited to add: I believe that no one energy source will solve our problems; more than likely we will employ a combination of sources. Perhaps I erred a little in overfocusing on individual sources and their limitations instead of looking at the big picture.

Anything else that I forgot?:D

A fission nuclear peak is some millenia off. Uranium resources in the oceans alone constitute billions of tons. Thorium resources are about 10X as large as Uranium resources. Because of the extremely high energy density of Uranium and Thorium, the resources can be extended long enough to maximize solar and fusion replacements. I once did a calculation which I will not repeat here to show that the depleted Uranium stored at Fernald, Ohio could meet the entire energy demand of the United States for about a century. And this is stuff already mined. (It is now classified as "waste" however.)

Fusion energy will probably always be dependent on fission technology, but it is probable by adding fusion to the equation, Uranium and Thorium resources can be extended to last for many, many more millenia.

Your arguments about NIMBY require continuing ignorance. The realities of nuclear energy are slowly sinking in because of long experience with it. The data doesn't lie: Joule for Joule, it's one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy known. (Because of it's safety and because of its low environmental impact, I can't wait for the oil to be gone, so we can improve our energy equation through increased use of this form of energy.) I've been studying the subject for years, confronting the same tired arguments against it for decades, but I am sensing (finally) that reality is beginning to sink in on the subject. We had a whole thread here on the topic, not long ago: "The EU study of the External Cost of Energy: What You Pay with your Flesh."

I actually don't favor ethanol, in part for the reasons you stated. The big drawback is the requirement for distillation, a big energy hit. However, it is debatable whether it is an energy loser overall. I would suspect the question is best answered by looking where one uses it. In any case, The biodiesel crew here however, will argue (and in spite of my many criticisms of their scheme, I believe them) that the situation is quite different for biodiesel. It requires far less purification than make than ethanol. (The primary reason we're so fixated on ethanol is Iowa's early Presidential caucuses.)

The chief requirement for oil intensive agriculture, other than running farm machinery and transport, actually stems from nitrogen fixation, something that is easily doable using nuclear energy. If nuclear energy is NOT used for this purpose, industry can always move back (though it is not very appealing on environmental grounds) to the original energy source for this conversion of nitrogen gas to ammonia: coal.

I argue here frequently for supercritical water oxidations of biomass (and garbage) to give synthesis gas (CO and Hydrogen) from which just about every molecule currently derived from oil can be manufactured, depending on reaction conditions. Such a scheme is desirable because one can use any biomass feedstock, stems, roots, branches and stalks to obtain energy, not merely the grain. Ordinary trash, much of which is actually paper, will also do. (So will the plastics and paper we threw away in the 1950's and 1960's)


Not only can we make oil equivalent molecules from synthesis gas, but we can make molecules with much better properties than oil derived products. We could, for instance, easily convert in a few decades most of the worlds motor fleet to run on dimethyl ether, a molecule that puts out zero carbon particulates, is completely non-toxic (it's the propellant in hair spray), and has an acceptibly high energy density.

There is an entire monograph on the subject of direct carbon dioxide hydrogenation. I think I referred to it in one of the threads here, probably that on external costs. I don't have it readily at hand now. In any case, there are thousands and thousands of papers on the subject in the chemical literature.

The real problem is not can we get or make energy. The real problem is the environmental and economic cost of doing so. Actually, were we able to conserve our resources through efficiency and population control (by peaceful humane means of course) the crisis of energy, "peak oil" deforestration, greenhouse gases, loss of diversity, etc would all disappear likely disappear.

My primary objection to nuclear power was based upon waste disposal; I did not know that effectively depleted uranium could be effectively recycled into anything other than tank shells.

Other than that, I have always believed that nuclear power is very safe; unfortunately, I have some difficulty convincing my neighbors of that. If you would like to try, go ahead (hint: I live in freeper country so reason might not work that well:D).

And thanks for the info on carbon dioxide hydrogenation, btw.

A quickie question: Would you happen to be a nuclear physicist?

Over the years I taught myself a great deal of nuclear engineering as well nuclear chemistry. (Nuclear chemistry is not taught in general to chemistry majors.) I read almost everything I can on the subject. As I state frequently, as a good liberal, I began my study of nuclear energy from an anti-nuclear perspective. The data changed me.

I vary from time to time from optimism to pessimism on the subject of getting people to understand nuclear energy in particular and the subject of risk in general. If you are pro-nuclear power and liberal at the same time, you will hear an incredible amount of nonsense about nuclear power, as some threads here attest. It also doesn't help, as I've pointed out to some pro-nuclear organizations in private communications, to have freaks like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush giving lip service (although no credible active support) to nuclear energy.

On optimistic days, I think nuclear power will be accepted simply because it is the best scalable alternative for constant load energy. (Wind power, where available, is the best and most sustainable form of energy for peak variable loads.) These are the days I think that the truth will prevail.

On pessimistic days I think the force of ignorance will lead to the abandonment of nuclear energy until it is much too late. Ignorance, always a force in most human endeavors, is especially pronounced on the subject of nuclear energy, simply because the topic is much more difficult to understand than a TV show. These are the days that I fear the power of lies.

of information on depleted uranium as used by the military (as in tank ammunition)?

I've heard bad things but it seems to be a highly sensationalized issue (as with nuclear power in general)...

I, by the way, am simply a lowly college freshman worried about being drafted for Blood for Oil.:evilfrown: Well, I need to learn about this stuff somehow.

I very clearly have made a decision on the subject.

I will say this: Uranium is not a radiological poison though, depending on its chemical state, it can be a serious toxicological poison. But this is my claim, and I am known to be a proponent of nuclear power.

Uranium is found on earth on the scale of billions of metric tons, both in terrestrial formations and in seawater. Any discussion of its toxicity needs to incorporate these realities. If a discussion does not incorporate such realities, it is probably nonsense. The citizens of Sparta, New Jersey have recently discovered that naturally occuring Uranium occurs in their drinking water. They're in quite a tizzy about the subject, even though Sparta has always had Uranium in their drinking water, at least for as long as they've been drilling wells. Knowing that it's there, though, seems to have upset them. Why is that?

To switch subjects, in my opinion, a freshman who asks questions is not lowly. Such a person is to be desired and they represent the highest hope for our future.

There are many internet (and other) sources on the subject of Uranium. Be skeptical. Understand the nature of agendas, both on my side and on the other side. Decide for yourself. Take physics courses. Learn how to calculate specific activities. Learn what radiation is, what absorbed does are, and what this means in probalistic terms. Learn about the time required to reach radioactive equilibrium and what radioactive equilibrium is. Consider whether depleted Uranium is, in fact, at such an equilibrium point. If you take the time and think, think, think, uou will learn the right answer. Trust me; if your real goal is to understand, such an approach works.

Below is a site (that than references EIA data) that basically point out energy usage in 1996 (See http://hendrix.uoregon.edu/~stanm/phys162/conventional/conven.html for details).

20.99% of all energy used in the US is from Coal (Mostly electricity generation).
22.59% is from Natural Gas (Heating, Electricity generation with some minor transport and lighting roles).
35.72% of all energy is from OIL (most if this is in transportation, but also involved in heating and farming).
7.17% is from Nuclear power
7.39% is from "Renew-ables" i.e. solar, hydroelectric, wind etc.

One of the things that falls out of these numbers is that even if we triple nuclear energy production (Which will take at least ten years to get into production) that increase will barely replace Natural Gas let alone oil consumption. With Natural Gas heading for a cliff such tripling of Nuclear power will be needed just to stay still in the usage of energy.

Furthermore while the overwhelming use of oil is transport, it is also a source of heating in various parts of the country. Thus if any nuclear energy is left over from replacing natural gas, it will have to be reserved for heating.

Thus the problems of the Automobile and transport will remain even with a tripling of the amount of Nuclear energy. Coal will also increase in usage but its limits will also be meet within about 30 years. The biggest problem for coal production is the coal industry's present dependence on oil to transport the coal to electric generation plants. This oil consumption can be reduced by the conversion to trains from coal trucks but sooner or later you will reach that wall where it costs more in energy to remove the coal from the ground than you get from energy from that coal (at which point coal production will cease leaving Nuclear power to replace the use of coal).

Please note the US technically has enough coal for 300 years PROVIDED there is no increase in energy consumption, it is only 30 years if oil production and Natural Gas production drops and the rate of increase in energy usage of the last 100 years continues for the next 30 years and that energy usage is provided by coal.

Simply put, Nuclear has to be part of the solution to the upcoming energy mess, but it can only be part of the solution, the bigger part will be improve ways we use energy (i.e. energy conservation). Nuclear power can NOT provide the replacement for oil and Natural gas AND provide the increase needs of energy over the next ten to twenty years. Nuclear power can not provide the power to replace coal in 30 years AND provide for the increase demand for energy over the next 30 years.

Note it is BOTH THE UPCOMING INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR ENERGY and the need to replace oil and Natural Gas (and later coal) that is the problem. Let us remember that fact not that nuclear energy will still be used in 30-50 years. We can NOT produce our way out of the future energy shortage.

Thus since we can NOT produce the energy that will be DEMANDED over the next 10-30 years, the best way to keep prices down is to conserve what energy we are using now and in the future. The best way to reduce the demand for energy is to use less and the least efficient way to transport anything is by truck and or car.

Transport is the area where the greatest improvements in energy consumption can be produced. For example Colorado Rail car is producing a new diesel train that weight over 88 tons and gets 2 mile to the gallon (http://www.coloradorailcar.com/index.htm). This can transport up to 90 people (It can also haul behind it two additional coaches with reduced mpg to 1.5 mpg, but triple the number of passengers).

Think about that 200 tons with mileage of 1.5 gallons per mile. Compare that to a M1 Tanks which weighs only 68 tons and gets only 310 miles between fill ups with a 504 gallon gas tank (For 1.8 GALLONS PER MILE).
http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/gcv/tanks/w0003593.html

Another comparison is with Tractor-trailers, a 29 ton Tractor-Trailer can get 5.5 mpg on the highway (lower if the truck has to idle for long periods of time, for example in inner city traffic). Most truckers get less mileage.
See also the following for a test where a truck average 7.42 mpg with a 26 ton load:
http://refrigeratedtrans.com/ar/transportation_road_tests_prove/

My point here is that we have to reduce energy wastage and the best way is through improvements in transport. Improvements in transport can be both improvements in HOW we transport things (i.e. go by train instead of truck, reducing speeds, using a bicycle instead of a car etc) and by changing our society to reflect greater energy conservation (more public transportation, less use of trucks and cars both related to increase population densities and the withdraw from the edges of today's suburbia).

It is only with conservation can we even hope to face the upcoming energy shortage caused by the drop in Oil and Natural gas production. Relying on finding new sources of energy (including increase production by nuclear power) will just delay the changes needed to fully address the reduction in energy available.

it.

I think though, I've addressed this point in a couple of other threads.

Nuclear energy can indeed replace oil in many applications, including motor fuels, although existing reactors have all (100%) been built only for the purpose of generating electricity. This is largely not a function of technological capability so much as it is with the absurdly low historic price of oil.

Nuclear engineers have been considering the problem of replacing motor fuels for some time, exploring systems like the Sulfur-Iodine cycle which was the subject of another thread I started here some time ago. As I say many times, all of the compounds available from oil can be made synthetically from carbon in any form, including carbon dioxide. The key is merely getting the energy to perform the transition. This consideration is the main driving force for the operation of several types of nuclear reactors in the Generation IV nuclear program: The HTGCR (High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor), the MSR (the Molten Salt Reactor) and the PBR (the Pebble Bed Reactor). Each of these reactors can be used to generate electricity, but each are flexible enough because of their high operating temperatures to be used for chemical synthesis of motor fuels and other important carbon compounds. Indeed, such reactors are available for co-generation, the production of motor fuels, and as a by-product in the necessary cooling process, electricity.

I was running off at the mouth in a thread on the subject of actinide recycling nuclear parks on the technical aspects of many of these types of reactors, but abandoned the effort on the grounds that I was unsure anyone was reading it.

I do not, however, believe we should make hydrocarbon fuels like gasoline and other heavy oil products (kerosene and #2 heating oil/diesel). We should make new types of clean burning motor fuels like dimethyl ether, which is usable both in diesel and (through intermediate reformers) in highly efficient fuel cells.

It is however eminently true that the application of nuclear power to motor fuels is hardly the slam dunk that the use of nuclear power for producing electricity is. Such a scheme will require investment. People seem to go ballistic when the words investment and nuclear energy are used in the same sentence. This is slightly bizarre, but I expect that the intersection of reality, experience and need will undo some of the historical reluctance so to invest.

Your main message however is the most important, far more important than any of the usual drivel I spout: CONSERVATION IS AN EXTREMELY VITAL PORTION OF THE ENERGY EQUATION. The best means of maintaining energy supplies bar none, wind, nuclear, or other forms of energy, is simply to avoid using them in the first place, at least to whatever extent possible. Fortunately, the will to conservation is connected to price. I believe that all forms of energy should be expensive enough to reflect its real cost(if through taxation if nothing else).

I think at the end of the day though, another important strategy for extension of energy and other resources should be humane reduction in population. As people are living longer, they ought to work longer (and have the freedom to do so) and have fewer children. In times like these it is almost unconscionable, in my opinion, to have more than two children. (This brings to mind a somewhat unrelated comment: Instead of vilifying gay people, we ought to be grateful for them on the grounds that they breed far less than do heterosexuals like me.)

Which is given the Shear number of Nuclear plants we will need JUST TO REPLACE NATURAL GAS AND OIL and the general increase in overall energy demand will be almost IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD. We will have to TRIPLE Nuclear energy outputs to replace Natural Gas AND than Double the resulting energy output to replace oil (minimum of at least SIX TIMES present nuclear output).

Now Coal can help replace natural gas and oil, but the environmental problems of Coal is to much for it to be long considered as a way to produce electricity.

A further Complication is the HOW do we replace oil with nuclear power. The easiest way would be direct electric replacement i.e. People will heat by electricity not oil or natural Gas, People will take a electrified Train line or Light Rail Vehicles (Both of which gets they power from a direct electric feed as opposed to generating its own electricity as does a Diesel train engine. Such direct connection would be a more efficient method of supplying power to such trains than to convert the Electric Power to some sort of Diesel Fuel.)

Converting power to Fuel and than using that fuel to propel trains, cars, trucks and tractors will be way less efficient. You will lose efficiency converting the Nuclear power to Fuel (No matter what the feed stock for the fuel is) and the Vehicles that uses the fuel will lose even more efficiently. Converting power to Fuel and than to use that fuel to propel a Vehicle has a lost factor or 90-95%. The system is horrendous (Through possible and I see it being done at least for national Defense Purposes).

The better solution is to reserve what electric generating capacity we have (both Nuclear and Coal) to heating people's home, and running the trains. If such a restriction is made, we may be able to match up electric generation capacity with electric Demand over the next 50 years (You can not predict accurately more than 50 years in the future thus I stop any evaluation at 50). If a serious attempt is made to use Electricity to produce fuel for cars and trucks they will be a complete shortage of power which will lead to civil unrest.

Thus my point was given based on HOW MUCH MORE energy we will need to replace oil and gas. Nuclear power and Coal CAN NOT PREVENT a rapid decline of Suburbia and a return to the horse for rural areas. Any suburban house more than 1 hour bike ride from a LRV or Train station will have to be abandoned (or become a farm house).

Farms less than 50 acres, even today, are more profitable if they use horses than tractors. Tractors only comes into its own on farms over 50 acres. I do not think a 50 acre farm could give its owner today's life style (you need a 500 acre farm for that) but a person and his family could survive on such a farm. It could produce the needed surplus to feed the cities. Unlike daily commuters (who have to be within 1 hour bike ride of a train station) the farmers only need to be within 1 day horse ride (and that is 20-40 miles) to get his crop to market.

With the increase in the price of Fuel (even if the fuel is produce by Nuclear power) viable acreage for a horse based farm may increase to 100-200 acres (I can NOT see a viable horse based farm over 200 acres, tractors will have to be used on such larger farms, but such farms did exist as late as the 1940s. The invention of the thre point hitch finally permitted the replacement of the horse on such large farms). Larger farms will have to compete with horse based farms and if they can not the larger farms will be broken up into smaller farms.

The big question as to the return to the Horse is how cheap (or accurantly, expensive) will fuel be? If fuel goes to the equivalent of $10-20 a gallon that I think it will be, Horse based farms will dominate do to lower operating costs of horses (Horses can eat what is produced on the the farm). If fuel stay below $10 a gallon tractors would still compete. Given the greater demand for fuel that will exist unless we see more than 10 Times today's Nuclear power production, the horse will return to the farm and most people will bike to the nearest LRV or train station. This is what I beleive the position of the original poster of this thread, no matter what we do as to energy we will be having a radical change in our society and we should start to prepare for it. That preparation not only includes the increase in non-oil and non-natural gas energy sources, but conservation of ALL FORMS OF ENERGY no matter the source.

of nuclear power in the next century. Several types of reactors exist that can be built very quickly, notably the South African pebble bed reactor. This reactor is modular in design, and is easily fitted to run supercritical water oxidatative systems, and Fisher Tropsch syntheses with which the South Africans have considerable recent experience.

I note that even in an inexperienced time, much of it wasted with argument and things distorted by the presence of cheap oil, 450 nuclear reactors were built in 30 or so years.

Fischer-Tropsch fuels become economic at around $4-$5/gallon. This sets a sort of limit on how fuel prices can rise.

I agree that the sururban lifestyle is wasteful. I do not see wholesale abandonment of it because of a paucity of fuels.

I can see a 3-4 increase in Nuclear plants over the next 20 years, but not a ten fold increase (That means 2000 new nuclear power plants in the US alone). Maybe after 20 years and a good bit of social restructuring, you will see a ten times increase, but not 2000 new plants.

Also remember even a ten time increase in Nuclear plants just keeps as running in place, it does NOT give us the gradual growth in Energy Usage that has been the norm since 1859 and the drilling of the first oil well.

Something has to give and that will be liquid fuel. As to your $4-5 price range for the Fischer-Topsch that was based on very low price for coal and the mining of coal. Even with nuclear power I do not see $4-5 dollars a gallon being the price (and that is assuming you can match supply of liquid fuel with the demand for Liquid Fuel, remember no mater how low the cost is to produce something, if demand exceeds supply the price will go up to reflect the excess demand, thus even if the cost to produce is $4-5 dollars a gallon, if demand is excessive prices will still raise to $10-20 a gallon).

This may be a debate on what will be the cost of Nuclear energy and how much Nuclear energy will be produced, once oil has peaked, but that debate is critical as to how society will adapt to the lack of oil. If alternatives are cheap, no basic change, if the alternatives are expensive, than radical change. I lean to the later, more from a dis-belief that the needed Nuclear plants can be built than any other factor.

From what I have read about the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process it is the cheapest way to convert any from of CHEMICAL energy to a Liquid form of CHEMICAL ENERGY. Cost approximates about 10% over the cost of the underlying feed stock (In the two active plants, the feed stock is coal in South Africa, and Natural Gas in Indonesia).

In your proposed use of Nuclear power to produce liquid fuel, you ignore the costs of the FEED SOURCE. In the future while Nuclear power can (and probably will be) the source of power to make liquid chemical energy, the real issue is from what will be the base for the liquid chemical energy (Bio-Diesel).

The problem is at present it is believed that Natural Gas will disappear first, than Oil than Coal. If we use Coal as the base to make Liquid Chemical Energy, the price of fuel will be about 10% over and above the cost to produce the coal. Coal prices today are low do to the extensive use of TRUCKS buying OIL to haul the coal to Electric Plants (With any long distance hauling being done by Train or Barge, again two users of OIL). With the lost of Oil as a fuel, Coal prices will go up as will the prices of oil made from coal. This is in addition to the increase demand for Coal as an alternative to Nuclear Power for generation of Electric Power. Coal prices will increase greatly after oil starts to disappear and increase even more as coal production starts to decline.

The other alternative to coal is biomass, the problem with biomass is it is not as energy rich as coal and thus more energy will have to be used to process it into a liquid fuel. You are looking at almost twice as much energy to convert the bio-mass AND 2-3 times as much energy to get the biomass to the conversion site. Most of the costs is getting even greater amount of Bio-Mass than coal to the plant than any real increase costs of the FT process, but these increase costs for the base will increase the costs of the resulting bio-diesel.

It is these costs, cost to produce the feed stock for the FT conversion that will set the price NOT the cost of the FT conversion. With Coal you can get your $4-5 a gallon until such time as it costs more energy to haul the Coal out of the ground than you get from the coal that is mined (Provided the increase demand for coal as a source of Electric power does not increases the price of coal so that you are looking at $10-20 a gallon do to the price of coal. My fear is that increase in the price of coal will happen whenever oil starts to drop in production).

Once it costs more energy to get coal out of the ground than you get from the coal so mined, coal may still be used as a feed stock, but more and more energy will have to be added to the process to get the coal out of the mine to be used as a feed stock (For example electric mining equipment, with the electric power provided by a nuclear plant). This increase in energy to produce the coal will increase the costs of the coal, and the price of the resulting Bio-Diesel.

Sooner or later biomass will replace coal do to biomass ability to reproduce itself (Something coal can NOT do). Thus sooner or later the cost of fuel will be set by the cost to get the biomass from the field to the plant. Nuclear energy will be use to convert the biomass to liquid Chemical Energy (Bio-Diesel) but the price will be set by the costs to harvest the Biomass and getting it to the plant. Efforts will be made to minimize the use of energy in harvesting the crop so I see horses doing the reaping and hauling (Saving bio-diesel for more valuable usage, things that can not be done by Manual power Vehicles or Animal power Vehicles.

Note the problem is NOT Nuclear power or the FT process, but the costs of the underlying feed stock and the costs to get that stock to the FT conversion plant. It is easy and cheap today given Coal’s low price, but in an era of high energy costs, I do not see Nuclear powered FT process providing any where need the Bio-Diesel needed to save suburbia and even with limited FT conversion I see increase use of Bicycles, Horses and LRVs given their greater efficiency in a non-oil society even with cheap nuclear electricity.

Thus my belief that the price of bio-Diesel once we go to it, will be $10-20 a gallon and maybe higher.

http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/frontend/navigation.jsp?navid=1

http://www.ecn.nl/biomassa/research/poly/fischertropsch.en.html

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/fischer.pdf

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/

I am not. (I very much doubt you will find anyone as anti-coal as I am.)

One can, for instance, hydrogenate carbon dioxide directly. In this sense, it is very possible to mimic the carbon cycle in plants industrially without the chlorophyll intermediate. The separation of carbon dioxide from air will require energy input, however many processes are possible, including cyclical formation of alkali metal carbonates coupled with thermal decomposition. Indeed one can use solid supported enzymes such as carbonic anhydrase to effect this separation.

The use of biomass is far more carbon efficient if one uses the entire plant body not just oily seeds for this process. Literally one need only mow grass to effect the conversion.

Once fuels are manufactured that are liquifiable, transport becomes less problematic.

The big problem I see with my scheme has to do not with the carbon itself but the water. Ideally such a scheme will require huge inputs of water, although the idea water can be of extremely low quality, raw sewage would work.

Biodiesel is certainly better than ordinary diesel, but it's production is environmentally suspect (as I showed in posts #35, #37) because it requires the consumption of electricity and will generate industrially huge surpluses of glycerol. Thermal decomposition of such feedstocks under supercritical water oxidation conditions, on the other hand, will simply convert the fatty acid to carbon monoxide and hydrogen, as well as the glycerol, as well as anywaste stems, leaves, etc.

Here is a brief off the top description on an experiment along these lines, using only the intrinsic energy of the biomass itself, no nuclear input. (A nuclear input would increase "efficiency" of the carbon mass stream.)

http://bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/bcota/abstracts/28/z215.pdf

http://www.techtp.com/FT%20Liquids%20from%20TW%20Gasification.pdf

that nuclear power could be produced using materials other than uranium, which would result in less toxic waste. If you could would you please clarify whether that is correct or not?

Nuclear power is much more benign on environmental and non-proliferation grounds if it is based on the use of the element Thorium rather than Uranium. This is because Thorium based fuels allow much greater utilization of resources than is available with Uranium. Thorium also produces far smaller quantities of Actinide elements than does Uranium. Actinides, although they can be destroyed with the recovery of energy in the process, are far more radiotoxic than either Uranium or Thorium.

Fusion energy, if it becomes economically viable, is nuclear power. In this case the fuels would be a constituent of the element hydrogen, known as deuterium, and a form of hydrogen, tritium, that must be made in nuclear reactors from the element Lithium. Fusion is much cleaner than either Uranium or Thorium based nuclear fission reactors, but one cannot make tritium without using fission reactors. Thus fusion will reduce but not eliminate the need for either Thorium or Uranium.

I argue vehemently here in this forum that the use of Uranium and Thorium is the best option on grounds of risk for the immediate energy future, but certainly they will not last forever.

And how do youn produce energy effeciently from the reduction of carbon dioxide?

or call me a realist.. but I don't think that we Americans will do much about Peak Oil. It will hit us and we'll think nothing of it at first.. until it costs over $100 to fill up the Hummer.

Me.. I graduate soon. I suppose that I have about 5 years to build that off-grid solar home in the country before the sh!t hits the fan and PV panel prices skyrocket..

That's what Iraq is about. The US energy policy is "all your oil are belong to us". Not a realistic solution but at the moment the country is run by maniacs. Maybe we should all watch Mad Max again and see our future.

.. to fill up my Bronco (11mpg highway). The pay at the pump systems cut you off at $50.00, so sometimes I didn't even fill the tank...

I started looking at hybrids, and eventually bought a VW 2003 New Beetle, with a diesel engine (45 mpg, mixed). Doesn't even need refined petroleum diesel to run, it can run just fine on biodiesel (veg. oil + alcohol + catalyst). If gas gets over $2.00/gal at the pump, it's not even that much more expensive...

Everyone out there has a threshhold at which they'll start looking into more efficient alternatives. For me, it was $50/tank. What's yours?

Laherre's latest:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/ShellDecline2004.pdf

A Report on the Conference
“Future of Global Oil Supply: Saudi Arabia"
Held at CSIS, Washington DC, February 24th 2004 
by Julian Darley

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031704_two_planets.html

While peak oil may never be known as a given date in time because individual extracting countries distort and lie for their own benifits it likely is irrelevant. The date that matters is the date when demand becomes greater than supply. With the huge new appitite for oil in China and India we likely are seeing the shift from a buyers market to a sellers market right now. When oil is sold to the highest bidders in a sellers market the price will skyrocket until demand destruction occurs. This is the point when users economies decline and hense demand declines. Another word for this is 'depression'. Not a pretty future. Bob

Back on February 24th, Matt Simmons and two Saudi Aramco senior executives debated who much oil is still under the sands of Saudi Arabia.

You can find links to the their presentations, the complete audio in MP3 format, and a link to Julian Darley's video interview of Simmons after the program.

Here's the URL:

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfmsection=article&storyid=659