Fuel for the Diesel aircraft

[JHW]

So you are suggesting that all work on new things stop because we can't use them right now?

People understand your point and are working to make the lipid oils a drop-in replacement for gasoline and diesel engines by converting them to existing fuels. There are also projects to make current biodiesel a drop-in replacement for existing diesel fuels.

not at all. I'm suggesting that people who buy a diesel car because their buddy told them that can make their own fuel for free, are going to be sadly disappointed. And those people are out there in more numbers than you think. They also exist at the other end of the spectrum, writing requirements for high blends of bio into procurement specs for industrial equipment, without any real knowledge of how to manage a biofuel supply and the equipment it takes to do so.

Biofuel in its current form remains a political solution to a non-existent problem. There is no technical good that comes of it, and as a side effect it drives up food prices leading to hunger and political unrest in many parts of the world. Research into non-food sources is all fine and good but it remains a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

not at all. I'm suggesting that people who buy a diesel car because their buddy told them that can make their own fuel for free, are going to be sadly disappointed. And those people are out there in more numbers than you think. They also exist at the other end of the spectrum, writing requirements for high blends of bio into procurement specs for industrial equipment, without any real knowledge of how to manage a biofuel supply and the equipment it takes to do so.

Realistic answer, no argument there. there's a lot of BS in the renewable energy field. There's also a lot of good work being done too. Let's not toss the baby with the bath water.

Biofuel in its current form remains a political solution to a non-existent problem.

So you think we will have petroleum forever? It's Ok to get our fuel and petrochemicals from people that don't like us very much (this is overly simplified, that there's a lot of politics on our part and theirs as well).

There is no technical good that comes of it

I's say we are learning about how to create renewable fuels, and their limits.

and as a side effect it drives up food prices leading to hunger and political unrest in many parts of the world.

People said that about ethanol from corn too. The corn used for ethanol was animal feed; after the ethanol is produced, the residue is still used for animal feed. Look up "distillers grain". Only a small amount "energy" was taken out of the food chain. I heard news reports that Basmati rice shortages was attributed to rice fields being converted to corn for ethanol. I found this particularly interesting because the USA only produces a small amount of Basmati rice, and the bulk of this rice is grown in India. There are non-food sources of lipid oils, including various nuts that grow in marginal soils and algae. Besides, extraction of the oil from fod crops deosn't mean we can't use the remainder in the food chain, probably as animal feed. It's probably no coincidance the corn oil plant down the road from me is co-located with the animal feed plant.

Research into non-food sources is all fine and good but it remains a solution in search of a problem.

And assuming we succeed, the point about causing hunger becomes mute.

I agree with your point that biodiesel in it's current form isn't very useful to us, but I also read your comments as "we should stop work in this field because it isn't useful now"

 

[JHW]

btw this problem is nothing new. The emotional attraction of "grow your own fuel" is as old as the internal combustion engine.

 

[JHW]

So you think we will have petroleum forever?

Yes, pretty much. We have all the oil we will ever need right under our own lands and seas. We just choose not to use it.

 

[airguy]

So you think we will have petroleum forever?

Yes - we will have petroleum forever.

The price required to get it out of the ground and into your hands will change significantly over time - as it becomes higher and higher new sources will be found and demand will drop off - but there will always be some there if you want it badly enough, just as is the case with platinum or diamonds. The market will find a value that will balance supply and demand, it always does.

There was a time when aluminum was worth more per ounce than gold - technology made it one of the cheapest metals available now, and technology will allow us to produce petroleum from deposits previously passed over as non-viable, especially as the price per barrel increases and production costs decrease. We see that happening already today with shale production, extracting oil from formations that 20 years ago were dismissed as worthless.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Yes, pretty much. We have all the oil we will ever need right under our own lands and seas. We just choose not to use it.

Yes - we will have petroleum forever.

You both may want to look up "peak oil", also see how fast we are actually discovering new reserves. The shale reserves were known 20 years ago. Likewise the canadian tar sands were known reserves. New reserves aren't being found as quickly as old reserves are becoming depleted.

The price required to get it out of the ground and into your hands will change significantly over time - as it becomes higher and higher new sources will be found and demand will drop off - but there will always be some there if you want it badly enough, just as is the case with platinum or diamonds. The market will find a value that will balance supply and demand, it always does.

Or we find a substiture (for platinum) for may uses as a catalyst, or we make diamonds that are ungly, but good & cheap enough, or use another hard material that works well enough. Platimum is also recycled, petroleum isn't (except for some plastics).

There was a time when aluminum was worth more per ounce than gold - technology made it one of the cheapest metals available now, and technology will allow us to produce petroleum from deposits previously passed over as non-viable, especially as the price per barrel increases and production costs decrease. We see that happening already today with shale production, extracting oil from formations that 20 years ago were dismissed as worthless.

The aluminum analogy doen't apply here because the reason for aluminum being expensive wasn't scarcity, but production methods. Aluminum is also mostly recyclable.

The price of petroleum eventually will rise such that biofuels or another energy source will displace it. Other potential energy sources include hydrogen, if they overcome the energy density issue, electric (from wind, solar, etc), and so forth, or, most likely, a combination of energy sources. As you said, the demand will drop off due to scarcity causing increased prices, which will cause substitution by other energy sources. For all any of us know, we'll start converting coal into petroleum products on a scale such that petroleum is replaced (again, being done on small scale now).

 

[Skylane81E]

Small nit, hydrogen isn't an energy source as much as it is a battery

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Small nit, hydrogen isn't an energy source as much as it is a battery

True- it is really a method of storing or transferring energy. I wouldn't quite call it a battery, but that's an even smaller nit.

Edit:Even biofuels are just a method of transferring (pipeline, train, or truck) or storing solar energy.

 

[JHW]

Actually you might want to check out peak oil yourself. That was a failed idea from 20 years ago. We were supposed to already have hit it. Instead known reserves are expanding faster than consumption. Your choice of peak oil religion is a couple decades out of touch with scientific reality.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Actually you might want to check out peak oil yourself. That was a failed idea from 20 years ago. We were supposed to already have hit it. Instead known reserves are expanding faster than consumption. Your choice of peak oil religion is a couple decades out of touch with scientific reality.

I have. The current estimate is around 2014 world wide ( http://cen.acs.org/articles/88/web/2010/03/New-Date-Peak-Oil-Production.html ). Hubbert got it pretty close for the USA. I think you are confusing "new reserves" with "improved extraction". When the theory ( not a religion- no diety is involved) was proposed, Hubbert took into account the rates of new discoveries. The Bakken and other reserves were known. As you pointed out, scarcity increased the price such that they are now economical to exploit. Further scarcity will increase the price to the point that other energy sources become competitive to e higher price.

 

[Gary]

I have. The current estimate is around 2014 world wide ( http://cen.acs.org/articles/88/web/2010/03/New-Date-Peak-Oil-Production.html ).

The link (at least for me) requires a sign-in.

Hubbert got it pretty close for the USA. I think you are confusing "new reserves" with "improved extraction". When the theory ( not a religion- no diety is involved) was proposed, Hubbert took into account the rates of new discoveries. The Bakken and other reserves were known. As you pointed out, scarcity increased the price such that they are now economical to exploit. Further scarcity will increase the price to the point that other energy sources become competitive to e higher price.

Well put. It is a balance between cost of recovery and selling price. There isn't much doubt, that over the long-term, the price of fossil fuel will rise.

Gary

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The link (at least for me) requires a sign-in.


Gary

Sorry about that- I'll quote what I can while remaining within "fair use" and POA rules.

A team of petroleum engineers has reworked a basic model for gauging conventional crude oil production and determined that world output may peak in 2014, nearly a decade earlier than previous projections. The analysis could speed up moves to conserve oil and intensify already intense efforts to develop biofuels and other alternative energy sources.

....

Ibrahim S. Nashawi of Kuwait University and colleagues revamped the Hubbert model to account for technology changes and ecological, economic, and political influences on production trends in 47 oil-producing countries (Energy Fuels, DOI: 10.1021/ef901240p). They conclude world oil reserves are being depleted at a rate of 2.1% per year and global production will peak in 2014. They also project OPEC oil production, which involves 78% of world reserves, will peak in 2026. The researchers note that a forecast like theirs isn't perfect and the results should be considered with caution in making public policy decisions.

 

[airguy]

I have. The current estimate is around 2014 world wide ( http://cen.acs.org/articles/88/web/2010/03/New-Date-Peak-Oil-Production.html ). Hubbert got it pretty close for the USA. I think you are confusing "new reserves" with "improved extraction". When the theory ( not a religion- no diety is involved) was proposed, Hubbert took into account the rates of new discoveries. The Bakken and other reserves were known. As you pointed out, scarcity increased the price such that they are now economical to exploit. Further scarcity will increase the price to the point that other energy sources become competitive to e higher price.

I believe that was exactly the point I just made - and now you are using it as your own?



Supply and demand will always match - by definition they must - but the price will adjust as they do. Other competing energy forms will prosper or perish as the market dictates.

 

[JHW]

deleted quote of rehashed politically tainted article

Yes, I'm familiar with that. I'm also familiar with 2 studies that said same thing virtually word for word in 1997, with the peak stated as coming in 2002 (I was a peer reviewer for one of them). These studies get rehashed and the time horizon is always the same, far enough out to be plausible but close enough in to attempt to affect options trading.

In a way it's very much like the studies of temperature rise correlated to CO2 which always predict calamity on an 8-10 year horizon and always have to be re-correlated after about 6 years when it becomes obvious to even the most religious of climate scientists that it isn't happening. The revised studies then predict calamity in 8-10 years from the 6 years.

 

[JustA172]

JHW and Airguy, I will assure you in the industry and are completely on track. All previous estimates (last 60 years) were we would reach peak in 2008-2010. With new technology (horizontal and deep water) these numbers are very obscure. The new estimates are +\- 2150. Who knows what will develop in the next 150 years. I'll quite there before I go into

 

[JHW]

JHW and Airguy, I will assure you in the industry and are completely on track. All previous estimates (last 60 years) were we would reach peak in 2008-2010. With new technology (horizontal and deep water) these numbers are very obscure. The new estimates are +\- 2150. Who knows what will develop in the next 150 years. I'll quite there before I go into

Exactly. People who predict peaks do not take into account unknown new technology and human ingenuity. They are akin to looking at computers in 1960 and predicting the eventual limits of computing speeds based on assumptions in vacuum tube advances.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I believe that was exactly the point I just made - and now you are using it as your own?

Then you are contradicting yourself. See your own quote below... it links back to your post.

Yes - we will have petroleum forever.
<SNIP>.

I said we will run out of petroleum some day causeing the price to increase to the point that something else is competitive, as you indicate below...

Supply and demand will always match - by definition they must - but the price will adjust as they do. Other competing energy forms will prosper or perish as the market dictates.

This is exactly right. None of us know what the future will bring; depending on the rate of advancement in other alternative energy supplies, we'll probably start converting coal to liquid fuels, but that's just my opinion with no facts to back it up.

As you guys have decided to go into the ad hominem arguments (calling a theory a religion, calling cited sources "politically tainted", I'll let you get back to watching the Fox news echo chamber.

 

[denverpilot]

As you guys have decided to go into the ad hominem arguments (calling a theory a religion, calling cited sources "politically tainted", I'll let you get back to watching the Fox news echo chamber.

There's a boring argument. Oh gee let's count how many times that one has been used when someone runs out of things to say.

Theories and religions are indistinguishable when they aren't testable. That's fact.

I am making no judgements on your "theory". Just reminding you that both are unknowable conjecture.