Black Gold - What happens when it's gone?

Oil is only one part of the equation. Think how many products you see everyday which are a result of the petro/CHEMICAL industry. Virtually every product commercially availabe today owes much t0 oil(remembering most products are made of plastic).

Most pharmacutecals/fertilizers are a product of the petro/chemical industry. Petrochemicals are widely used in the production of foods as well, so in just two areas our pills that keep many of us alive and the food that keeps us walking and talking are reliant on the oil industry.

Any petrol shock/ end game will seriously impact our lives, like it or not, not withstanding any new miracle source for our energy needs.

digger

Nick, I can’t say I’ve ever seen a fossil fuel power plant “spewing filthy smoke”. Not in the West, at any case.

Solar is a waste of time outside of relatively few places on earth – it’s cloudy most of the time in Northern Europe for instance.

Even if the 1 kW per square metre figure at the equator is true, then to replace one old 1 GW power plant, assuming 50% efficiency (which is heavily overstating it) you need 2.000.000 m², or approximately 1 mi.² of generator area.

The current record sits at 42.5% efficiency, and this is experimental and not economically viable at the moment, so let’s assume 30% and that we going to build solar instead of a modern 2GW plant. The solar cell area is 6 2/3 million square meters, and that’s at the equator! That’s 2 1/2 square kilometres! And how much does this stuff cost per square metre? millions?

And then, this is only going to be producing its peak efficiency at midday, and nothing at all at night. So in any case you’re going to have to build a conventional power station anyway for power at night and in the morning and evening.

In simple engineering terms, the numbers do not add up for anything other than nuclear (and geothermal where you can do it)

Great to think of Nuclear fuel being unlimited, the only small problem is that even Uranium isn’t inexhaustible.http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/pdf/macdonald.pdf

Mate i think the Chemical and other industries are not the main consumer of oil. The main is the transport that need more and more fuel for itself. So if we could decrease or at least limit the of the consumption of fuel via the developing the new tehnologies - we get the great chance to save the rest of the oil for the chemical industry.

But not a much clouds in the Deserts of Africa, Australia, America and Asia;)
The so caller Solar Territories where the sun shine 70-90% of the year time - are much effective to place here the Giant SES in future.

Even if the 1 kW per square metre figure at the equator is true, then to replace one old 1 GW power plant, assuming 50% efficiency (which is heavily overstating it) you need 2.000.000 m², or approximately 1 mi.² of generator area.

The current record sits at 42.5% efficiency, and this is experimental and not economically viable at the moment, so let’s assume 30% and that we going to build solar instead of a modern 2GW plant. The solar cell area is 6 2/3 million square meters, and that’s at the equator! That’s 2 1/2 square kilometres! And how much does this stuff cost per square metre? millions?

well lets use the mathematic MoS.
The Aussian build the SES the power 154 MegaWatts that costs 57 millions dollars, right?
So the eqvivalent 2 GW should cost the 14 times more i.e 800 mln dollars.
Is it a lot of money on your mind?
For you to know the coast the ONLY Nuclear 1 GW (VVER-1000) reactor in Busher that is building ACCORDING THE CONTRACT in Iran is - $850 MLN .
i.e the WE HAVE the 1GW Nuclear reactor that cost TWICE more then the analogical Australian Solar SES;)
And don’t forget the Russian prices are always lower then the Western ones.

And then, this is only going to be producing its peak efficiency at midday, and nothing at all at night. So in any case you’re going to have to build a conventional power station anyway for power at night and in the morning and evening.

True
But i do not think this is would unsolved problem in future.
Besides do not forget that the Soal Energy could be used very flexible.
Instead to buld the 1 Giand SES we could build the 1000 the 1 Mwatt little SES in the most convenient places near the energy customers.
Plus do not forget about the Wind Electrical Station - the wind is a particular case of Sun enegry.

Today in the Germay are realizing the program “Solar house”

The Sun battary in a roof produce the electrical energy that transmitted to the Common Electrical System of GErmany ( and gov pay for it for the owner of such house).
Besides the special Sun shine absorbed elements warm up the water for the next use.

In simple engineering terms, the numbers do not add up for anything other than nuclear (and geothermal where you can do it)

Do you know what i think about ?
If we realy want to solve the energy problems we have made it already.
While the oil coast the 80$ for barrel is the one situation - But when it will coast 150-200$ it would qite another one

Which leads into the question of whether we’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Rather than trying to meet the supposed and ever growing ‘need’ for energy, shouldn’t we be asking people who use energy to justify unnecessary or excessive use?

A pet peeve of mine, which illustrates a larger problem, is those bloody roof air conditioners down here cooling an empty 30 or 40 square open plan house all day so the occupants can be comfortable when they get home. I’ve survived just fine for close to 60 years by opening windows and using an electric fan. There’s plenty of other examples, such as domestic tennis courts and swimming pools and endless Tuscan patios illuminated all night and mains power driveway and path lights on all night in houses that nobody visits after dark. All because it looks nice.

Why not work out what’s a reasonable amount for a dwelling and ration power, with anything above the ration at a prohibitive cost, and a cost proportionate to occupants’ incomes so the rich can’t chomp up all the power they want? Obviously need exemptions for people with special needs, e.g. home business, disability.

Same goes for commercial buildings. For example, why are empty office towers illuminated all night? One empty one consumes more power than a town full of several thousand people.

Then there’s the wider issue of the world running on the cheapest production cost rather than what’s best for the planet and long term survival of the human species.

Remember cobblers? Remember mum turning collars on shirts to double the life, and darning socks and pants? Now it’s all throw away stuff. All that stuff puts a drain on the planet being produced, and decomposing.

Remember Sunday roast lamb and cold lamb and mashed spuds and peas on Sunday night and shepherd’s pie on Monday night? Remember the pot of soup that seemed to stay on the stove all winter and had bits of vegetable peelings and scrap meat and barley and rice and whatever else happened to be around thrown into it, that we now throw into the bin? Ever buy a tinned soup that tasted half as good? Why don’t we have it now? Because mum’s too buggered when she gets home after a day’s work to pay for the mortgage and power bill on the McMansion with the bloody air conditioner on the roof that’s been pumping away on an empty house all day while she’s at work, and the bloody gale of cold air from the air conditioner would blow out the gas under the soup pan.

So if mum (or, to comply with equal opportunity legislation and principles, dad)cooks at all she slips into the local supermarket and picks up a bit of meat sitting on a butcher’s equivalent of a thin plastic wrapped sanitary napkin on a polystyrene tray covered by cling wrap. Fifty years ago the butcher would have put the meat into new greaseproof paper and, like the fish and chip shop, wrapped his product in newspaper he bought from kids for a few pence. Local recycling. Then some bureaucrat decided that newspapers might transmit disease so now we level vast forests just to make paper for fish and chip wrappers. But mum won’t buy meat at the butcher’s where it’s about twenty per cent cheaper than the supermarket, and about two hundred per cent better quality, because the butcher shuts at the same time she leaves work, a couple of hours from home.

Anyway, she doesn’t have the time after driving the kids all over the local geography to their sporting events etc. Who ever got driven anywhere by their parents in the 50’s or 60’s to anything except family events and other things we didn’t want to attend? Reason it happens now is because every family has at least one car and we have the idiotic situation of kids playing competitions that require parents to drive for anything up to an hour or more to get them there. When everybody didn’t have a car, kids did everything in places they could get to on foot or by bike, with about zero negative ecological impact.

Same with work. Go back to the sixties and seventies and you’ll find, here anyway, newspaper ads for homes for sale and rent with statements referring to local employment opportunities. Then, hardly anybody would contemplate today’s common hour and half to two hour each way commute by car, or public transport, to work.

All our modern ‘improvements’ are like freeways. Build them to solve traffic problems and in no time the bloody freeways are clogged, along with the roads they supposedly unclogged. Crap always expands to fill the space available.

There’s never been anything like all the labour saving devices we have now, and there’s never been, in developed countries, people with so little free time. Because they’re all flat out working to pay for the great homes and labour saving devices and other stuff that they’re too busy to enjoy so they live on take away food and McDonalds and frozen meals because they get home too late and get up too early to cook.

Anyone who spent time on a farm, in Oz anyway, will remember the slop bucket in the kitchen. Everything that couldn’t go into the soup pot went into it. Egg shells, stale bread, off milk from the cow, meat bones, vegetables, plate scrapings. Take it up the back and feed it to the dogs whose kennel was a 44 gallon drum on its side under the pine trees, not far from a shed clad in flattened kerosene tins. Everything was used and recycled by resourceful people, many of whom learnt thrift in the 1930’s, even the 1890’s, Depression, and who didn’t have the luxury we have now of throwing away anything that’s a bit worn or approaching its use by date.

Dogs loved the slop bucket tucker, like they love anything that could be food. Kelpies and blueys and border collies would run miles all day on that tucker, working sheep and cattle. Now we have to have specially formulated tinned and dried food to get the exact dietary balance or the poor pooch will curl up its tootsies and die. My dog gets some dry food, but it lives on a lot of dead food from the darker parts of the fridge. It’s still healthy, although on the rare occasions I take it to the vet I get a bollocking for not giving it heart worm medication. I’ve never heard of a dog dying of heart worm, outside posters in vets’ surgeries, but I wasted a lot of money on the last dog shoving a tablet down its gullet every night. Meanwhile some poor kid in Sudan or Chad is dying because even simpler technology and skill could have been used to give them clean water.

Every year or two we have publicity about fruit growers here dumping thousands of tons of fruit, because it’s cheaper to bring in oranges or whatever from California or Brazil or somewhere else on the other side of the planet. Does that make sense, in the total picture? What’s rotting food going to produce? Stuff we’re trying to keep out of the atmosphere.

So, after that rambling stream of consciousness rant, the common theme is: We have got our priorities so back to front under the pressure of profit driven economies that I think it’s an irretrievable situation until the politicians and big money men work out that the planet and people come before profit. Don’t hold your breath. They’ll only work it out when we’re all gasping for breath, by which time it’ll be way too late.

Also has anyone seen how much methane just ONE family of 4 will produce from their own poo?

If my personal beer to methane conversion rate, without poo, is any guide, the planet hasn’t got a chance. :smiley:

And that’s the opinion of my family of four. :smiley:

Even in the “solar territories”, the sun does not shine at night. This is insurmountable. Even if you build your 2 GW solar power station instead of your 2 GW nuclear power station, your 2 GW nuclear power station will be providing power 24 hours a day, your solar one will come online very slowly in the morning , peak at midday, and drop off through the afternoon. Your nuclear power station will therefore provide more than double the amount of energy, which shoots an arrow right through your cost benefit analysis.

Wind energy only produces power when the wind is within a relatively narrow range of wind speeds. Not enough equals no power, too much equals no power. all this has to be backed up by conventional, which is turning and burning even if it does not produce any net output.

They also putting those silly solar heaters/solar panels on houses here in the Netherlands, but only because they are being subsidised by the taxpayer. Given how few days a year are sunny here, it is pointless. Likewise Germany.

Energy rationing RS? puh-lease… this is not North Korea.

I suggest the first step is that all the people who think that this is a great world threatening problem should ditch their cars, have their central heating and hot water disabled,buy only locally produced food, and come off the electricity grid. lead by example, what?

What’s so wrong with rationing?

We have serious water shortages here, but no rationing.

What we can use is determined by task, not consumption.

So, I can’t top up my swimming pool but the bloke next door can, and does, water his garden to the maximum several times a week. Neither of us can wash our cars. I’ve never watered a lawn in summer, but the bloke next door spends hours watering his by hand several times a week during permitted times, to replace the amount he used to use before the latest restriction when he had a sprinkler running every day that represented about twenty times what I could possibly use to top up my pool in a week. If I topped up my swimming pool now I’d still use vastly less than the bloke next door still will keeping his lawn green in the height of summer, but I’m not allowed to. We’ve got four people in my house using less water than my neighbour with two in his house, but I still can’t top up my swimming pool. I’m perfectly happy to let my swimming pool go, because I’ve got a roof system that got me through last summer and probably will this summer. I’ve also rigged up a grey water system that keeps my plants, apart from the lawn, alive, which my neighbour hasn’t. So my neighbour consumes vastly more of a dwindling resource than we do, because he’s too bloody lazy and tight to set up his own grey water system for his garden and expects to be able to use drinking quality water for his bloody grass.

We’re not rationed at all. The result is that Blind Freddie can see that there’s not any fair or sensible basis to the restrictions, the way they’re applied, and the results.

So guess why I don’t take this any more seriously than other bureacratic bullshit like 40 km/h zones outside schools that apply 24/7 365 days a year. And why a hose will go into my pool if the roof system fails. Because there’s no limit on what I can use. As long as I don’t get caught using it on a prohibited task, like topping up a swimming pool with about as much water as my neighbour will pour onto his grass for just one night this coming summer .

That wouldn’t happen if we had a rationed amount.

P.S.

When it gets past the luxuries of swimming pools versus lawns, down to survival, rationing will suddenly appeal to weak governments which didn’t want to make the hard decisions when they were hoping for more rain.

Not unlike weak governments in WWII which imposed rationing in part because they hoped that Hitler would go away, and didn’t make the hard decisions earlier to deal with the threat, including building up and provisioning their armed forces.

Governments can always be relied upon to react to predictable disasters after they’ve occurred.

Apart from the obvious questions of who decides how much each person is permitted and on what basis, you instantly create two things:

A huge extra government bureaucracy to administer it
a black market

It doesn’t matter whether it is water, food, fuel, whatever, these things always spring up.

In the case of fuel, you instantly put the brakes on the economy. Where, then, does the money come from for all those “people before profits” things? What you also ensure is that the less well-off get hit worst: better off people will always be able to afford to buy enough “fuel credits” to do whatever they want, whereas people on low incomes will suffer. What about those poor sods who have to commute through no fault of their own? They can’t afford to move, so they have to commute. Limit their ability to do that, and they just won’t work, as welfare will be the more lucrative option. That’s a further brake on the economy.

Currently oil is plentiful, so any rationing would be arbitrary. if it’s based on "Oh my God we have had a trivial increase in mean surface temperature in the 20th century some of which may (or may not) have been caused by fossil fuel use increasing the amount of a trace gas essential to life in the atmosphere by approximately 0.01% of dry air volume, and I’ve got a computer model which draws a pretty line which says that this is going to kill us all (but if I give the computer model a realistic value for the absorption of carbon dioxide then it says we’re having an ice age tomorrow at four o’clock) ", then you are staking an awful lot (modern civilisation) on the trivial effect of an unproven hypothesis.

PS – if they ration water where you are , lots of people would just cheat

Been done.
In fact they had nuclear powered flying cars about sixty-two years back.

Quite a few of them were about, albeit very briefly, in a couple of Nip cities.

They already do.

Even if you’re not cheating, it can get ugly with people with green gardens from tanks or rainwater systems having houses and gardens damaged, or at the extreme it ends up with a death
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22683996-662,00.html

I think it’d be pretty hard for the average person to cheat on a ration. You’d need to bypass the meter, as the hydorponic commercial cannabis growers do with electricity, or tamper with the reading. That’s beyond the capacity of most people.

Or we could save water by some simple expedients, such as recognising the natural cycle so that we don’t keep grass green in the cities in the middle of summer when it’s brown all over the rest of the country.

The problem, like energy, isn’t so much a shortage per se but the way we choose to use the resource.

Rationing as in wartime is not the way to expand our timeframe to find a solution for the basic problem, but the population and the economy can pretty easily be encouraged to save energy by making it very expensive, so taxes are a way, though I hate to admit that. The problem is that this has to be done on a global scale, if f.e. only germany rises energy taxes like 300% it only damages it’s economy, if everyone does, nothing happens except that suddenly it’s worth the effort to streamline energy efficiency in all places. Part of the problem is not the energy we use, but the part that we waste (which is a huge portion), though we could already do a lot better.
There is a model about the technological advancement of a civilization based on energy efficiency, and in that scale, we’re still in the starting grid.

Well, I admit to hyperbole here. But the plants nevertheless inject CO2 into the atmosphere and contribute to smog considerably in many American cities…

Nicky, compare the very occasional mild smogs of today in the US with those of even 20 years ago which were frequent, and thick.

On this side of the pond the last notable smog was over 50 years ago.

Energy taxes: if the whole world they did it would just affect the whole world economy. Make energy more expensive to any large degree and in the colder countries you are going to get a hell of a lot of less well off people dying in the winter because they can’t afford basic heating. it’s already a significant problem amongst pensioners in the UK, for instance.


You’re missing the point, they probably can’t afford the amount of oil they need to heat, but we need to get to the point where we need much less oil to heat each m². Then they could afford the lesser amount at a higher price, but the lesser amount is the aim. And that “expensive energy would only affect the whole world economy” is actually a non argument, we merely trade a good growth today against a giant problem later, while we could have a little minor growth (and technological improvements on large scale cause the industry always maxes profit) and a smaller problem later.

The Australian SES had the average power output is 154 Mwatt i.e. this is average power in whole years on days and nights.
The Peak power is midday at least 2-3 times more.
And MoS i did not tell we could use ONLY the solar energy.
But if you know - the peak of Eletrical consumtion is on day. In the Night this value decrease in times.
So the Solar Statons could help a much to cover the day’s shortage of energy.
Besides the surplus of energy in midday could be used for production of hydrogen from a water that could be used in the Hydrogen-Electrical batteries for electrical car for instance.
So indeed it should be the System of SES that operated as a union system that could solve a lot of energetical problems of mankind.
Today the scientist offer the new kind of transformic electrical energy- through bunchs of microwave radiation. In this way we could effectively transform the great quatity of enegry from the spase and even from the Moon.

They also putting those silly solar heaters/solar panels on houses here in the Netherlands, but only because they are being subsidised by the taxpayer. Given how few days a year are sunny here, it is pointless. Likewise Germany.

I think this is not so stopid - this help to test the different kinds of Solar and Save-energy technologies.
Sure for the while this has rather experimental meaning that useful.But who know- when the oil and gus will seriously rise in price- may be this will very effective.

How exactly do these less well-off people afford to modify their house so that they need less heating?

Affecting the whole world economy is an argument, screwing everyone equally does not mean that no one, on balance, gets screwed.

Trading good growth today definitely causes a major problem today against what is only possibly a major problem later. the bookies must love you down at the racetrack if you apply the same logic to the horses!

Technology always advances and find solutions, a lot of these arguments rest on technological stasis. Should your ancestors 100, 200 years ago have sacrificed their standard of living to potentially mitigate what were then perceived as the problems of the day so that you now can enjoy a better standard of living? A potential example would be should your ancestors have walked everywhere and not travelled to mitigate the problems of horse droppings on the streets so that you can enjoy a present where the problem of horse droppings on the street is not as bad as it might have been?

Each generation is shortsighted in viewing its own problems as the ultimate problems, and the above analogy illustrates this.

There was a very excellent article written on a blog far more eloquently than I can phrase it a little while back, the conclusion of which is that dead men don’t owe you anything (and it is indeed extremely selfish to expect that they do), hence you don’t owe anything to people not yet born.

In any case, oil for personal transport will die out when a car is produced which:

Runs on electricity, and can do 400 km of motorway driving at motorway speeds on a single charge;
can be charged to full capacity at a motorway service station in less than half an hour, and at home overnight;
costs the same as a family car today.

Energy storage technology is advancing at an incredible rate, and once batteries/super capacitors can achieve the above specification, people would be mad to buy a car running on liquid fuel.

Perhaps, but don’t we as parents owe it to our born kids, who’ve got another 80 or 90 years from the birth we imposed upon them, to apply to the planet what we apply to everything else we try to do for them?

Give them a better life than we had?

Rather than sucking up all the resources for ourselves and leaving our kids and our descendants with diminishing resources?

We’re the first generation in history with that potential as far as natural resources go.