Comments on: Have We Hit The Oil Peak?

By: Sweetwind

Sweetwind — Tue, 18 May 2004 13:17:38 +0000

…now appears a longer version of apsmith’s review — http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/15/1446255

By: jxliv7

jxliv7 — Sat, 15 May 2004 06:48:36 +0000

.
I would look for energy-crunch solutions to come from the government first, in the form of mandatory car-pooling, further emissions and fuel efficiency regulations, calls for more public transportation, and increased investment in research for alternatives. The stupid legislatures will take the public indignation at high prices as an endorsement to mandate "relief".

Whichever plan of action is taken, however, it will probably be considered draconian when it will really turn out to be just a stopgap measure. Remember that the first obligation of each Congressperson is to thier district's welfare (translated, PORK) and the second is to vote thier conscience (translated, campaign fund donator's wishes). Their third activity is to present their own efforts in the most favorable and publicity-evoking light (translated, convoluted political double-speak).

I'm glad I'm retired in a western Metroplex (DFW) where I don't have to worry about transportation -- I can always saddle up a horse...

jon

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 10 May 2004 10:16:00 +0000

http://www.ethanol.org/Information/ethanol_information.htm

I think science will provide a solution when needed, it just may be one we don’t expect.

By: barakn

barakn — Sat, 08 May 2004 14:05:36 +0000

spend five seconds figuring out what the actual link is and posting it.

By: apsmith

apsmith — Sat, 08 May 2004 06:33:19 +0000

to make more oil this way? The net energy payback is the big question with all the alternatives to “conventional” oil. For conventional oil the payback ratio in the past was 10 or more. For the alternatives it’s much closer to 1 – and for some bio-fuels its arguable that it even reaches 1 (i.e. you’re putting more energy in than you get out of the process). That’s fine if you’re talking about a way to store energy, like hydrogen. But not if you’re trying to replace oil.

What it means is that your production actually has to be much higher (if the ratio is 1.3 say, then it has to be 3.3 times higher) than you would expect, to get the same net energy. And costs are that much higher too. And land use etc. etc.

For a lot of these, high cost “per barrel” is a proxy for the high energy inputs required.

By: SEWilco

SEWilco — Sat, 08 May 2004 01:41:56 +0000

$40/barrel? Good, that’s more than the estimate of what a barrel of manufactured oil will cost. Dump trash, garbage, plants, or tires in then depolymerize, and get oil and natural gas out.

The carbon from biological matter which is used to make this oil comes from the atmosphere, through plant growth. So this is actually recycling of carbon dioxide, powered by solar energy.

By: Sweetwind

Sweetwind — Fri, 07 May 2004 17:04:09 +0000

…go to http://www.pkarchive.org/ and click on Columns, then click on The Oil Crunch.

By: gypsysoul

gypsysoul — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:50:58 +0000

But what’s a couple of decades more or less, eh?

By: apsmith

apsmith — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:46:34 +0000

I seem to recall some trouble in Iran under the Carter administration…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:26:13 +0000

Today’s economy is far more dependent on oil – our infrastructure is based on trucking and shipping that all rely on oil. Cars are crucial to daily life. Plastic is indispensible. The shockwaves from the Shah fleeing would have been much more limited because oil was not as important.