I used to be pessimistic about the oil running out but now it looks like sustainable motoring is within sight, even if it won't be any cheaper. Hybrid technology as in the Toyota Prius makes a petrol-powered car more economical than a similarly sized diesel. So - substitute a diesel engine in such a hybrid and what do you get....85-90 mpg?? We can forget about having to resurect old Citroen 2CVs or crawl along in solar-powered tricylces!
We know that properly made biodiesel works just as well as oil-well diesel. Rudolf Diesel's first experimental engine ran on vegetable oil in the 1890's! It's a matter of whether enough can be produced, and whether the world can afford to turn over sufficient of its land to growing oilseed rape etc. to satisfy demand.
Once it is established that biodiesel could realistically fuel the world's vehicles and an outline masterplan has been drawn up to show how demand could be met, then we might as well use up the oil reserves anyway, gradually blending them with increasing percentages of biofuel.
Fuel cell electric cars are bubbling just under the surface of mainstream automotive innovation. Hydrogen is one preferred fuel, with safe distribution and on-board storage being the main problems. Also fuel cells are heavy and bulky. I have read of a proposal, or idea maybe, to site hydrogen production plants at sea, powered by offshore windfarms, presumably with the hydrogen piped ashore like natural gas is today.
Sustainable motoring has two elements - gradually moving to renewable resources and making engines/vehicles more efficient.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
|
Don't know about the large scale potential of the biodiesel route - most of our oil comes from either under the sea, under the desert or under vast frozen areas of Alaska and Siberia. These areas aren't suitable for much in the way of crop growing so the vast amounts of land required to grow oilseed rape would vastly reduce the amount of fertile land available for growing foodcrops.
|
Have a look at this - I think it's interesting:
www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
|
|
|
As the price of dinodiesel rises biodiesel will become more economically viable. There are areas of the earth where farming is in ruins because of low prices paid for food by the West. Just think what will happen if we need their oil crops. And on top of that the Mid-West of the United States is capable of producing enough food for the entire world population. The problem we have here is political (a shift in oil supply will bring about a shift in political power) and commercial (until very recently the oil companies have relied on our addiction to their product and have done very little in the scheme of things to work on alternatives--why don't we have biodiesel readily available already, for instance?). Don't forget biodiesel mixes well with dinodiesel, so unlike hybrids, hydrogen etc. it doesn't require a wholesale change in infrastructure and vehicles but can help offset the problem of expensive oil.
|
|
|
|
|
>>when this source of funds drys (dries) up the poverty will feed fundamentalism>>
A fair point, but sadly one which doesn't stand up concerning many countries with vast natural resources, where rulers have provided a life of luxury for themselves and associates, created formidable defence forces and still the main population has lived in abysmal conditions.
|
True, Britain may find it difficult find space to grow anything like enough oilseed rape to become self-sufficient in biodiesel although we could produce a significant percentage.
However, as mentioned above, there are large tracts of land in the world that could host valuable fuel crops. Also, with a growth in green electricity generation - wind (especially offshore), wave, tidal-flow and solar photovoltaic, together with direct solar water heating, the non-transport uses of oil fuels (mineral or bio) are likely to diminish.
I've been leafing through a glossy industry magazine on renewable energy. It seems that the impetus for change has gone through four stages. At first it came from Californian drop-outs, then from environmental pressure groups, then from government initiatives and now this baton has been taken over by the growing renewable technology industry.
Cheers, SS
|
When we all stop eating animals & growing cattle on the land, or growing food to feed the cattle, we can use the surplus areas for biodiesel crops.
As for the frozen wastelands, National Geographic recently had impressive pictures of the roads in Alaska becoming like mini roller coasters, with so much underlying soil de-frosting!!
Shouldn't be so hard to drill, now, should it??!!
VB
|
I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier answer:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=22...2
V
|
Vin,
Reserves-to-production ratios are the most frequently used statistic, but don't take into account the (rapid) increase in future oil and gas demand (allied with the need to reduce the use of 'dirty' hydrocarbons such as coal and oil). Any book/web site discussing Hubbert's peak oil production predictions of the 1950's and updated versions make an interesting read - www.hubbertpeak.com/ for a start.
When the oil runs out...we'll have more serious problems than what to power our cars on - power generation, petrochemical and plastcis inductries etc...
The question is how our governments move us away from the hydrocarbon economy;
a) tapered approach (incresed energy efficiency, significant funding/incentives to encourage use of alternatives),
or
B) Do nothing, the higher the price, the more tax revenue the govts. get! We get increased inflation...recession...
|
Biodiesel will probably be used as a supplement to ordinary diesel and also to minimise 'new' carbon.
However, it takes takes about 2 acres to produce 1 metric ton of refined oil, U.K. farming is fairly efficient but there just isn't enough land to meet demand.
3rd world countries are already growing cash crops to keep their leaders in learjets whilst their people starve, so letting them supply us with biodiesel is hardly ethical.
When the mineral oil supply starts to decrease it will probably become viable to irrigate the Sahara which will really screw up the world climate.
I can't see any long term solution other than hydrogen, which is pollution free and can be produced relatively cheaply, the only problem you have to use nuclear power to produce the electricity for the electrolysis.
|
I think that, however valid many of the arguments might be, we are very likely to be proved lucky to be living in a 'golden age' which is probably never to be seen again.
Not often I put on rose tinted specs.
|
|
|
|
|
Also people don't seem to mention: how will we fly if oil reserves run out (or become limited), alternatives may work for cars, but will any of them work for planes?
|
Didn't Neville Shute write a novel centred round a diesel powered airship?
Probably not. I often have these funny turns if the nurse is late with the medication trolley.
bax
|
I realise that no one under 87 years of age will know what I'm on about but I've suddenly remembered: the R101 and the Hindenburg were diesel powered but as both of them came to sticky ends it doesn't say much in favour of that particular mode of transport.
But I expect you'll be delighted to learn that both Shute and Barnes Wallis were on the R101 design team.
They tell me that one of my granddaughters visited this afternoon but I only remember the a metalic navel and a bunch of grapes and neither of those in context.
My Goodness, it's almost 10 o'clock and it seems ages since breakfast.
bax
|
|
|
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but Jet fuel isn't too far removed from kerosine (certainly looks and smells like it) and kerosine isn't too far removed from diesel (older diesels have run on it) and diesel can be effectively replaced with veg oil, so....if the right boffins set to work on it, surely a jet engine that can run on veg oil shouldn't be too far fetched.
|
Just remembered about the Y2K motorcycle. A special built bike that uses a jet-turbine for power, fully street legal, but petrol stations don't stock jet fuel so it runs on diesel *or* kerosine. If that jet engine can be made to work on diesel (and by default veg-oil) then no reason why others can't be.
Excerpt from motorcycle's info:
"Under the fairing is some of the most advanced turbine technology of our time. The Rolls Royce Allison 25O-C18 Turbine, originally designed for helicopters, was modified and mounted upside down in the frame. It feeds on anything that burns. Fresh out of jet fuel? Just serve it up some diesel or kerosene! If it burns and you can pour it in the tank, the engine will run."
|
I'm aware of people in the States who go drag racing on biodiesel. I guess if it's good enough for that it's good enough for flying. Of course, there would have to be some kind of additive to make sure the fuel doesn't gel at temperatures under 15 below zero.
One of the reasons I posted the link above to the University of Idaho paper is because I believe the concept described therein would have the capacity to overcome the energy-per-acre problem. Multi-storey algae pools could increase energy-per-acre output tenfold, or more.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
|
Works the other way as well. JET A1 containing FSII( Fuel System Icing Inhibiter) works just as well in any Landrover/ HGV diesel engine and has removes the possibility of diesel waxing @-5 or below.
|
|
|
|
Don't want to repeat an old argument here, but reserves will always be around 40 years or so. Reserves decrease, price goes up, non-viable reserves become worth exploiting, supply goes up.
Also, solar power is halving in cost per kWH each decade. In about 30 years or so, it will be cheaper than power from fossil fuels, and people will start using it. Forget "the oil companies will stop it" paranioa; if it's cheaper it'll be used. Then, it'll be worth creating the hydrogen economy that's been the false dawn for some time. Use solar power to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen and we're away.
Oil will go back to being used as a raw material for chemical production etc, and we can all go back to our happy, productive lives.
Right up until some eco group finds a reason to tell us that solar power causes ecological problems (and believe me, someone will).
V
|
"Right up until some eco group finds a reason to tell us that solar power causes ecological problems "
The sun's reflection in the panels blinding birds will probably be their opening argument.
|
Wait till the bearded sandalled brigade wake up to the fact that the moon is gradually receding away from the earth. Since it's the moon's gravity that keeps us turning nicely and steadily in one plane, we shall start to wobble with Antarctica being on the Equator one year and Europe being on Antarctica the next. I know because I saw it on Discovery Channel.
Doomed, I tell you, we're all doomed.....
|
|
|
|
Don't want to repeat an old argument here, but reserves will always be around 40 years or so. Reserves decrease, price goes up, non-viable reserves become worth exploiting, supply goes up.
Please forgive the pedantry, but saying that we will *always* have 40 years of reserves implies an infinite supply of oil.
In the shorter term, I agree with your point about the economic viability of reserves, and alternative sources of energy.
Given that the oil supply is finite, and burning it does release undesirable emissions, I support measures which aim to make us use less.
As such, I hate the current legislation which forces the use of catalytic converters and lambda sensors. Running at stoichometric doesn't give the best fuel efficiency. Promising avenues of research like lean burn and stratified charge engines have been stifled by these laws imported from California without a second thought.
number_cruncher
|
"Please forgive the pedantry, but saying that we will *always* have 40 years of reserves implies an infinite supply of oil."
Pedantry excused (I thought about changing the sentence as I wrote it, but it *was* 5am), but it's as near infinite as required. It is estimated that the total shale oil reserves on the planet are around 242 times the total petroleum reserves. This is equivalent to our total human energy consumption for 5,000 years or so at today's cosumption rates. By then we might just have come up with another way of producing energy. Currently shale oil isn't economically viable, but the argument says that once supplies become short, the price will increase to the point where it IS viable.
Solar panels - even with our relatively inefficient panels, an area covering 2.6% of the Sahara would supply the world's energy needs today. Now that's an area nearly 300 miles by 300 miles, so it's not trivial engineering. Also, you wouldn't want to put them all in one place, but it's a good illustration of the fact that the problem is solvable. By 2030, electricity from Solar panels should work out at around 5.1c per kWH, comapred to around 6.3c for fossil fuels currently.
By 2040 that should be around 2.5c for solar, at which point watch out for a hydrogen filling station opening near you.
V
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
