Diesel - my 2008 prediction

SethX9 · **Posted:** Wed May 17, 2006 1:18 pm

I'm not going to continue arguing a point I've already declared to be a red herring. I'll only say that I am not saying there's no debate. I'm only saying it's rather shocking that there is one given the overwhelming evidence that hydrocarbons in today's petroleum supply are biotic. (Keeping it in perspective, there is also debate about the earth being older than 6,000 years!) For now there is no proof that hydrocarbons are abiotic; there is only speculation. Thankfully science is always ready to proven wrong.

So the question remains: Given that there is an apparently finite amount of hydrocarbons available for supplying the energy needs of the world, and given the observable trend of an exponentially increasing demand for that finite supply, is it wise to continue consuming hydrocarbons at the rate they are currently being consumed? Is there any proof (or even reliable speculation) that the oil companies will be able to continue using hydrocarbons to supply the world's energy needs given projected demand? See...it doesn't matter if hydrocarbons can or cannot be the byproduct of biotic or abiotic processes...There is no evidence of abiotic hydrocarbons present in the oil and gas supplies of today.

I'll concede that there is no way to prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin but what are the practical consequences of this discussion now for the very real problem of global oil depletion?

midwest · **Joined:** Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:03 am **Posts:** 173

My only problem with dire predictions is that they have been around since oil was first discovered. I remember TV commercials when I was a kid (37 now) that predicted the end of oil. I did the math back then and discovered we would be out of oil when I was 19 yrs old. I was scared even back then. From what I have read, and it seems logical, is that the reason oil is so expensive is because it is so cheap to get out of the ground in the middle east. People just are not going to spent the billions to recover oil that is literally all over the place but at a higher per barrel extraction cost. The case was made by someone else a few posts ago.

Remember when oil was $10/barrel a few years back? I don't remember ANY "experts" predicting our current price woes,,,even OPEC predictions were way lower than today. And China and India were certainly on their way up a few short years ago.

Fast forward to today, now the "experts" say prices will be high forever! Even thought they never saw high prices coming. Last fall I saw Boone Pickens (Texas Oil Man) on TV say he doubted a gallon of gas would ever go below $2, I knew that was B.S.. Shortly after that I drove to St. Louis and paid as low as $1.78/gallon.

I know there is a man in this country,,i think a author, who has a open bet for anyone that energy and other resources,.i.e copper,tin ect. will be cheaper on average relative to GNP dollars ten yrs. from now than they are today. He has made this bet over and over through the decades and has never lost. Energy gets more expensive, but our robust economy means we spend fewer of our total dollars on resources.

I am all for conservation, I drive a CRD, but lets keeps things in perspective.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Thu May 18, 2006 2:39 pm

SethX9 wrote:

So the question remains: Given that there is an apparently finite amount of hydrocarbons available for supplying the energy needs of the world, and given the observable trend of an exponentially increasing demand for that finite supply, is it wise to continue consuming hydrocarbons at the rate they are currently being consumed? Is there any proof (or even reliable speculation) that the oil companies will be able to continue using hydrocarbons to supply the world's energy needs given projected demand... what are the practical consequences of this discussion now for the very real problem of global oil depletion?

I think that we have to clarify what our concern is. Is it that the world supply is dwindling or that gasoline/diesel prices are too high? If the concern is in regards to long-term world supply of energy, check out my posting under the Mileage Discussions regarding how there is no good alternative to gasoline and diesel engine powered transportation (see http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=8592). If the concern is about the current and future prices for fuel then I think that we will see much lower prices again.

The futures market is speculative but it does not speculate 25+ years into the future. In fact, the market is relatively short-sighted. It is concerned only with the near-term supply, vis-à-vis crude production, refining and distribution, and demand.

Gasoline prices are high today because of short-term threats to crude oil supply do to increased demand for crude (China and India), political instability (Nigeria, Venezuela and, of course, Iran.), and limited domestic refining capacity. Because refining capacity is limited we are susceptible to natural disasters and the conversion from summer to winter blend gasoline (and vice versa) and to heating oil production.

The market will fluctuate and we will see lower prices again in the near term. Doesn’t anyone remember that about 10 years ago the oil companies were recording record losses because the gasoline prices were too low? Who would have thought that this could possibly have occurred after the shortages during the ‘70s and early ‘80s.

China and India are due to cycle through recessions that will slow the growth in their demand on crude and domestically production capacity will increase to match demand relieving pressure on gasoline prices.

What is the option to our current market system? I don’t think we want price controls or governmental interference. We may be experiencing short-term pain when the market cycles upward but it is nothing compared to the gigantic failures that occur when government takes control of energy prices – remember the former Soviet Union, pre-free market China, Europe where prices are perpetually high, California (2001), etc.

valkraider · **Posted:** Thu May 18, 2006 7:21 pm

Black_Dog wrote:

but it is nothing compared to the gigantic failures that occur when government takes control of energy prices – remember the former Soviet Union, pre-free market China, Europe where prices are perpetually high, California (2001), etc.

Uhh - California was "deregulated" in like 1996. (actual date may be within a year or two, too lazy to Google it right now).

But they didn't de-regulate fully, only parts of the system.

"The problem in California was not electricity deregulation; it was price regulation at the retail level and rigid regulation prohibiting long-term contracts at the wholesale level"
-James Sweeney, professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University.

In hindsight it is easy to see the problem. Enron and others were able to capitalize on the convoluted and flawed regulations in California to rape taxpayers and ratepayers.

So the California (2001) you refer to was *not* the result of over regulation.

It was a result of poortly written regulations that only applied in piecemeal fashion to the industry, and the subsequent (criminal) exploitation of those terrible deregulation policies by Enron.

And your Soviet, Chinese, and Eurpoean references could be debated as well...

SethX9 · **Posted:** Thu May 18, 2006 9:16 pm

valkraider - that's not my quote

Black_Dog - I'm composing my thoughts...

valkraider · **Posted:** Thu May 18, 2006 10:05 pm

SethX9 wrote:

valkraider - that's not my quote

sorry, fixed it. One too many quote tags.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Fri May 19, 2006 2:29 pm

valkraider wrote:

Uhh - California was "deregulated" in like 1996. (actual date may be within a year or two, too lazy to Google it right now).

But they didn't de-regulate fully, only parts of the system.

"The problem in California was not electricity deregulation; it was price regulation at the retail level and rigid regulation prohibiting long-term contracts at the wholesale level"
-James Sweeney, professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University.

In hindsight it is easy to see the problem. Enron and others were able to capitalize on the convoluted and flawed regulations in California to rape taxpayers and ratepayers.

So the California (2001) you refer to was *not* the result of over regulation.

It was a result of poortly written regulations that only applied in piecemeal fashion to the industry, and the subsequent (criminal) exploitation of those terrible deregulation policies by Enron.

EXACTLY! The California energy crisis was “a result of poorly written regulations applied in piecemeal fashion to the industry.”

Who other than a government agency/bureaucracy would conceive of a schizophrenic energy policy that would deregulate wholesale energy purchasing while leaving retail prices fixed? To make matters worse they banned the practice of purchasing long from the energy market (i.e. forcing retailers to purchase their energy exclusively at current market prices) so they had no hedge against rising wholesale prices. What profound ineptitude and stupidity!

IMO I would rather deal with short-term market fluctuations than subject myself to the manifest incompetence of politicians and bureaucratic policy wonks.

vtdog · **Joined:** Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:27 am **Posts:** 640

My prediction is that in 2008 this thread will still be going on and on and on and (you get the point). My real prediction: scientists will figure out how to make soylent oil. If you don't understand the reference-look it up

marauderer · **Posted:** Fri May 19, 2006 4:24 pm

I have an interesting video clip a friend sent me about alternative fuels done by Fox News. It uses electrolosis of H2O and burns the hydogen. I don't have the original link but I do have the file. It is 2 megs. I will forward to anyone interested, just email me. I am not sure if it is real or a hoax. I have worked with water electrolosis in the past and understand the principle. I can't believe that Big Oil will let this be developed.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Fri May 19, 2006 5:29 pm

marauderer wrote:

I have an interesting video clip a friend sent me about alternative fuels done by Fox News. It uses electrolosis of H2O and burns the hydogen. I don't have the original link but I do have the file. It is 2 megs. I will forward to anyone interested, just email me. I am not sure if it is real or a hoax. I have worked with water electrolosis in the past and understand the principle. I can't believe that Big Oil will let this be developed.

I have the same video clip sent to me by a frien the other day.

Just remember: "If it seems too good to be true it probably is".

marauderer · **Posted:** Fri May 19, 2006 7:42 pm

oldnavy wrote:

Just remember: "If it seems too good to be true it probably is".

Yes, I know but when the breakthrough comes it will be something that seems to be very elementary. The theory is sound for water hydrolosis. Ya know, in the end clean water will be the most valuable commodity on the earth.

vtdog · **Joined:** Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:27 am **Posts:** 640

The problem with H2 production from water is the high electrictiy use & cost to disassociate the water molecule (H2O +e(-) = H2 + O). For a good discussion of the issue see the following website:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36705.pdf

marauderer · **Posted:** Mon May 22, 2006 4:12 pm

vtdog wrote:

The problem with H2 production from water is the high electrictiy use & cost to disassociate the water molecule (H2O +e(-) = H2 + O). For a good discussion of the issue see the following website:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36705.pdf

I know about the process. I used to be involved on the Nuclear Submarines that I served on. We had Honeywell units and they were awesome. In a 60 day run we would pump $1,000,000.00 woth of hydrogen over the side because all we were interested in was the "O". Now those were late 1960s prices.

vtdog · **Joined:** Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:27 am **Posts:** 640

The reason it worked for you on the subs was that you had a nuke power plant making "free" unlimited electricity. The economics do not work to produce H2 using oil/gas/coal, or even nuke plants to make electricity for the consumer market.

However, I suspect (but don't know much about subs) that during times of high power drain when you might be travelling very fast, for example, the Honeywell units were on auto cut out to reduce energy load.

marauderer · **Posted:** Tue May 23, 2006 6:44 am

vtdog wrote:

The reason it worked for you on the subs was that you had a nuke power plant making "free" unlimited electricity. The economics do not work to produce H2 using oil/gas/coal, or even nuke plants to make electricity for the consumer market.

However, I suspect (but don't know much about subs) that during times of high power drain when you might be travelling very fast, for example, the Honeywell units were on auto cut out to reduce energy load.

Nah,

we had plenty of power as long as the reactor was up. It was supplied with 3 phase and the input breaker was about 300 amps per machine and we had two of them. If we lost the reactor we would inert the machines which was good for a couple of hours and then either restart them or shut them down. They didn't like those transients very much and would develop leaks which was also dangerous.

Who knows what modern solid state technology has developed and what they can get out of a set of batteries.

I think those Honeywell cells worked with about 30,000 volt potential between the positive and negative electrodes in each cell to cause the water disassociation. :shock:

Anyway if you can beat that problem maybe you can put it in the back seat of a car

I do get your point. :roll:

Joe Romas · **Posted:** Thu May 25, 2006 6:21 am

Over on another site there was a long thread about the "China Jeep company". They're making a Cherokee there :shock:

Cherokees use gas big time so they will be competing more with us for available dino oil.
Since our VM's are made in Italy it's fitting we use bio made from olive oil :lol:

I think there's a lot that can be done about making bio. Maybe use dandelions from my yard :wink:

Somehow we must get the "West Coast" out of policy making for the whole country

oldnavy · **Posted:** Thu May 25, 2006 7:56 am

Joe Romas wrote:

Somehow we must get the "West Coast" out of policy making for the whole country

Left coast is either going to fall into sea or become part of Mexicao again. :shock:

And none too soon I might add. :roll:

oldnavy · **Posted:** Thu May 25, 2006 7:58 am

Joe Romas wrote:

Somehow we must get the "West Coast" out of policy making for the whole country

Left coast is either going to fall into sea or become part of Mexicao again. :shock:

Either way it will be none too soon I might add. :roll:

valkraider · **Posted:** Thu May 25, 2006 11:06 am

Joe Romas wrote:

Somehow we must get the "West Coast" out of policy making for the whole country

Yeah, you're right. Clean air and clean water suck.

valkraider · **Posted:** Thu May 25, 2006 11:09 am

oldnavy wrote:

Left coast is either going to fall into sea or become part of Mexicao again. :shock:

Either way it will be none too soon I might add. :roll:

At least we can spell "Mexico".

Diesel - my 2008 prediction

Who is online