Peak Oil

[jolinar of malkshor]

People also have to realize that since the price of oil is so high, ethonal is becoming a major player to help phase out oil. If we can get to the point where we grow our oil, I don't think we will ever have to give the farming community anymore subsudies.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

People also have to realize that since the price of oil is so high, ethonal is becoming a major player to help phase out oil. If we can get to the point where we grow our oil, I don't think we will ever have to give the farming community anymore subsudies.

The problem with that is that ethanol fuel still requires some petroleum. Even in Brazil which has taken the lead on ethanol fueled vehicles, the fuel is only 25% ethanol.

Pure ethanol is unstable, evapourates quickly, and typically wrecks motors. While it is a good step in the right direction, we are a long way from being able to use ethanol as a way to free ourselves from our dependence on oil.

[Hakan]

As FlamesAddiction said, biomass for energy still relies on other forms of energy for production. This classifies biomass as a secondary energy and not a primary energy. The peak oil discussion is about primary energy thus hydrogen, biomass, and all that is moot because you need energy imputs.

Some would argue that the sun is biomasses imput but in the case of growing corn to distill ethanol there are huge imputs of natural gas and oil to grow, fertilize, transport and finally distill the corn. Making ethanol isn't all that efficient. Then when you realize the land-use conflicts that arise from dedicating arable land to energy instead of food production then ethanol doesn't seem that attractive.

In the end, technology advocates like Cowperson seem to focus on the demand end of the problem and say that where there is enough demand for alternative energy generation, technology and science will wave its magic wand and invent a new form of energy that's as a) transportable b) energy rich and c) easily extracted as oil.

But that's to lose sight of the essential issue. This is a supply problem. Certainly as the price increases, wells that are not economically viable will become but the net energy output will keep declining as we need to expend more and more energy to extract the oil. Eventually, we will use as much energy as we extract and then oil will have to be replaced.

The real question is then, how much longer do we have?

[White Doors]

This is going to make the hydrogen fuel cell alot more economically viable. Trust the market, it will balance out eventually. Besides, it's more of a refinery capactiy shortgae right now then reserve capacity that is driving the price up.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by White Doors

This is going to make the hydrogen fuel cell alot more economically viable.

But keep in mind- how does one make hydrogen? It takes electricity.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by ken0042

But keep in mind- how does one make hydrogen? It takes electricity.

Yes, but that electricity doesn't necessarily have to be produced by oil, natural gas.

[Lurch]

This is going to make the hydrogen fuel cell alot more economically viable. Trust the market, it will balance out eventually. Besides, it's more of a refinery capactiy shortgae right now then reserve capacity that is driving the price up.
__________________

I'd love to hear the explanation for this - I've heard the story constantly but to me it makes no sense. My take is refiners are cutomers for oil producers - not enough refiners means not enough customers for producers. When this happens, producers should be forced to discount their oil to make a sale to the refinery. Refineries should pocket the value of lack of refineries, not see the value pushed back up the chain where there is supposedly no shortage. IMO, a lack of refineries should see downward pressure on crude but upward pressure on refined goods, i.e. gasoline, with big profits for the refiners as the middle man.

Anyway, if someone can explain the logic behind the lack of refineries driving up crude prices (not gasoline prices, as this part of the equation makes perfect sense), I'd love to hear it.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Yes, but that electricity doesn't necessarily have to be produced by oil, natural gas.

How will it be produced then?

[Calgaryborn]

We do have a lot of potentual cheap elictricity in B.C. We could double our production of hydro-electric power on the existing damned river systems without even looking at untouched water supplies.

We don't in part because of enviromentalist( it wouldn't matter how safe it was for the enviroment) and in part because of the profitability. If the U.S. has to build coal generating plants and reactors to top up their need for electricity the price will reflect their high cost of production. We(B.C.) get to sell our electricity for more.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

We do have a lot of potentual cheap elictricity in B.C. We could double our production of hydro-electric power on the existing damned river systems without even looking at untouched water supplies.

We don't in part because of enviromentalist( it wouldn't matter how safe it was for the enviroment) and in part because of the profitability. If the U.S. has to build coal generating plants and reactors to top up their need for electricity the price will reflect their high cost of production. We(B.C.) get to sell our electricity for more.

It seems to me that if Quebec's long term strategy is to use our equalization payments to build their huge hydro-electric system to sell power to New York, that B.C. should be doing the same by selling into the huge California market.

Maybe at some time in the future, as you say, when Californians want their power a little cheaper and less environmentally damaging, and the environmentalists start to see the light, it will happen. The people in B.C. seem to be too polarized in their thinking - either too far to the right (clearcut logging) or too far to the left (save the water).

[ken0042]

Isn't BC too far away from California? I show it as being 1200 km as the crow flies from Vancouver to Sacramento. I seem to recall something about transmissions over distances getting hard as you increase the distance. Perhaps even a geometric progression; so if LA wanted a 100 kilovolt line BC would have to send 1000 kilovolts for it to make it there as 100 kilovolts.

I could easily be wrong, or over simplifying the problem.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Isn't BC too far away from California? I show it as being 1200 km as the crow flies from Vancouver to Sacramento. I seem to recall something about transmissions over distances getting hard as you increase the distance. Perhaps even a geometric progression; so if LA wanted a 100 kilovolt line BC would have to send 1000 kilovolts for it to make it there as 100 kilovolts.

I could easily be wrong, or over simplifying the problem.

I'm certainly no expert on hydro-electric energy, however, as a casual observer and from what I have read, it seems like Canada could be doing much more to cash in on its hydroelectric energy potential. Maybe the people from Quebec are a little smarter than us and have taken advantage of opportunities that the rest of us, who spend too much time arguing with each other, fail to see.

Also, it seems like a long distance from N. Quebec's hydro-electric facility and New York city. Does anyone know the distances involved?

[Calgaryborn]

There is loss through resistance but, I don't see that as being a hugh factor. We already sell power to California. California buys a block of electricity every year depending on what they see their potentual needs as for that given year. Long heat waves like this year will put them over the limit and force them to buy their extra need at inflated market prices. Right now if you looked at any of our(B.C.) transmission lines that feed the American grid you would see them sagging at least twenty extra feet in the afternoon as compared to the morning. This is because of the extra load on the lines. The friction creates heat which causes expansion.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The problem with that is that ethanol fuel still requires some petroleum. Even in Brazil which has taken the lead on ethanol fueled vehicles, the fuel is only 25% ethanol.

Pure ethanol is unstable, evapourates quickly, and typically wrecks motors. While it is a good step in the right direction, we are a long way from being able to use ethanol as a way to free ourselves from our dependence on oil.

According to the Canadian government you are wrong.

Ethanol in Special Factory-Produced Vehicles

Ethanol can be used in much higher proportions - up to 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (E-85) - in special factory-produced vehicles. A limited but growing number of E-85 vehicles are now being produced by auto manufacturers to test market demand for this product. These vehicles can operate on straight gasoline or on any proportion of ethanol mixed with gasoline, up to the 85 percent limit. For this reason, they are known as flexible fuel vehicles. E-85 fuel requires special dispensing equipment, which is one of the factors preventing its widespread use in Canada.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/...2_257_2003.cfm

Using 85 percent ethonal is quite incredable and would go a long way to reduce the need for oil. If they can get farm equipment to use it aswell then really most of the bio mass engergy would be coming from the dun and not oil.

Also there is a lot of research on using methane gas from large hog farms. I have read some articles where these hog opperators pay for most of their expenses just from selling the methane from the animal waste.

[Hakan]

Major hydro projects are hardly a panacea to Peak Oil. Out of the total 300-500 exojoules of primary energy the world consumes annually only about 2% of that from hydro generation. That can be expanded but only by a couple percentage points.

Therefore major hydro projects are really questionable investments.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Major hydro projects are hardly a panacea to Peak Oil. Out of the total 300-500 exojoules of primary energy the world consumes annually only about 2% of that from hydro generation. That can be expanded but only by a couple percentage points.

Therefore major hydro projects are really questionable investments.

I really don't follow your logic. If your statistic is correct than we have a good portion of that 2% of potentual increase between Quebec and B.C.

Energy is Energy. How can Hydro Electric power be a bad thing? If nothing else it would replace the need for more oil dependant methods of generating electricity.


The solutions are there. It's just not going to be from one source.

[Lurch]

Major hydro projects are hardly a panacea to Peak Oil. Out of the total 300-500 exojoules of primary energy the world consumes annually only about 2% of that from hydro generation. That can be expanded but only by a couple percentage points.

Therefore major hydro projects are really questionable investments.

That's quite a non sequiter. Hydro may not solve the energy gap, but to call it a questionable investment for this reason is off base.

[Clarkey]

Canada provides about 3% of the worlds daily oil supply. It's a low percentage overall but far from insignificant.

[Hakan]

Major projects are questionable investments because of environmental, economic and social impacts.

Major projects have well documented impacts environmentally. This is an economic concern for other industries such as forestry and fisheries.

One of the massive projects that has been floating around for the last 25 years is in the Nisga'a territority where hundreds of people will be directly impacted.

I guess what I'm saying is that small scale hydro generation could be a far better way to remove oil dependence as it is far more efficient from a transmission perspective.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Hakan

How will it be produced then?

Hydro dams? Nuclear? Wind? Solar? geothermal? Tidal?