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

Judgement Day

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It is interesting to note that no one on the "OMG we are fuucked" side of this debate has actually bothered to answer the OPs question of "when"

Actually, I didn't ask that question at the start of this thread. This thread was carved out of another thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73493431#post73493431 by a mod and given that heading. Nobody knows when exactly oil will run out but only an ostrich would deny that it will ultimately dwindle as demand grows and production declines.

ei.sdraob

Judgement Day wrote: »

Actually, I didn't ask that question at the start of this thread. This thread was carved out of another thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73493431#post73493431 by a mod and given that heading. Nobody knows when exactly oil will run out but only an ostrich would deny that it will ultimately dwindle as demand grows and production declines.

I don't see anyone denying that this resource will "dwindle" but peak oil threads often attract people who like to make it out that the world is coming to some sort of an Armageddon but dont mention when this will happen and ignore that peak oil != peak energy



* only an economic "illiterate" would not know that when one resource runs out or becomes expensive others step in to replace it (we already see this happening), That all the worlds central banks are in a race to print money with the rise of oil prices being in part a reflection of the the devaluation of paper especially when compared to the price of other resources such as gold

* only a historic "ostrich" would forget that one source of energy would be replaced by another as has happened thruout history as necessity arises, our futures will be a future of increasing wealth and plenty not a future of scarcity and rationing, tho i could see why politically "scarcity" is more attractive if you yearn for control and power

* only a science "ignoramus" would not comprehend that we live in a universe surrounded by immense amounts of energy, and we already have the technologies to power the world and run our cars for thousands of years on existing nuclear technologies, never mind fusion which has been proven in labs around the world to be possible BUT requires decades of further engineering advances and to become commercially viable.

Judgement Day

That's grand so - thanks for explaining everything. So now we can go along just like there's no tomorrow and one day there won't be. Your faith in man's ingenuity is matched only by your superiority complex.

ei.sdraob

go along just like there's no tomorrow and one day there won't be

When exactly will this day come that is the question i asked? damnit even the Chrisitans attempt to predict the date of the Armageddon

Your faith in man's ingenuity

Well it wasnt luck that brought us from caves to sitting in front of computer monitors, I tell you that

by your superiority complex.

monument

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I don't see anyone denying that this resource will "dwindle" but peak oil threads often attract people who like to make it out that the world is coming to some sort of an Armageddon but dont mention when this will happen and ignore that peak oil != peak energy

Can you point to examples of that in this thread, beside Judgement Day in jest after your post?

It's not about "Armageddon", it's about how well we can cope with oil getting a lot more expensive over time or any oil shocks in the meanwhile. At the moment Ireland couldn't cope very well given our high dependence on cars and other motorised road transport.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* only an economic "illiterate" would not know that when one resource runs out or becomes expensive others step in to replace it (we already see this happening), That all the worlds central banks are in a race to print money with the rise of oil prices being in part a reflection of the the devaluation of paper especially when compared to the price of other resources such as gold

Alternative technologies are already here -- everything from the bicycle to trams and electric trains -- which have far more efficient cost and energy use.

On energy and technology alternatives which may be able to run cars -- the question isn't are they out there but will in work on the same mass as cheap oil or indeed with many people and should governments choose the alternative modes of transport rather than the technology which comes with many of the old costs and problems and some new ones.

Many of the main central banks and banking institutions (as well as our own) have really proven recently they can be relied upon? Haven't they?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* only a historic "ostrich" would forget that one source of energy would be replaced by another as has happened thruout history as necessity arises, our futures will be a future of increasing wealth and plenty not a future of scarcity and rationing, tho i could see why politically "scarcity" is more attractive if you yearn for control and power

Energy sources were replaced by another as "necessity arises"? Isn't that a bit of history revisionism added in with what is not happening now? Energy sources came on stream when they were discovered and fitted in socially, politically and/or economically, and none were really replaced, more so they evolved.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* only a science "ignoramus" would not comprehend that we live in a universe surrounded by immense amounts of energy, and we already have the technologies to power the world and run our cars for thousands of years on existing nuclear technologies, never mind fusion which has been proven in labs around the world to be possible BUT requires decades of further engineering advances and to become commercially viable.

Nuclear technologies? Are you even half serious?

It'll be a political "no" for a long time.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Judgement Day wrote: »

Your faith in man's ingenuity is matched only by your superiority complex.

You are directly or indirectly try to call people with different views a "economic illiterate", "historic ostrich", and "science ignoramus".

ei.sdraob

monument wrote: »

You are directly or indirectly try to call people with different views a "economic illiterate", "historic ostrich", and "science ignoramus".

The post was tongue in cheek reply to me being called and "ostrich" if you care to read the post I replied to

monument wrote:

Can you point to examples of that in this thread, beside Judgement Day in jest after your post?

It's not about "Armageddon", it's about how well we can cope with oil getting a lot more expensive over time or any oil shocks in the meanwhile. At the moment Ireland couldn't cope very well given our high dependence on cars and other motorised road transport.

Remove/lower the taxes and you be paying 60 cent on the litre (as people in US and elsewhere pay) like I said most of the current price consumers pay is artificial, and price of oil is under 100$ yet again (keep in mind that the dollar is devaluing rapidly as they continue to printy printy)

monument wrote:

Alternative technologies are already here -- everything from the bicycle to trams and electric trains -- which have far more efficient cost and energy use.

Bycicles are not an alternative but a step back and yes I used to cycle for years, not a good idea in our weather and infrastructure

As for the rest you are contradicting yourself you want decentralised generation and transport but for people to use centralised solutions

monument wrote:

On energy and technology alternatives which may be able to run cars -- the question isn't are they out there but will in work on the same mass as cheap oil or indeed with many people and should governments choose the alternative modes of transport rather than the technology which comes with many of the old costs and problems and some new ones.

People would choose what mode of transport they will use, not governments, this is not communist Russia, forcing people into electrical Ladas or penalising them for making choices that go against the "5 year plan" will only make people resentful

monument wrote:

Many of the main central banks and banking institutions (as well as our own) have really proven recently they can be relied upon? Haven't they?

Whats that have to do with anything? If anything the problems of the banks are caused by governments, the same governments which you expect to decide wisely and force people into modes of transport you think everyone should use, I believe the words "superiority complex" were already used in this thread...

monument wrote:

Nuclear technologies? Are you even half serious?

It'll be a political "no" for a long time.

Yes I am, it is politics and misinformation (spread by the likes of Greenpeace) which are preventing us from taking advantage of cheap energy not engineering or science


All alternative energy sources (wind,solar, tidal) that are so loved by the green movement at the end of the day are derived from that big nuclear fusion reactor in our skies, that is the ultimate energy source right there not unreliable windmills or photovoltaics

Zubeneschamali

monument wrote: »

Nuclear technologies? Are you even half serious? It'll be a political "no" for a long time.

It's a political "no" now because we don't need it, we've got cheap oil.

If oil gets seriously expensive before anything better than nuclear comes along, then nuclear will suddenly be a political "now".

monument

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Remove/lower the taxes and you be paying 60 cent on the litre (as people in US and elsewhere pay) like I said most of the current price consumers pay is artificial, and price of oil is under 100$ yet again (keep in mind that the dollar is devaluing rapidly as they continue to printy printy).

As per one of the previous posts on this thread:

monument wrote: »

The cost of congestion to the economy in Dublin alone was estimated by IBM to be 4.1% of GDP or €4billion to in 2008.

Even with some people emigrating, we've just had a few years of a baby boom and our population is increasing -- if a car centric transport system is continued, that means more cars and more congestion. Source on population: CSO

"There are 327,000 children described as overweight, who cost the health service an estimated at €4 billion per year" -- I'm not saying getting more people cycling will solve the problem, but it would help a lot. Source: Irish Examiner and The Case for a National Physical Activity Action Plan.

And not including the cost of pollution and before you get into maintenance and building costs at local and national levels, and loads of apparently smaller costs which add up when combined including: the costs of lost life and injuries, the cost of clamping (it's not paying for its self as fines have been capped for years), costs of policing, cost of agencies such as the NRA and RSA etc.

What about the costs of cycle lanes and footpaths? Motorists do more damage to most of them then their users or natural ageing does.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Bycicles are not an alternative but a step back and yes I used to cycle for years, not a good idea in our weather and infrastructure

With its benefits including being cheaper for state and users, less congestion, reliably travel times, a healthier population, a more alert workforce, less air and noise pollution, and more attractive cities and towns... how exact is more cycling a step back exactly?

We have slightly better weather generally and less rain than Denmark and the Netherlands which have 40-50% cycling in some cities. And in the Netherlands 40% of rail users cycle to stations from their homes.

Changing infrastructure is the topic on hand...

ei.sdraob wrote: »

As for the rest you are contradicting yourself you want decentralised generation and transport but for people to use centralised solutions

You've lost me here. I want decentralised generation?

First, cars are not that "decentralised" given their affect on roads alone.

Centralised power generation used in trams and trains is many times more efficient than current cars and electric cars.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

People would choose what mode of transport they will use, not governments, this is not communist Russia, forcing people into electrical Ladas or penalising them for making choices that go against the "5 year plan" will only make people resentful

Can you give up the hype? Communist Russia? Who wants electrical Ladas?

Our roads, traffic laws, planning laws are all designed -- see all of those lanes, traffic lights, roundabouts, motorways etc... you think these are apolitical?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Whats that have to do with anything? If anything the problems of the banks are caused by governments, the same governments which you expect to decide wisely and force people into modes of transport you think everyone should use, I believe the words "superiority complex" were already used in this thread...

Are you able to deal with points without rhetoric and direct or indirect name calling?

The problems with banks was caused after regulation was relaxed -- so, yes, it was caused by governments stepping back.

You'll find you need banks to fund your apparent (and yet unnamed?) alternatives. Going by the current energy alternatives, you also need (Communist?) subsidies. Will they make the right choices?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yes I am, it is politics and misinformation (spread by the likes of Greenpeace) which are preventing us from taking advantage of cheap energy not engineering or science

All alternative energy sources (wind,solar, tidal) that are so loved by the green movement at the end of the day are derived from that big nuclear fusion reactor in our skies, that is the ultimate energy source right there not unreliable windmills or photovoltaics

Yes, it is is politics -- nearly everything we're talking is politics!

Few care what Greenpeace say, but people tent to run the opposite direction when they see things like what happens in Japan.

Even with smaller nuclear plants which would suit Ireland, trains and trams are more efficient than cars and trucks.

Gumbi

Wild Bill wrote: »

Jack Noble

I think you'll find an oil shock (a very real possibility as you say) will trigger a rush of investment, globally, in alternative ways to fuel private cars than public transport initiatives by heavily indebted and/or insolvent EU countries!

I like to look at the big picture :cool:

Most, if not all, the alternatives to oil (in relation to our current energy consumption) are inferior. The oil shock will come, and I don't think the Western World will live as luxuriously as they do now for a long time into the future.

The reason there is (comparably) little investment in alternative technologies is because (currently) there is no need, as oil is so great (for lack of a better term). I'm not saying we shouldn't be looking into alternative technologies, but that currently, oil is the best energy source for a multitude of reasons already mentioned in this thread, and anyway, humans in general are hardly forward-thinking.

Wild Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

The most important issue currently with peak oil is not the decline in supply of oil, but the decline in supply of cheap oil!
That still holds true, despite the recent drop in prices, as these are only temporary and many people are experiencing a reduction in disposable income.

Just reading an article in this week's "Economist" (:D) and it is concerned about the effect of fracking shale gas will have on global warming.

They reckon it as the potential to replace all coal production and bring energy prices so low that it will threaten nuclear, wind and other "non-carbon producing" sources of energy.

It will do this be being cheap and cheerful. :cool:

dubhthach

Wild Bill wrote: »

Just reading an article in this week's "Economist" (:D) and it is concerned about the effect of fracking shale gas will have on global warming.

They reckon it as the potential to replace all coal production and bring energy prices so low that it will threaten nuclear, wind and other "non-carbon producing" sources of energy.

It will do this be being cheap and cheerful. :cool:

Israelis have recently discovered that they could potentially have 240billion barrels worth of "Shale oil" . Given their dependency on foreign Russian Oil and their history when it comes to "doing stuff for themselves" I wouldn't be surprised if most of the tech for extracting Shale oil at economical prices will eventually come out of the Israeli High-tech sector.

To put that find in perspective Saudi currently has 250billion barrels worth in proven reserves.

dowlingm

Shale has major problems to overcome - the companies involved seem to be still messing about when it comes to what exactly is in their fracking fluid (diesel has been used for instance) and the effect on water tables. This would be important if the shale deposits around Silvermines were explored given its position near the R. Shannon. There is also questions about the effects on geological stability of this stuff.

As for shale, the Israelis need only look at the billions being pumped into northern Alberta to see what works and what doesn't. Water is a big requirement for current technologies so that might be a problem given climate and population pressure unless as part of the project they could commission desalination plants to get water pure enough to use - that's a lot of water to treat though, and tailings too.

Getting back to the original topic.
One of the main uses of oil in this country is road freight, any significant rises in oil prices will have a knock on affect on prices if all goods in shops everywhere. If there are any reductions in supply then there could be shortages as there will be insufficeient fuel for the current levels of freight traffic.

One possible solution could be to employ "roadtrains".




Such a vehicle would, of course be restricted to motorways and certain primiary routes, but they would provide more efficient transport per litre of fuel, at a fraction of the cost of rebuilding a complete rail freight network.

Wild Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

Getting back to the original topic.

Not sure we have strayed from the original topic, which was the alledged "certainty" that "peak oil" would result in less driving and hence a lesser need for roads and motorways.

The evidence (from the posts) is mounting that there will be no such effect. :cool:

Judgement Day

What evidence?

dubhthach

Thorium power car anyone? via Slashdot
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811/

Wild Bill

dubhthach wrote: »

Thorium power car anyone? via Slashdot
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811/

Indeed; and these "rare earths" apparently are mostly not that rare atall atall - just they don't occur in seams so you must process vast quantities of suitable countryside to extract them.

Kinda like shale fracking only more so!

I can see the day coming soon when the Greenies will be soon lamenting the "good ole days" before peak oil!

Wild Bill

Wild Bill wrote: »

Indeed; and these "rare earths" apparently are mostly not that rare atall atall - just they don't occur in seams so you must process vast quantities of suitable countryside to extract them.

Which requires vast amounts of energy of course, lots of fossil fuel sourced energy.

Wild Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

Which requires vast amounts of energy of course, lots of fossil fuel sourced energy.

Yep. The shale fracking will compliment the rare earth recovery. A win-win :cool:

Judgement Day

Wild Bill wrote: »

Yep. The shale fracking will compliment the rare earth recovery. A win-win :cool:

I bet you waltz through life with a Laser card as well. :rolleyes:

Yahew

Judgement Day wrote: »

I bet you waltz through life with a Laser card as well. :rolleyes:

SOunds like a ad hominem to me.

I had a pdf somewhere ( from some energy group) of the ratio of economically recoverable reserves, to technically recoverable reserves, to all known reserves in years left at present consumption and the ratio was 30:90:1,200.

Technology bleeds the third column into the second, and increases in price bleed the second column into the first. So there are at least 90 years price dependent years left in conventional oil plus additions from gains in technology, if the situation continues ( i.e. prices continue to rise). Lets say 200 years assuming that not all in column 3 can be recovered ever.

Thats nothing to worry about. Remember the lad in 1800 who worried that at the rate of then growth, London would be neck deep in horse poo.

CerebralCortex

Yahew wrote: »

SOunds like a ad hominem to me.

I had a pdf somewhere ( from some energy group) of the ratio of economically recoverable reserves, to technically recoverable reserves, to all known reserves in years left at present consumption and the ratio was 30:90:1,200.

Technology bleeds the third column into the second, and increases in price bleed the second column into the first. So there are at least 90 years + technology changes in conventional oil plus additions form gains in technology, if the situation continues ( i.e. prices continue to rise). Lets say 200 years assuming that not all in column 3 can be recovered ever.

Thats nothing to worry about. The lad in 1800 who worried that at the rate of then growth, London would be neck deep in horse poo.

I hate Malthus.

Yahew

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I hate Malthus.

Acutally in any other era, at any other time, he would have been right. The scientific revolution is a sort of "singularity" - you get into a whole new world when you go through one.

The problem with technically recoverable reserves is the fact that they will be so expensive that the cost of their recovery will collapse the economy, thus rendering them worthless as almost no one would be able to afford to recover them.

One thing to keep in mind is just how much fossil fuel is used to maintain our current BAU lives, it should be possible to reduce our consumption by at least 50% without too much hardship!

All that is needed is for people to move closer to where they work, JIT to be replaced by scheduled deliveries, roadtrains (see earlier post) on primary routes, an 80kmh speed limit on all roads, phasing out of high consuming vehicles, high insulation standards to be enforced on all housing, etc

None of these steps would be considered draconian , but would all contribute to "riding the decline" without hardship.

corktina

slightley different question....when the oil runs out, how will we tar the roads?

Yahew

You are assuming the decline, which is the thread's to prove.. anyway the cost of technically recoverable reserves will decline with time. The low hanging fruit is gone, but it was gone when they built oil platforms on the North Sea. People would have been amazed at that a generation earlier.

Yahew

Yahew wrote: »

You are assuming the decline, which is the thread's to prove.. anyway the cost of technically recoverable reserves will decline with time. The low hanging fruit is gone, but it was gone when they built oil platforms on the North Sea. People would have been amazed at that a generation earlier.

The most important cost is the amount of energy that is used to extract the oil, when it was simple rigs in Texas it needed less than one barrels worth to extract about 200 plus barrels. with the north sea one barrel of energy was needed to extract only about 30 barrels, the current generation of deep sea platforms the return is less than ten and with tar sands etc it's less than five.

The cost in energy expended to recover the oil can never decline, the harder it is to get, the more energy needed to get it and the less that is available to pass on to consumers. This is the main reason that oil prices are rising relative to the cost of living.

Yahew

dolanbaker wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

You are assuming the decline, which is the thread's to prove.. anyway the cost of technically recoverable reserves will decline with time. The low hanging fruit is gone, but it was gone when they built oil platforms on the North Sea. People would have been amazed at that a generation earlier.

The most important cost is the amount of energy that is used to extract the oil, when it was simple rigs in Texas it needed less than one barrels worth to extract about 200 plus barrels. with the north sea one barrel of energy was needed to extract only about 30 barrels, the current generation of deep sea platforms the return is less than ten and with tar sands etc it's less than five.

The cost in energy expended to recover the oil can never decline, the harder it is to get, the more energy needed to get it and the less that is available to pass on to consumers. This is the main reason that oil prices are rising relative to the cost of living.

True but still an energy surplus. Prices won't be $15 again but the armagedon of peak oil is not going to happen either.

Yahew

Yahew wrote: »

True but still an energy surplus. Prices won't be $15 again but the armagedon of peak oil is not going to happen either.

That's the key point!

Our current way of life is based on (very) cheap oil and it simply can't function this way with expensive oil, that's why we have all the current financial difficulties!

You're right, there won't be a "Mad Max" (well very unlikely, barring a civil war in Saudi Arabia) but there will be less oil per capita, thus putting an end to the traditional growth bases economy.

Wild Bill

Judgement Day wrote: »

I bet you waltz through life with a Laser card as well. :rolleyes:

:eek:
:eek:
:eek: