When will oil run out and how will this affect transport infrastructure?

Judgement Day

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I seem to remember CIE holding up the M6 motorway near Galway, when they insisted that the motorway bridge over the single track had to be wide enough for any possible future double track from Dublin to Galway.

That is in fact quite likely, assuming that the Inter-city network survives for long enough for Irish politicians to grasp the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. That fact has not been grasped by most of them no more than it has by the bulk of posters on Boards.

Wild Bill

Judgement Day wrote: »

That is in fact quite likely, assuming that the Inter-city network survives for long enough for Irish politicians to grasp the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. That fact has not been grasped by most of them no more than it has by the bulk of posters on Boards.

Run out - but when?

We don't starting building billion euro harbours inland waiting for global warming to adjust the coastline. Motorways have a financial lifespan of about 50 years; there is enough fuel till then (and probably way beyond with shale, gas and other developments).

So, IF we see the end-of-the-car coming we'll can start building railways and the inland harbours then.

I don't think it's the majority of politicians or boards posters who can't grasp facts! :cool:

Wild Bill

Wild Bill wrote: »

Run out - but when?

We don't starting building billion euro harbours inland waiting for global warming to adjust the coastline. Motorways have a financial lifespan of about 50 years; there is enough fuel till then (and probably way beyond with shale, gas and other developments).

So, IF we see the end-of-the-car coming we'll can start building railways and the inland harbours then.

I don't think it's the majority of politicians or boards posters who can't grasp facts! :cool:

Way OT, but one answer, fossil fuels are finite and will become more and more expensive relative to wages IF we leave it too long before developing alternatives, we may find it too expensive to do so!

/back to bridges.

Wild Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

Way OT, but one answer, fossil fuels are finite and will become more and more expensive relative to wages IF we leave it too long before developing alternatives, we may find it too expensive to do so!

/back to bridges.

And if we build post-auto-mobile stuff decades before anyone will use it we'll be in the stone age anyway by the time fuel becomes scarce. Really daft stuff here.

As for bridges; my favourite is the whole string of them over the M50 around Junction 6.

Judgement Day

Wild Bill - what is it that you don't understand about diminishing oil supplies? Reserves are shrinking, demand from emerging economies (China, India etc.) is rapidly increasing and it's only the global recession that's suppressing demand. Oil is like peat in that it would be much better used for other things than burning in car engines, as peat can be more beneficially used instead of going to power stations. To put it simply, if you're having a party and mammy buys the last bottle of orange from the corner shop and everything's going well until some unexpected thirsty guests turn up (China, India etc).... Is that simple enough for you.

Wild Bill

Wild Bill - what is it that you don't understand about diminishing oil supplies?

Nothing, actually. You seem to imagine cars will cease to be common when crude oil runs low (whenever that is; I remember as a kid being told we'd run out by 1990).

But that isn't the only, or even main issue.

There is enough coal, gas and tar sands etc to keep us in fossil fuels for hundreds of years in any consumption scenario. There are developments in electric cars. There are innovations happening across the whole spectrum of technologies and resources to power a car economy.

Nothing comes close to supporting the "end of cars" fetish. It is merely a pseudo religious belief that is used to justify all sorts of gobbledygook when it comes to a vast range of economic and planning issues.

As I said - it ain't me who has the "limited understanding".

As for my being simple enough for me - if you want to patronise someone pick on someone as myopic as yourself. :cool:

paulm17781

Just because we can get more oil, doesn't mean we need to use it. Alternatives would be far better.

mgmt

Wild Bill wrote: »

Nothing, actually. You seem to imagine cars will cease to be common when crude oil runs low (whenever that is; I remember as a kid being told we'd run out by 1990).

Peak Crude Oil occurred in 2006, according to the International Energy Agency.

Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d, by 2020, but never regains its all-time peak of 70mb/d reached in 2006
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/weo2010sum.pdf

The US military has said

By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf

Wild Bill
But that isn't the only, or even main issue.

There is enough coal, gas and tar sands etc to keep us in fossil fuels for hundreds of years in any consumption scenario. There are developments in electric cars. There are innovations happening across the whole spectrum of technologies and resources to power a car economy.

+1

There is enough natural resources, but things are going to get a hell of a lot more expensive. Hopefully shale gas will prove to be a viable technology. It should make Ireland a bit of money too

Wild Bill

There is enough natural resources, but things are going to get a hell of a lot more expensive.

Mayber, maybe not. Nobody knows, least of all the "end of cars" brigade

I see we have been rethreaded!

I never trusted rethreads.

I don't think anyone is saying "end of cars", just less fuel meaning fewer journeys and that is even with alternatives.
The biggest losers in this scenario will be the long distance commuters who will be priced out of their cars or homes, i.e. they move closer to work!

paulm17781

I'm off the less oil, more renewable brigade. I saw http://breakingnews.ie/business/chavez-to-increase-oil-production-514796.html earlier today. Are we still using faster than we can find reserves?

monument

Wild Bill wrote: »

Mayber, maybe not. Nobody knows, least of all the "end of cars" brigade

No. It's not a case of "maybe not". You're denying the inevitable -- even the oil suppliers are no longer in such denial.

Oil is a limited resource with growing demand around the world, quickly growing demand in developing countries, older supplies drying up, and newer supplies in harder to reach, more costly locations -- and you think its price won't rise and rise?!

It's a matter of how long it'll take or when will then next shock be.

Denial is about as useless as the denial that Ireland's housing bubble would burst. With both, the "nobody knows" view is nonsense, and afterwards the "nobody told us" view is even more nonsense.

But then again, you sound just like property bubble deniers before the bubble burst.

corktina

Oil will NEVER run out. It will simply get too expensive to use and alternative technologies will replace it just as soon as they are more viable that it.

Amtmann

Not being a chemist, I would ask the following question:

If we know the chemical composition of oil, is it possible to synthesize it?

corktina

must be, i use sythetic in my car.

lucernarian

Tremelo wrote: »

Not being a chemist, I would ask the following question:

If we know the chemical composition of oil, is it possible to synthesize it?

Technically yes - we see "synthetic oil" lubricants as corktina referred to. But there has to be a source of carbon to use in the first instance and oil is that very source for all sorts of organic compounds for anything from plastics to antibiotics! Nothing comes close to oil and gas and coal for the sheer volume of simple hydrocarbons that can be supplied currently. Even looking at the straightforward objective of burning it, I don't believe that planting the entirety of Ireland with rapeseed oil would offer enough biofuel for the island's total conventional transport usage.

To_be_confirmed

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

, I don't believe that planting the entirety of Ireland with rapeseed oil would offer enough biofuel for the island's total conventional transport usage.

Exactly! What will happen is that our lifestyle will be forced to change to fit in to the reduced supply of fossil fuel, there are no alternatives barring nuclear that could provide the same amount of energy.

From a transportation viewpoint, lack of energy will mean that far fewer goods will be moved and local produce will be used locally wherever possible, just as it was a century ago.

dubhthach

Tremelo wrote: »

Not being a chemist, I would ask the following question:

If we know the chemical composition of oil, is it possible to synthesize it?

The germans perfected synthetical crude production in the 1930's. A very large amount of the Nazis fuel supply was from turning coal into crude. There's no reason the same can't occur again, it's just that it's cheaper drilling oil out the ground. It's sort of like the Canadian Oil Sands. It's only viable when the price of crude is at a certain level as it's quite expensive process.

Tbh the ideal longterm solution is that we switch to Hydrogen, however the technology to produce Hydrogen cheaply and in mass amounts isn't there let. Once you can produce the energy equivalent in Hydrogen of a barrel of Crude for cheaper then you can extract Crude you will start to see a switch.

--edit--
Links on Synthetic fuel and World War II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process
www.caer.uky.edu/energeia/PDF/vol12_5.pdfiaYOlA&cad=rja (Germany's Synthetic Fuel Industry 1927-1945)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ls8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=nazi+synthetical+fuel&source=bl&ots=scE--T3LJx&sig=V6G61apej6pUVKBFtNqsGyGxsq8&hl=en&ei=0k00TrH0MY-xhAfay_GKCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false -- Popular Mechanics November 1979

Fiskar

dubhthach wrote: »

The germans perfected synthetical crude production in the 1930's. A very large amount of the Nazis fuel supply was from turning coal into crude. There's no reason the same can't occur again, it's just that it's cheaper drilling oil out the ground. It's sort of like the Canadian Oil Sands. It's only viable when the price of crude is at a certain level as it's quite expensive process.

Tbh the ideal longterm solution is that we switch to Hydrogen, however the technology to produce Hydrogen cheaply and in mass amounts isn't there let. Once you can produce the energy equivalent in Hydrogen of a barrel of Crude for cheaper then you can extract Crude you will start to see a switch.

--edit--
Links on Synthetic fuel and World War II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process
www.caer.uky.edu/energeia/PDF/vol12_5.pdfiaYOlA&cad=rja (Germany's Synthetic Fuel Industry 1927-1945)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ls8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=nazi+synthetical+fuel&source=bl&ots=scE--T3LJx&sig=V6G61apej6pUVKBFtNqsGyGxsq8&hl=en&ei=0k00TrH0MY-xhAfay_GKCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false -- Popular Mechanics November 1979

Excellent info, 2nd link came up blank, can you check it out (1927 - 1945).?

Fossils will be old hat soon, synthetics will bridge the gap, electric and hydrogen fuel cells will be the way to go provided the technology can be found to make an engine to match the flexibility of the internal combustion engine.

dubhthach

Seems my copy and paste skills need improving. Here's the actual URL for the second one. The germans produced about 18million barrels a year on average during the period, of course the Allies made every effort possible to destroy the German oil system (quite successfully at that)
www.caer.uky.edu/energeia/PDF/vol12_5.pdf

argosy2006

The technology is already here to run cars on Electric , Yet new cars still have petrol engines,
Its all about the money money money,
What would loss be to Government if all cars were electric in Ireland>?

Judgement Day

Quite apart from the fuel consumed by a car the whole creation of the vehicle is a major consumption of oil, from the smelting of the iron ore to make components, through to the manufacture of all the plastic/synthetic parts, tyres, lubricants, and the eventual recycling of the car for scrap. All in all not all that sustainable.

argosy2006

argosy2006 wrote: »

The technology is already here to run cars on Electric , Yet new cars still have petrol engines,
Its all about the money money money,
What would loss be to Government if all cars were electric in Ireland>?

If electric cars had a similar level of luxury and power as the current petrol/diesel cars at a similar price then most people would buy them and the cost of electricity would go through the roof.

Small electric cars for city use should be a no brainer, but for the cost of buying them, another issue would be the availability of raw materials for the batteries - most of these come from China I believe.

The phrase "If Mohammad can't go to the mountain, let the mountain come to Mohammad." is very appropiate when it comes to Peak oil, in other words it's easier to adjust our way of life than it will be to preserve our current ways. With that in mind, freight may eventually revert to the railways because the amount of fuel required to move trains is less than that of road vehicles, it will take longer of course.

Judgement Day

Fiskar wrote: »

Excellent info, 2nd link came up blank, can you check it out (1927 - 1945).?

Fossils will be old hat soon, synthetics will bridge the gap, electric and hydrogen fuel cells will be the way to go provided the technology can be found to make an engine to match the flexibility of the internal combustion engine.

You're very complacent. Where are the facts to back up your assertions that all will be well? Concorde is gone, and even the fast ferries have slowed down to reduce fuel consumption. The golden age of the internal combustion engine is over but nobody has noticed - especially in Ireland. Just like our Celtic Tiger building boom was utterly unsustainable I believe that our obsession with private motoring is too. No facts or links I'm afraid just my beliefs based on years of watching and reading.

dubhthach

Judgement Day wrote: »

Quite apart from the fuel consumed by a car the whole creation of the vehicle is a major consumption of oil, from the smelting of the iron ore to make components, through to the manufacture of all the plastic/synthetic parts, tyres, lubricants, and the eventual recycling of the car for scrap. All in all not all that sustainable.

Smelting of iron ore is indeed a major consumer of energy, however you forget that half of all steel production is from recycling existing steel. Each tonne of recycled steel saves 630kg in coal. Likewise majority of Aluminium production comes from recycling. The US alone recycles enough steel from scrapping cars to build 13million new vehicles. (higher then current US vehicle production figures)

On 2003 figures One Tonne of Steel uses equivalent in energy (BTU/Joules) of 2.07 barrels of oil, the steel industry are in the process of working towards reducing this to the equivalent of 1.2 barrels/tonne

Jagle

guys, where do we get the electricity to power the electric cars?

ye can shout wind/water/other green sources all ye like, but bottom line is most of the electricity comes from fossil fuel consuming power plants.
and wind isnt renewable, put enough wind farms down and youll ruin the weather, dunno about tidal think they are fine.

bottom line is the fossil fuels will be consumed one way or another.
I for one am shocked to see all the green carpark spaces pop up over limerick city the last few weeks, great, thats now a car parking space i cant use cos people who are "green" get priority over me? cos i have a petrol/diesel, come out of it

dubhthach

Jagle wrote: »

guys, where do we get the electricity to power the electric cars?

ye can shout wind/water/other green sources all ye like, but bottom line is most of the electricity comes from fossil fuel consuming power plants.
and wind isnt renewable, put enough wind farms down and youll ruin the weather, dunno about tidal think they are fine.

bottom line is the fossil fuels will be consumed one way or another.
I for one am shocked to see all the green carpark spaces pop up over limerick city the last few weeks, great, thats now a car parking space i cant use cos people who are "green" get priority over me? cos i have a petrol/diesel, come out of it

Indeed of course given the current hysteria over Nuclear I doubt we will see a change in this any time soon.

Of course I can't see Nuclear Fusion been viable for anywhere between 50 and 100 years. Construction of the "International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor" started in France in 2007 expected to be ready by 2019 with a cost of €15billion. It won't of course produce electricity as the point is to further the scientific knowledge of Fusion. The goal is to produce 500MW of power from 50MW of input power (lasers, magnetic system for Plasma) over 1,000 seconds. In comparison the most gotten out of a Fusion reactor so far was 15MW for 1 second.

monument

For moving people, in a lot of cases we don't need cars -- the census and other data shows that a huge percentage of trips people make can be done by walking or by bicycle, the majority of them with ease. In many other cases people could walk or cycle to the nearest train station or tram or bus stop.

Transporting goods is a larger problem, but things like switching to rail and having more effective deliveries within urban areas could help.

Things may change a lot, but life will go on. On this thread's topic -- what you need to ask is how much should we gear up for such changes before action is really needed? More so, are there positives to positives to changing as quick as possable?

Cathaoirleach

EnviroMission plans massive solar tower for Arizona
July 21, 2011

The mammoth 800-plus meter (2625 ft) tall tower will instantly become one of the world's tallest buildings. Its 200-megawatt power generation capacity will reliably feed the grid with enough power for 150,000 US homes, and once it's built, it can be expected to more or less sit there producing clean, renewable power with virtually no maintenance until it's more than 80 years old. In the video after the jump, EnviroMission CEO Roger Davey explains the solar tower technology, the Arizona project and why he couldn't get it built at home in Australia.

http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKyDaWmiNiU

Great idea, hopefully it will prove to be useful.. but it DOES show just how dire the energy situation really is, if we have to be looking at such methods of energy production.

These megaprojects will only be possible while oil is plentiful of course.

Wild Bill

monument wrote: »

Denial is about as useless as the denial that Ireland's housing bubble would burst. With both, the "nobody knows" view is nonsense, and afterwards the "nobody told us" view is even more nonsense.

But then again, you sound just like property bubble deniers before the bubble burst.

Monument, characterising your opponent - "you sound just like property bubble deniers" - rather than dealing with the points made, is not an argument. It is a sign of an inability to articulate your own viewpoint.

I guess you must make-do with what you got.

You (and two other contributors to this thread) sound like folk merely recycling trendy Greenie waffle you've picked up - but that's not debate either I guess.

So; I was certainly not a bubble denier nor did I say, in any of my contributions above that "the price of oil won't rise".

What I said is that the collateral affect usually assumed to follow from rising oil prices - less cars, less driving - is unsubstantiated speculation.

And I stated that, taking that further to then argue for building railways nobody will use on the off-chance that the speculation proves correct, would be as daft as building harbours inland while we wait for global warming to raise sea-levels.

After all - aren't all us Greenies convinced about global warming and rising sea levels just as much as we are about the future of the private car?
:cool:

Well, personally speaking, I'm NOT a green and I don't believe in global warming (a maunder minimum type event is more likely), but I DO have a very strong understanding about peak oil.

It is the point of maximum production of conventional crude oil, followed by a long slow decline. Other fuels will "fill the gap" for a while, but in a few short years these will be insufficient to maintain BAU (Business As Usual), also the fact that other countries are now willing to pay the higher prices for oil, outbidding the OECD countries if needed.

Then there are the oil exporters themselves, their own consumption is rapidly rising as their populations expand and grow wealthier (even faster now their governments are "buying them off" to prevent any more Egypt & Tunisia type events), this means there is less available for the west.

Fuel is curently being "rationed" by price, there are already fewer journeys being made by many as the rising cost of fuel starts to hurt. Planners really need to start looking at how to deal with potential shortages in the near future, these shortages could be as soon as 2013 (even sooner if the Middle East blows up!).

Long term planning needs to look at rezoning towns and cities so that less fuel is needed to run a fully functional community, at all levels. There are many ways this can be done, it doesen't mean the end of personal transport, just less need for it.

The current way of commuting 100km to and from work each day and driving 20km or to to town for everything else are numbered.

hi5

People will go to any lenghts to keep cars on the road.
I would guess that within 5-10 years after the last oil is used it would have already been replaced by alternatives.
It hasnt happened yet because its not been necessary.

Necessity is the mother of invention.
Heres what happened the last time petrol ran out.
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/01/wood-gas-cars.html

Judgement Day

hi5 wrote: »

People will go to any lenghts to keep cars on the road.
I would guess that within 5-10 years after the last oil is used it would have already been replaced by alternatives.
It hasnt happened yet because its not been necessary.

Necessity is the mother of invention.
Heres what happened the last time petrol ran out.
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/01/wood-gas-cars.html

Another complacent soul. I think that a more recent occasion when the pumps ran dry would be a more realistic scenario. The 1970s Oil Crisis when filling stations were closed for most of the time (opening for a few hours every day), queues were massive and people pushed their cars in the queues rather than start engines. Even basic items like plastic covers for vinyl LPs became unobtainable...that's just things that stick in my memory from that time. Where are all these alternatives? Is someone stockpiling them or guarding the new technology? We have already seen where the nonsense of turning over food producing land to grow bio fuels will lead. As I said in a previous post - no scientific links just my observations.

dubhthach

Of course the key difference there was nothing to do with the oil wells running dry but on a unilateral blockade of shipping Oil to US and other western countries by OPEC due to US military airlift to supply the Israelis during the Yom Kipur war of 1973 (in response to the Soviets starting an airlift to Syrians/Egyptians). Having to push a car was the least of your worries when it almost led to Nuclear war between the US and Soviet Union.

Interesting enough current Crude prices are running at equivalent to 1981 prices (Adjusted for inflation). Of course two thirds of the price of petrol/diesel at the pumps is due to government tax. The taxes added to fuel since november 2008 alone amount for about 18c per litre.

dubhthach

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course the key difference there was nothing to do with the oil wells running dry but on a unilateral blockade of shipping Oil to US and other western countries by OPEC due to US military airlift to supply the Israelis during the Yom Kipur war of 1973 (in response to the Soviets starting an airlift to Syrians/Egyptians). Having to push a car was the least of your worries when it almost led to Nuclear war between the US and Soviet Union.

Interesting enough current Crude prices are running at equivalent to 1981 prices (Adjusted for inflation). Of course two thirds of the price of petrol/diesel at the pumps is due to government tax. The taxes added to fuel since november 2008 alone amount for about 18c per litre.

High taxation was fine when oil was "dirt cheap" but now (after becoming dependent on cheap oil) it's a real burden!

But it will kill the demand for housing in the remote ghost estates (I know it's already dead) for sure, and along with it, long distance commuting.

The biggest fear would be if Saudi Arabia became unstable and their supply of oil collapses like Libya’s. Unlikely, but I wouldn't want to bet on it not happening!

dubhthach

Deleted User wrote: »

High taxation was fine when oil was "dirt cheap" but now (after becoming dependent on cheap oil) it's a real burden!

But it will kill the demand for housing in the remote ghost estates (I know it's already dead) for sure, and along with it, long distance commuting.

The biggest fear would be if Saudi Arabia became unstable and their supply of oil collapses like Libya’s. Unlikely, but I wouldn't want to bet on it not happening!

tbh ghost estates aren't a product of cheap oil, it of course enabled people to commute long distance. They are really a product of a bad political system which

• Overheated the housing market -- driving people further away from Dublin due to cost
• Overzoned land without providing proper connections
• Sat back and collected all the tax on property transations thinking the sun would always shine (as they made hay)

Tbh it shouldn't be oil prices that stop inane non-sustainable development. It should be proper governance by elected officials.

dubhthach

dubhthach wrote: »

tbh ghost estates aren't a product of cheap oil, it of course enabled people to commute long distance. They are really a product of a bad political system which

• Overheated the housing market -- driving people further away from Dublin due to cost
• Overzoned land without providing proper connections
• Sat back and collected all the tax on property transations thinking the sun would always shine (as they made hay)

Tbh it shouldn't be oil prices that stop inane non-sustainable development. It should be proper governance by elected officials.

True, but they would naver had started if fuel was already €1.50 plus a litre ten years ago, It was as you say mainly due to bad planning/political interference.

dubhthach

Deleted User wrote: »

True, but they would naver had started if fuel was already €1.50 plus a litre ten years ago, It was as you say mainly due to bad planning/political interference.

Of course one could always buy a car that runs on natural gas. I know in California you can get a "pump" installed that connects off your home supply of gas. Costs about $3,700 you can claim up to $3,000 back in tax credits.

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan/civic-gx.aspx

dowlingm

Enviromission made great promises for years in Oz and now are moving to Arizona. They are dangerously close to spoofer territory and need to start getting something built.

Also - the kind of places where solar towers work require transmission to get the power to where it's used.

Wild Bill

From the trend of recent posts I see it is finally beginning to dawn on some that "peak oil" and "less driving" are not necessarily cause and effect. One will not necessarily lead to the other.

There are so many choices...and if history is any guide what will emerge is something nobody is even thinking about right now.

I still recall, however, that after the 1973 Mid-East oil crises we were told it was a taste of things to come, because peak oil would occur before 1990 (and that was on consumption forecasts that were way less than materialised).

It doesn't mean they are not right this time - but it's worth bearing in mind.
Way too early to be building train-lines to nowhere :cool:

hi5

Judgement Day wrote: »

Another complacent soul. I think that a more recent occasion when the pumps ran dry would be a more realistic scenario. The 1970s Oil Crisis when filling stations were closed for most of the time (opening for a few hours every day), queues were massive and people pushed their cars in the queues rather than start engines. Even basic items like plastic covers for vinyl LPs became unobtainable...that's just things that stick in my memory from that time. Where are all these alternatives? Is someone stockpiling them or guarding the new technology? We have already seen where the nonsense of turning over food producing land to grow bio fuels will lead. As I said in a previous post - no scientific links just my observations.

Personaly I am far from complacent,I am actively involved in alternative energies.
But I would agree many people are complacent
Thats not a problem though.
For every 1000 people complacent about the future there is probably at least 1 person contemplating that future and presently working on the remedy and they will be very quick to market that technology to the complicit.
The prospects of power,glory and money are great motivators.

The 70's oil crises was not the same,most people knew it was political and there was no shortage of crude oil and that it was only a matter of time before things were back to normal.
When oil runs out for good, cars will not be pushed anywhere because there will be nowhere to push them.
Granted the world will be in turmoil for a few years and your car will sit in your drive with its tyres going flat but it wont be long before some enterprising character will drop a leaflet through your letterbox advertising electric car conversions...take out the engine,replace it with an electric motor,an inverter and a layer of batteries in the boot,its an easy conversion ,many are doing it already,search youtube for 'electric car'.
It will be the same for wind turbines,solar panels etc.
A few leds powered from a small turbine has to be better than a flikering candle no matter how romantic it might seem:)
This is how things will start off but sophistication and professionalism will emerge and accelerate things.
Economies of scale will bring prices down quickly,when DVD players first hit the market about about 15 years ago they cost about €300 you can now buy them for €19.99 ,it will be the same for alternative energy technology,cost will not be a big issue.
This then brings up the question of where to get the plastics and other raw materials for all this technology,well it may be more expensive but lots of items can be manufactured using alternative natural materials.
I'd gladly pay 3 times the price (€59.97) for a wooden cased leather bound DVD player,think twice about throwing it out too:).

So where is all this technology and alternative energy now?
Its out there alright.
Do a patent search for 'electric car' and it brings up 18482 patents
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?bookmarkedResults=true&submitted=true&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_gb&AB=electric+car&sf=q&FIRST=1&CY=gb&LG=en&&st=AB&kw=electric+car&Submit=SEARCH&=&=&=&=&=

Or how about 'solar panel'? 13405 patents

or 'wind turbine' 13658 patents.

The reason we dont see them now is like I said we dont need them now,they are not necessary yet.
People by nature will put off the inevitable for as long as possible especially if there is extra effort involved and they see no immediate effect
Oil is still relatively cheap and the first world governments and the vested interests that control it will do their utmost to keep things that way for as long as they can.
If that means bombing the s**t out of the middle east for any old reason you can think of then so be it.
The current high prices at the pumps is caused by speculation.

The sooner oil runs out the better,sure there will be a withdrawl period but after a short time we will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Of course you will then have government and vested interests trying to and succeeding in controlling the new energies and technology but thats human nature and those things will be slower to change.

dubhthach

Tbh you don't even need oil to just suddenly run out. For example if Oil hits $1,000 a barellel what it does it helps force the migration to Hydrogen. Already there are several vehicles in the prototype stage that are Hydrogen fueled. Several countries are already building what they call a "Hydrogen Highway" eg. a network of fuel stations that also stock Hydrogen, the are also doing this in California.

At the moment you can produce Hydrogen from natural gas (using high pressure steam) or you can break up water. There's a number of projects in the work that make the breaking up of water more efficient and cheaper. For example using Alumuminum plates instead of Platinum in the process. For a completely clean process you could use electricity from wind turbines to break water molecules. Though to be more realistic the best option for mass Hydrogen production is from using Nuclear.

paulm17781

Why hydrogen though, why not batteries?

paulm17781

paulm17781 wrote: »

Why hydrogen though, why not batteries?

I think someone calculated that if the entire vehicle fleet on the planet was converted (or replaced) by electric battery vehicles, there wouldn't be enough "rare earth" metal available at a reasonable cost to manufacture the batteries.

I suppose it depends on what the batteries are made of, of course!

Wild Bill

Another thing - when the oil crises of the 1970s struck the price of oil went to (in real terms) roughly twice what it is today.

A result was a leap forward in private car fuel efficiency; bio-fuels (especially in Brazil); and huge investment in alternatives.

By 1999 the price of oil had dropped to about $15 a barrel and the Economist infamously forecast it would fall to $10 and stay there for decades. By then interest and investment in alternatives was almost dead.

Then 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, the inflated "war boom" engineered by the Bush regime (the bill for which is now being presented) caused oil to jump to €170 by 2007.

Despite the rapid growth in the BRICs the Great Recession in the West has facilitated a drop back to current levels - in real terms a third of the 1970s peak.

Like Hi5 above, I think an event that would trigger $500 would be good in the medium and long term; the lost opportunity after the 1970s to develop alternatives could be redressed.

NONE of these reflections support the notion that there will be less private cars doing less miles per vehicle.

That is probably the least likely scenario - yet it is presented in the media and on boards like this as Holy Writ.

I'm no fan of religion - whatever the context. :cool:

Bards

With all of mankinds advances in technology, why is it that cars are still powered by the internal combustion engine, an invention that is over100 years old?

dubhthach

paulm17781 wrote: »

Why hydrogen though, why not batteries?

Well because when you burn Hydrogen it just produces water as a byproduct (H2O) that and it's probably one of the most abundant elements on the planet. The idea of course would be to use "Fuel Cells" not particulary new technology given that they were used in Apollo and all. Result Hydrogen in Fuel cell is used to produce electricity to drive the vehicle. Sort of like way Trains are "Diesel electric" (eg. Diesel runs a electric turbine which then provides motive power).

Of course part of issue with Fuel Cells is costs, there are several projects underway to drastically reduce the cost per KW of a fuel cell (replacing Platinum as a catalyst for example). To quote wiki:

Fuel cells are generally priced in USD/kW, and data is scarce regarding costs. Ballard Power Systems is virtually alone in publishing such data. Their 2005 figure was $73 USD/kW (based on high volume manufacturing estimates), which they said was on track to achieve the U.S. DoE's 2010 goal of $30 USD/kW. This would achieve closer parity with internal combustion engines for automotive applications, allowing a 100 kW fuel cell to be produced for $3000. 100 kW is about 134 hp

Of course the same argument regarding price was one of the reason people didn't think PC industry would ever take off. Of course the improvement in computer technology due to "Moore's Law" put paid to that.

The other option is to use a "Hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle" which basically operates like a standard internal combustion engine but uses Hydrogen as a fuel (instead of Diesel/Petrol), of course one issue there is storage of liquid Hydrogen plus the "explosive potential" in the event of an accident.

High crude actually presents an oppurtunity as it forces us to innovate. There are several government funded projects around the world with regards to improving efficiency of the likes of "Wind powered Hydrogen production" such as: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_wind_hydrogen.html

Of course when oil is cheap there is no incentive to do the research required to produce a viable alternative.

Wild Bill

Bards wrote: »

With all of mankinds advances in technology, why is it that cars are still powered by the internal combustion engine, an invention that is over100 years old?

Because petrol is cheaper than it was when cars first went mass produced. And they will stay petrol/diesel based till oil reaches at least $200 a barrel in today's money. Probably need above $400 to really spur alternatives.

No mystery here atall atall

dowlingm

hydrogen, like CNG, works in certain applications - where emissions are an issue, short ranges from fuelling stations, cheap availability of hydrogen (like from nuclear power stations) and so on. If there was enough natural gas available you could strip the carbon from it but Ireland doesn't have so much it can use it on a mass scale to replace petrol or diesel.

There's a reason why petrol is king though and that's energy density. Hydrogen delivers 5.6MJ/litre compared to petrols 34MJ/litre, and that's compressed to 700bar (10,000 pounds per square inch). Volume is an issue in smaller vehicles, as is crash survivability.

dubhthach

dowlingm wrote: »

hydrogen, like CNG, works in certain applications - where emissions are an issue, short ranges from fuelling stations, cheap availability of hydrogen (like from nuclear power stations) and so on. If there was enough natural gas available you could strip the carbon from it but Ireland doesn't have so much it can use it on a mass scale to replace petrol or diesel.

There's a reason why petrol is king though and that's energy density. Hydrogen delivers 5.6MJ/litre compared to petrols 34MJ/litre, and that's compressed to 700bar (10,000 pounds per square inch). Volume is an issue in smaller vehicles, as is crash survivability.

Of course with regards to energy density you have to also take in the fact that Petrol has a density about 10x that of Liquid Hydrogen (737g/litre versus 71g/litre). You factor this in and Hydrogen has about 1.7 times the energy density per gramme. As you mention though major issue regarding volume. Fuel Cells are reckoned to have twice the efficiency of Internal combustion engines.

Daimler is claiming that the Fuel Cell cars that they will launch in 2015 have a range of circa 250km between refuelling and that refuelling takes 5minutes. Obviously the target here is out-compete battery cars. Especially as you don't have to worry about taking 12hours to recharge etc.

Interesting some of the prototypes I've seen (Nissan especially) are SUV size, obviously insulation isn't an issue on this size of vehicle.

From a point of view of Hydrogen production the current research goals in the US is to reduce costs of Wind powered H2 to $2 a kilo (2017 goal). Kilo of Hydrogen is regarded as energy equivalent of US gallon of petrol.

I definitely think though that the main application initially will be for stuff like Buses, large vehicles, "electricity storage" (instead of Pump storage use power at night to produce H2, burn H2 to produce electricity at peak) etc.

In general though it's gonna be a long slow process, unless of course Oil suddenly shoots up to $1,000/barrel and doesn't move.

Apart from "reforming" H2 from Natural gas you can also do it from Coal, though it's not the most efficient or cleanest from environmental point of view.