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

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I would guess that within 5-10 years after the last oil is used it would have already been replaced by alternatives.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I would guess that within 5-10 years after the last oil is used it would have already been replaced by alternatives.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.

gas2_3cf0c.jpg&sa=X&ei=Mdk1Ts2HEsK4hAeKianvCg&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEUdVgr69jrEqZDMJGLZdD244e2Hw

gas2_3cf0c.jpg&sa=X&ei=Mdk1Ts2HEsK4hAeKianvCg&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEUdVgr69jrEqZDMJGLZdD244e2Hw

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 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!

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

Zubeneschamali

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course the improvement in computer technology due to "Moore's Law" put paid to that.

And the falling cost of silicon chips means photovoltaics are getting cheaper:

monument

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.

Like it or not, cheap oil also "really" played a large part in allowing people to commute longer distances.

It's wasn't mainly bad planning or the cheap oil, both were needed to allow a large amount of people to choose to live silly distances from where they work.

Wild Bill wrote: »

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.

Strange that you accuse me of not dealing with your points and you only want to deal with one part of my post.

Wild Bill wrote: »

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.

Wow, first only dealing with only part of my post and accusing me of not dealing with the points and then you go on to sling mud and start name calling.

Wild Bill wrote: »

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".

I did not call you a property bubble denier, I stated that your arguments on oil mirrored what we seen from property bubble deniers. Your rhetoric, name calling and calls for inaction also mirror what those deniers had said. :rolleyes:

Wild Bill wrote: »

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

How exactly do you think that the people who can't afford transport oil price increases will be able to afford the high start-up cost of electric car costs?

Wild Bill wrote: »

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.

.............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:

More rhetoric from you.

Building train-lines to nowhere? Train lines that nobody would use? Err... What? Maybe we could start with building train and tram lines in high population areas in and around Dublin where there is already demand?

Wild Bill wrote: »

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

One choice is winning so-far... Do you want to guess what it is? I'll give you a clue -- it has two wheels, it doesn't make a load of noise, and it's powered by the user.

CerebralCortex

<sarcasm>Electric cars won't need roads because they'll float, so no more need for good roads.</sarcasm>

monument wrote: »

One choice is winning so-far... Do you want to guess what it is? I'll give you a clue -- it has two wheels, it doesn't make a load of noise, and it's powered by the user.

Winning what?

As I said, the assertion that we should be building infrastructure today for a future assuming less cars driving less miles makes as much sense as planning for global warming by building harbours inland, today.

Nothing I've read here changes that position; the most informative posts above strongly support my contention.

Not that it needed any support :cool:

Sponge Bob

Motorways and DCs are essential for electric cars, to my mind. Best build them while we can afford the diesel

Peak Oil does not mean that oil / carbon is running out. It means that CHEAP and easily accessible oil is running out.

monument

Wild Bill wrote: »

Winning what?

Winning as the top choice being picked by many over using a car.

Wild Bill wrote: »

As I said, the assertion that we should be building infrastructure today for a future assuming less cars driving less miles makes as much sense as planning for global warming by building harbours inland, today.

Not at all.

While harbours inland would be useless for a long time and maybe forever, infrastructure such as metros and tram lines can be used today. There's huge benefits in getting people out of cars today regardless of oil costs in the future.

Jack Noble

I believe we in Ireland are heading for any almighty crash someday in the not too distant future due to our near total dependence on oil for transport.

It may be this year or next or 10 to 20 years down the road but it is coming.

An oil shock such as a prolonged price spike, a Libya style crisis/civil war in Saudi and/or the Gulf state or a war involving Iran and Israel/US/Nato could have a terrible effect on the ability of this country to function.

Our complete failure to invest in electric rail for urban and inter-urban travel for passengers and freight will come back to kick us in the arse some day. Across Europe, there are comprehensive electric tram/bus/metro/rail systems as an alternative to roads and most of these countries will still be able to function during an oil shock.

Ireland, on the other hand, will not - we face the nightmare scenario of no cars, buses, trucks or trains, bar Luas and Dart in Dublin.

There are people in govt - by that I mean the civil service - who are aware of this but I don't believe they have had much success convincing their CS colleagues or politicians.

The EU currently has a Transport White Paper which seeks to move away from oil-based road transport and on to rail by 2050.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/2011_white_paper_en.htm

As part of this, we will soon need to start planning for and developoing electric rail lines between the major urban centres, alongside electric rail and bus lines in the cities - but discussion hasn't even begun here yet.

But we're still talking about the need for Metro and Dart in Dublin when the need for both and more such lines will be critical in a matter of years.

And for those who say about a major oil shock that 'it will never happen', I would point out that in the last 20 years we've seen an awful lot of 'never happen' events happen.

monument wrote: »

Winning as the top choice being picked by many over using a car.

So car ownership is falling then, is it? In Ireland? In India? In China? Where, exactly?

There's huge benefits in getting people out of cars today regardless of oil costs in the future.

Are there? Like what?

I think, like the hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indians, South Americans, Africans, Russians, East Europeans (and virtually everyone else) that there are huge advantages to having cars and the roads to drive them on.

I'm supporting my view by citing the choices being made by most of humanity - it is not based on some trendy notion of how I think people should want to live, work and commute/travel :cool: