The End.

[StrongTurd]

Why worry about oil?

Surely you haven't read post #384 because I've just explained why.

 

[StrongTurd]

I agree that biofuels from food sources is not the way to go.

Many industries and products will suffer with the loss of fossil fuel.

But we humans are clever enough not to just collapse and die.

The more people off the grid, the more on methane, the less pronounced each oil crisis becomes. That's why I bolded that part of the newsletter I quoted.



The entire world simply needs to split energy requirements into micro parts, where the entire population is connected to the grid, but feeding it, with their excess, whether gas or electricity.

The individuals/companies/industries need to be educated/informed on all the ways, to be not just able to use the minimum possible, in energy requirements, but also be able to be part of and earn money from the contribution to the country's energy needs.

Unfortunately, many governments, like ours, cling desperately to any form of control and think only in terms of centralization.

Although there has been some progress there lately.

Even IF methane production could be ramped up rapidly enough to meaningfully offset declining oil production (which it can't), then can you imagine what the environmental impact will be given that methane is MORE THAN 20 TIMES more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2? It'll be catastrophic.

In fact, I've posted earlier in this thread about the methane thaw that's starting to happen in the Arctic tundra due to global warming and the vicious positive feedback loop that this will cause due to the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas.

So again, no suitable alternative to light sweet crude has yet been identified that will allow us to maintain our current level of economic activity.

 

[boramk]

Surely you haven't read post #384 because I've just explained why.

I've read it. I just think you are misunderstanding market forces and I think high oil prices are overrated. People actually think there will be chaos, there wont.
We will have high inflation along with other things for a period, and thereafter I believe everything will fix itself. Humans adapt.

When we run out of oil, the world won't die and no longer be able to thrive.

 

[StrongTurd]

Might I be so bold as to say that I probably understand market forces better than someone who claims that all will be well and that oil will be replaced with a suitable alternative and yet be unable to identify this energy source for me.

 

[Lightscribe]

Even IF methane production could be ramped up rapidly enough to meaningfully offset declining oil production (which it can't), then can you imagine what the environmental impact will be given that methane is MORE THAN 20 TIMES more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2? It'll be catastrophic.

In fact, I've posted earlier in this thread about the methane thaw that's starting to happen in the Arctic tundra due to global warming and the vicious positive feedback loop that this will cause due to the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas.

So again, no suitable alternative to light sweet crude has yet been identified that will allow us to maintain our current level of economic activity.

I know about the permafrost melting and the release of the methane.

Ice on fire: The next fossil fuel
24 June 2009 by Fred Pearce
Magazine issue 2714

DEEP in the Arctic Circle, in the Messoyakha gas field of western Siberia, lies a mystery. Back in 1970, Russian engineers began pumping natural gas from beneath the permafrost and piping it east across the tundra to the Norilsk metal smelter, the biggest industrial enterprise in the Arctic.

By the late 70s, they were on the brink of winding down the operation. According to their surveys, they had sapped nearly all the methane from the deposit. But despite their estimates, the gas just kept on coming. The field continues to power Norilsk today.

Where is this methane coming from? The Soviet geologists initially thought it was leaking from another deposit hidden beneath the first. But their experiments revealed the opposite - the mystery methane is seeping into the well from the icy permafrost above.

If unintentionally, what they had achieved was the first, and so far only, successful exploitation of ... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227141.100-ice-on-fire-the-next-fossil-fuel.html?full=true

Others feel that we face a wetter future...

Work in Alaska looks at life in a warmer, wetter world.

In the largest experiment of its kind to date, ecologists have found that the wetter the Arctic tundra becomes, the more carbon dioxide it gives off.

If the tundra becomes increasingly warm and wet — which is anticipated as global temperatures rise — it might emit more carbon than expected, the work suggests. http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090804/full/news.2009.778.html?s=news_rss

We have serious problems, no matter what. The world is doing something about it. The methane production I speak of, will be controlled, with sewerage becoming valuable.

Think also of the research that indicates the melting of the glaciers, causing massive inland flooding and then the long term severe drought that follows, over the next 50-100 years, devastating large parts of the world.

A great many things have the the world permanently on the verge of collapse. We will still be able to have it impact less on our lives, by being aware of the various issues, then taking action, as the world is, to face the future.

It starts with the individual. The more individual people creating their their own energy requirements, the less likely an effect a major upset in fossil fuels will have.

 

[StrongTurd]

Well, Lightscribe, It seems like you are just as aware of the parlousness of our situation as I am. It's only our prognosis that differs. You believe that the human race is smart enough to overcome this. I, on the other hand, look at history and I cannot find a single case case where the collapse of any society was unavoidable.

Judging by the epic scale at which we're destroying the biosphere I don't see any reason why we are going to be different. Our race exhibits all the characteristics of a virus. As soon as we've sucked our host dry of all nutrients, we will wither and die. What's more, other species (those that are still around when the inevitable day of reckoning comes) will rejoice in our demise and I don't blame them. Our race truly is the scourge of this planet. Honestly, show me ONE good thing that us humans have done to the earth's biosphere.

 

[Lightscribe]

Hehehe! I have also described the human race as a virus, killing it's host and thus ourselves...

I know we face a bleak future. But, why accept what seems inevitable?

If you take action in some way, a difference will be made. You have made and will still make people aware.

I would still push methane.

All of us, doing a bit, will be able to get through any crisis the world throws at us.

Even a dread disease that threatens to wipe out humanity, will not kill everyone. There will always be survivors of any such outbreak, simply because there will always be humans that were exposed, to the particular virus, at a previous stage of their ancestry.

Excluding a direct meteor/comet hit, we will always be around...at least until the red giant warming us, finally swallows us, as it dies, a few billion years from now.

By 100 years from now, many of us will be "pushing up daiseys" on other planets.

Nature will take care of overpopulation in many ways.

 

[StrongTurd]

I recently saw a computer simulation somewhere that modeled a worst case climate change scenario taking into consideration the effect of all the known positive feedback loops and this thing says that we might go Venus-like in less than a 1000 years! This is obviously an extreme worst case scenario but it remains sobering nonetheless.

Just as an aside: Contrary to what my typically gloomy posts might indicate, I'm actually quite an upbeat character. It gives one a different outlook when you realise that yours will probably be the last generation to enjoy the incredible luxury that was made possible by the rampant burning of fossil fuels. Also, I have spent the last half a decade trying to reduce my carbon footprint as much as possible. Alas, due to a lack of money I've still got very far to go before achieving carbon neutrality. I do realise that all of the measures that I have taken are like farting against thunder when my neighbour starts up his Hummer every morning but then again I'm only responsible for my own ethics, not his.

 

[Lightscribe]

True...1000 years from now, the world will be a very different place...

It may seem as if it's not making a difference, but thousands, millions thinking the same way, makes a change. Watch the Hummer driver change... even if only to methane as fuel for the Hummer.

 

[Generix]

Well, Lightscribe, It seems like you are just as aware of the parlousness of our situation as I am. It's only our prognosis that differs. You believe that the human race is smart enough to overcome this. I, on the other hand, look at history and I cannot find a single case case where the collapse of any society was unavoidable.

Judging by the epic scale at which we're destroying the biosphere I don't see any reason why we are going to be different. Our race exhibits all the characteristics of a virus. As soon as we've sucked our host dry of all nutrients, we will wither and die. What's more, other species (those that are still around when the inevitable day of reckoning comes) will rejoice in our demise and I don't blame them. Our race truly is the scourge of this planet. Honestly, show me ONE good thing that us humans have done to the earth's biosphere.

Well, we feed the worms if we don't choose cremation

If we were really smart we would realise we are just part of a self-sustaining system and don't need to do 'good things' to our biosphere - the good things are already there and have been for a long time. We should just not foul it up. That would mean goodbye 'light sweet crude' (now there's a term that always makes me smile!) and the mechanistic and high-tech lifestyle we seem so hell-bent on maintaining.

Will our 'society' change if oil runs out? Undoubtedly. And maybe that would be a good thing - the survival of our species and a host of others might depend on it. Believe it or not, but we don't need oil or its by-products to grow food, clothe ourselves, keep warm and have shelter and good company - we only became addicted to oil over the last century or so. The problem for many in our society, however, would be that they would be rather lost without the mod-cons fostered by our oil-dependent consumerism.

It reminds me of the story of the young bride who proudly showed off her modern kitchen with all its gadgets to her grandma and asked: "Which one do you like best?" To which grandma replied without missing a beat: "Running water." I s'pose it all depends on your perspective and expectations.

BTW, I'm rather pleased you called it a society and not a civilisation Perhaps one should also bear in mind that the collapse of a society does not equate to the extinction of a species. The former may very well collapse without light sweet crude, the latter may do very well indeed.

 

[Lightscribe]

I have a feeling we will do well...

At the international show of methane and gas vehicles, Richard Kolodziej, President of the IANGV (International Association of Natural Gas Vehicles), revealed just how confident he is in the future of these cars. “We have never had so much faith in the market,” he has said, believing that all the conditions are right to see a complete turn-around in the car market in two years.

Turin has been chosen as the city for the fair given Italy’s leadership in the alternative fuel sector. “We can and we must grow,” Kolodziej has said, “We can and we must increase market penetration, extending the distribution network and involving politics. We can take the South American example where Argentina and Brasil have 10-15 percent of circulating cars running on methane. Even Peru and Venezuela are demonstrating consolidation.”

The politics of alternative fuels are not to be undervalued, as the IANGV president points out. Both white house candidates on alternative fuels have remained silent about methane, and have thrown their weigh behind other options that are more costly and less conclusive.

Giorgio Neri, marketing planner for the sustainable motoring group of the Fiat brand has revealed that when they talk about methane, it’s not in the conditional with a sense of maybe, it’s imperative. “The figures give weight to our statements: in only 18 months, the growth in NGV vehicles on the market has increased from 1.8 to five percent.”

Manufacturers need to count more on the options available in their ranges; as Neri says, the growth for Fiat in the market would not have occurred without the Panda Natural Power range. “Last May, the sales of our “goose that lays the golden egg” overtook even the petrol version. In the Emilia Romagna region, two out of three Panda’s run off methane.”

Despite all this, though, the biggest problem facing the sector is distribution, which is badly organised. “We are working in direct contact with institutions to increase offerings,” says Neri. At the next show of its kind in 2010, alternative fuels will no longer be considered an emerging reality.

http://www.eurocarblog.com/post/1232/methane-and-hydrogen-car-show-conferences-part-two

Few alternative fuels offer the distinct and unquestionable advantages of natural gas. Natural gas is widely available, renewable (through the production of biogas or biomethane), offers greenhouse gas reductions and produces fewer emissions compared to other traditional and alternative fuels. Natural gas can be used either as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG) or even blended with hydrogen. The use of natural gas vehicles (NGVs) also facilitates energy security and energy diversity.

With more than 9.5 million natural gas vehicles (NGVs) worldwide, the International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles (IANGV) is proud to have been at the forefront of industry growth, making natural gas one of the most popular and versatile alternative fuels available.

Natural gas or methane is one of the mose versatile alternative fuels available and can be used in spark ignited or compression engines from the smallest of motorbikes to the largest rail locomotives and almost everything in between. With the growing use of biogas or biomethane, natural gas is also becoming one of the most dominant biofuels available worldwide.

Public compressed natural gas (CNG) refuelling stations are increasing in number worldwide everyday and equipment is even available now to allow home fuelling , an innovation that is changing the way we live our lives today. Equally, liquefied natural gas (LNG) fueling stations are also increasing in number daily, proving especially popular amongst heavy vehicle fleet operators.

Chasing a target of 65 million natural gas vehicles on the road globally by 2020, IANGV is committed to support the NGV industry in every aspect and issue requiring action necessary to reach this target.

We invite you to use our website as your 'window' to the natural gas vehicle industry. Browse our site, visit our online news magazine NGV Global, make use of our tools and resources, and of our Business Directory (coming soon). We welcome your suggestions and also invite you to subscribe for free weekly NGV industry and alternative fuel news via email.

http://www.iangv.org/

 

[StrongTurd]

Nice post, Generix.

 

[StrongTurd]

Lightscribe, 65 million natural gas vehicles by 2020? That's a drop in the bucket. How many cars are there on this planet? Something like a billion, not so? Besides, personal mobility is part of the problem, not the solution. We need to move away from the car. And quickly.

But yeah, I'll admit that CNG might be the best oil depletion mitigator around, albeit still not one to take over from oil to a significant degree. Methane, on the other hand, is a no no due to its potency as a greenhouse gas.

 

[Eniigma]

I think one of the biggest problems with these climate changes and damage to the earth is the time frames. If I recall correctly they reckon the sun will die out in the next 6 billion years. Well that's a long time and there is nothing we can do to change that. I'll let those that are around in 5.9999 billion years worry about that. Heck even a thousand years is too far down the line to think about.

I read an article on the Greenland Icesheets melting this morning and they said if that went there would be a global sea level rise of 7m. Ok now that's a serious problem and gets my attention. Then I read further, current rise is 0.75mm per year, up from .045mm. Well maybe then its not so bad. If I'm generous and give myself another 50 years, that's a total rise of 37.5 mm* in my life time. 37.5mm! In 50 years if I go down to North Beach here in durban, I won't notice that, that won't threaten anything along the Durban beaches. Joe Cools is not suddenly going to find itself in the middle of the sea. Why stress?

I'm not saying I don't believe in global warming, but I'm not 100% convinced of it either. I'm not arrogant enough or ignorant enough to believe we don't have an impact on the earth and the climate and the atmosphere. This is where I think the problem comes in, people see these dramatic headlines, sea level to rise 7m, then read the fine print and it will take 2333 years* if the rise is 3mm a year and they lose their concern.

Sure most people with think about there children and grandchildren and maybe even great grandchildren, but very very few will think beyond that. When it comes down to paying off debt or that fishing boat and holiday to Mozam' or installing some environmentally friendly power system for your home so your grandkids have a better world, most people will choose the former.

* Figures taken from BBC article read today, and of course does not take and feedback loops or snowballing effects into account.

 

[Eniigma]

Even IF methane production could be ramped up rapidly enough to meaningfully offset declining oil production (which it can't), then can you imagine what the environmental impact will be given that methane is MORE THAN 20 TIMES more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2? It'll be catastrophic.

A couple of years ago I saw something on TV (I think it was that dirtiest jobs program) where some dairy farmer was powering his whole dairy and house of methane harvested from his cows waste.

ST, as this is obviously something you've spent time on, maybe you can give us some links regarding why methane and biofuels are a bad / good option? I don't mean some report or dude talking about it, because we all know that you can find people, even educated, credible sounding people to support anything and either side of anything. I'm after a more scientific explanation.

I'm after something like (with graphics would be a bonus ) put Methane in + combustion = energy + harmful / neutral by product. My understanding was that the methane (bad greenhouse gas) was consumed in the production of the energy.

I'll fire up my google fingers for myself after this, but I thought you might have some of it already available and it might be helpful /interesting to other readers.

I'll admit I know very little about biofuels and what I understand about biofuels from food sources is that would lead to major food shortages as farmers switch to the more profitable biofuel production.

 

[StrongTurd]

Enigma, I'll be more than happy to oblige. The International Energy Agency, is THE organisation that governments and multinationals use in order to obtain statistics on energy production and consumption. In short, when it comes to worldwide energy statistics, it doesn't get more respected than this.

They have just released their eagerly awaited 2009 World Energy Outlook. Now, to be perfectly honest I haven't had the time to read the whole thing yet but this little extract will give you an idea of what to expect of biofuels and alternative fuels production for the next 20 years:

The WEO-2009 report includes a sobering look at projected global liquid fuel production, in both the reference scenario (no regulatory changes) and 450 ppm scenario. The 450 ppm scenario of course includes recommended reductions of coal use, replacing it with natural gas use, and reductions in fossil oil use. In the reference scenario (no regulatory changes) there are sobering warnings of difficulty in supplying the projected increases in energy use.

This chart (from the WEO-2008 report) shows that "oil from fields currently producing" is projected to enter a steep decline in production. That decline in production is the definition of peak oil, namely the point after which oil production cannot be increased. But the chart shows an increase in total production. The production shortfall is projected to be made up for by production increases coming from "oil fields yet to be developed", "oil fields YET TO BE FOUND", "natural gas liquefaction", and "unconventional oil" (aka tarsands). While the WEO figures project this new production will occur, it requires large scale investments in new infrastructure to produce this fuel, and it requires FINDING new oil fields. The low rate of oil field discovery existing since the early 1960's does not raise much hope for significant major new oil fields to be found.

Please also follow this link to the source document in order to look at the graph that is being referred to. As you'll notice, non-conventional fuels and natural gas will at best produce around a third of the planet's total oil production and will not be able to sufficiently offset declines in production from conventional oil sources AND provide for the anticipated growth in demand.

O yeah, you might also notice that this graph conclusively indicates that we've already reached peak oil for conventional sources.

 

[Palimino]

I'll admit I know very little about biofuels and what I understand about biofuels from food sources is that would lead to major food shortages as farmers switch to the more profitable biofuel production.

My 2 cents. Biofuels is the way to go. They may not be the most carbon efficient, but the existing infrastructure and the massive investment in the internal combustion engine, will be suitable and allow a breathing space while greener and more expensive alternatives are introduced more gradually. The impact on food crops will be minimal. In SA, bio-diesel is the answer. Stacks of rural employment because the farming need not be commercial – standards don’t apply (except for food). The plants (high-yield, purpose directed plants - not food plants) are suitable for small-scale farming on crappy land with no quality control. Just plant them and harvest them in time for pick-up. The rest of the time bak balles, beat your wife and get drunk. In other words follow a traditional lifestyle.

Picture it. A railway spur (implying a working rail network) is laid-down at major nodes. A bio-diesel locomotive sponsored by SASOL (your friendly alternative fuel giant – building a better nation <gag>) leaves trucks on the spur for about a week (a residential carriage as well for officials) to collect fuel plant matter from myriads of subsistence farmers. They also tow around trailers with bio-diesel powered tractors to collect the harvest of farmers who cannot get to the rail node. Payment is by cheque - no carrying of cash so that they or the farmers become targets for criminal attack. Cheque validation is by the farmer’s thumbprint (illiteracy is addressed). The banks in nearby centres have the biometric apparatus necessary to cash cheques and have been instructed to treat a severed thumb, dripping blood with deep suspicion. The banking industry also wins – all these farmers have bank accounts. Genetically engineered fuel crops (Monsanto?) should be looked into for greater yields.

With the bio-diesel option, all the existing power stations can be used with little or no modification (they are just boilers, you burn different stuff is all). As the vegetable matter for bio-diesel is low tech. agriculture, it will provide masses of employment. The bio-diesel growing plants are robust (so neglect is not a big issue) and do not require the same standards as foodstuff. Insecticides, gro-fast muti etc. are OK. No refrigeration or time-critical transport required. Just harvest the stuff (in your own time) and get it to the fuel-making centres at some stage – the sooner to be paid. Genetically engineered crops should also be considered. If the fuel crop is alien to SA, there will be little danger of influencing ‘organic’ crops. There is also a massive infrastructure devoted to the internal combustion engine (cars). Little modification with bio-fuels is required. What modification that is required is cheap. There will not be a rush to buy expensive ‘green’ vehicles that require a non-existent infrastructure (wishful thinking). No money.

There is a school that thinks nuclear power is a viable option. Nuclear power for SA would be a horrendous mistake. Forget about the lead times and expense of nuclear power stations, we don’t have the skills here and the penalties for an AA ‘miscalculation’ are huge.

Nuclear = bad move.

 

[StrongTurd]

Palomino, you guys still fail to see the bigger picture. Yes, biofuels are good and yes, we should push for their widescale adoption. In fact, I like your ideas a lot. However, to believe that biofuels will be able to completely offset the planet's declining conventional oil production AND to allow us to remain on our perpetual economic growth model is just not realistic. May I refer you to the graph in my previous post to confirm this fact.

Again, unless we can come up with an energy source that has all the characteristics of conventional oil, then it becomes impossible to maintain the status quo. Many people on this thread have proposed alternatives but it was very easy to poke holes in all of their arguments as we simply do not have a readily available alternative for conventional oil.

The only sane choice remaining for our species is to adopt an economic model that is not based in perpetual growth while at the same time we should stop population growth as in yesterday. If we don't realise this very quickly, then Gaia will take care of it for us, as we have now reached the limits of growth given our finite resource base.

 

[Chicken Boo]

biofuels are a big con, and if you think about it logically for a moment you can easily see why: there is energy expenditure in growing the crop which has to be overcome before the crop has even broken even, let alone supplied any energy "profit". All the farm eq involved, all the transport involved, refining and manfacturing processes all already depends on diesel. using diesel to.. make diesel, and the process is nowhere near efficient. Biofail.

 

[Palimino]

However, to believe that biofuels will be able to completely offset the planet's declining conventional oil production AND to allow us to remain on our perpetual economic growth model is just not realistic.

That was not implied. Alternative energy sources to fossil fuels comprise a mixture of alternative sources, depending on the application. Biofuels promise to take-up a lot of the slack IMO.

May I refer you to the graph in my previous post to confirm this fact.

Graphs confirm NOTHING. I can make a graph pushing my agenda and refer you to it. Will this make it an irrefutable fact?

Again, unless we can come up with an energy source that has all the characteristics of conventional oil, then it becomes impossible to maintain the status quo. Many people on this thread have proposed alternatives but it was very easy to poke holes in all of their arguments as we simply do not have a readily available alternative for conventional oil.

Exactly! Although it won’t be a single source (like oil) but a multitude of different sources. Better than lying down to just die. By your defence of fossil fuels I assume that you (and WASP companions?) are heavily invested in oil. As soon as the oil stocks are unloaded, the moral ground is assumed and fossil fuels are demonised.

The only sane choice remaining for our species is to adopt an economic model that is not based in perpetual growth while at the same time we should stop population growth as in yesterday. If we don't realise this very quickly, then Gaia will take care of it for us, as we have now reached the limits of growth given our finite resource base.

This is true but is a different issue.