WE probably worry because we're going to run out of eonomical oil before we make a transition.to something else.
Special Interests see it from a different viewpoint.
Oil prices will rise at a rate faster than production drops as demand keeps rising.. There is no incentive to switch to another fuel...just a loss of profits...a dis-incentive The oil lobby simply won't allow it...There is a profit bonanza in their future. Experimentation is o.k. if it doesn't get off the ground in any major way..
We'll never pump the "last drop". It would cost too much. We'll stop using oil way before we run out just because of costs...the bidding for it. The less there is, the more you have to bid to get it That's how the bidding market works .(though speculators can bid prices up regardless of supply/demand) Production will drop below even current demand. Prices will skyrocket.
We'll have Energy Reform that isn't....., resembling the Health Care Reform that wasn't, and the Financial Reform that couldn't get out of Committee without first taking out the paragraphs that addressed the problem it was written to solve.
The Corporate State serves existing business....not a future non-existent business. Future business has neither lobbyists, a treasury, or input...and existing business does . Future business has opponents with lobbyists, treasuries and input to keep it from forming if it's a serious threat. to their own profitability...
Really with all alternatives it comes down to energy/weight, cost, and ease of storage. Oil/gasoline is a miracle substance in these regards.
Polycarp2 is pretty much right on in his assessment of the situation. Until someone comes up with an overwhelmingly better energy product to oil/gasoline we will be stuck with what we have until prices get to be much much higher. We will never pump the last drop of oil, it would be too cost prohibitive.
Hydrogen is the most plentiful substance on earth, so why are we worried about oil ?
It is the most abundant element in the universe. Hydrogen is a highly reactive element and really wants to bind to other elements. So, it takes a lot of energy to split hydrogen from other elements/compounds. It is also less energy dense, and so takes a lot more of it to perform the same work, the tanks would be much larger than those for gasoline. It is also very light and small and so requires changes in the transport infrastructure to move it without excessive loss due to leaks. Hydrogen can be used but we use too much energy right now, so let's reduce how much we use to make hydrogen more viable.
The U.S. Department of Defense is the single largest oil consumer in the world.
According to the data provided in the DOD’s Federal Energy Management Report for Fiscal Year 2009 DoD oil consumption in 2009 jumped to 375,000 barrels per day.
There is a lot of oil left if you consider non-traditional supplies like Shale and the Tar Sands. As you probably know the Tar Sands in Canada are supplying us with quite a bit of oil, and making a profit at it mind you. The price of a barrel of oil will rise enough to make the use of Shale oil profitable soon. Unfortunately all of this is a environmental disaster in the making.
There is a lot of oil left if you consider non-traditional supplies like Shale and the Tar Sands.
Those sources are non-starters as they require a lot of energy and effort to convert them to usable oil. Converting kerogen in oil shale requires far too much energy to make it worthwhile as we will reach peak coal soon. The tar sands will end production when natural gas prices rise or their supplies become an issue.
I guess your not reading my post. Shale and the Tar Sands are bad energy choices (I am not promoting them). Your logic that natural gas is a better fuel source is likely flawed, considering the hydro-fracking process that is required to get at the bulk of the NG supplies going forward. The problems with this process are well documented...
Comments
WE probably worry because we're going to run out of eonomical oil before we make a transition.to something else.
Special Interests see it from a different viewpoint.
Oil prices will rise at a rate faster than production drops as demand keeps rising.. There is no incentive to switch to another fuel...just a loss of profits...a dis-incentive The oil lobby simply won't allow it...There is a profit bonanza in their future. Experimentation is o.k. if it doesn't get off the ground in any major way..
We'll never pump the "last drop". It would cost too much. We'll stop using oil way before we run out just because of costs...the bidding for it. The less there is, the more you have to bid to get it That's how the bidding market works .(though speculators can bid prices up regardless of supply/demand) Production will drop below even current demand. Prices will skyrocket.
We'll have Energy Reform that isn't....., resembling the Health Care Reform that wasn't, and the Financial Reform that couldn't get out of Committee without first taking out the paragraphs that addressed the problem it was written to solve.
The Corporate State serves existing business....not a future non-existent business. Future business has neither lobbyists, a treasury, or input...and existing business does . Future business has opponents with lobbyists, treasuries and input to keep it from forming if it's a serious threat. to their own profitability...
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease" ...
Really with all alternatives it comes down to energy/weight, cost, and ease of storage. Oil/gasoline is a miracle substance in these regards.
Polycarp2 is pretty much right on in his assessment of the situation. Until someone comes up with an overwhelmingly better energy product to oil/gasoline we will be stuck with what we have until prices get to be much much higher. We will never pump the last drop of oil, it would be too cost prohibitive.
It is the most abundant element in the universe. Hydrogen is a highly reactive element and really wants to bind to other elements. So, it takes a lot of energy to split hydrogen from other elements/compounds. It is also less energy dense, and so takes a lot more of it to perform the same work, the tanks would be much larger than those for gasoline. It is also very light and small and so requires changes in the transport infrastructure to move it without excessive loss due to leaks. Hydrogen can be used but we use too much energy right now, so let's reduce how much we use to make hydrogen more viable.
Sign up for an informative energy newsletter at
http://www.tradepub.com/free/w_nl36/
Top story on Sept. 7 begins:
The U.S. Department of Defense is the single largest oil consumer in the world.
According to the data provided in the DOD’s Federal Energy Management Report for Fiscal Year 2009 DoD oil consumption in 2009 jumped to 375,000 barrels per day.
There is a lot of oil left if you consider non-traditional supplies like Shale and the Tar Sands. As you probably know the Tar Sands in Canada are supplying us with quite a bit of oil, and making a profit at it mind you. The price of a barrel of oil will rise enough to make the use of Shale oil profitable soon. Unfortunately all of this is a environmental disaster in the making.
http://thespeckledtroutshammer.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/shale-oil-in-the-western-u-s/
Those sources are non-starters as they require a lot of energy and effort to convert them to usable oil. Converting kerogen in oil shale requires far too much energy to make it worthwhile as we will reach peak coal soon. The tar sands will end production when natural gas prices rise or their supplies become an issue.
I guess your not reading my post. Shale and the Tar Sands are bad energy choices (I am not promoting them). Your logic that natural gas is a better fuel source is likely flawed, considering the hydro-fracking process that is required to get at the bulk of the NG supplies going forward. The problems with this process are well documented...