F.W.I.W.

[beeTee]

I've heard some rumblings of this about 6 months ago through a non-mainstream news source, but never had the time to follow it up. So, now it's here on CNN..... I guess that makes it official!!

Earth's oil gauge on low?Rising demand puts pressure on proven reserves, which have not seen a significant boost in 30 years.May 20, 2004: 3:03 PM EDTNEW YORK (CNN/Money) - With oil prices hovering near record highs and OPEC saying it's out of their control, the question of whether the planet is nearing the end of its oil supply has again arisen.Demand for oil has soared over the last year, with prices in tow, as China has emerged as an economic powerhouse and other developing countries have boosted consumption.In addition, oil use is picking up more steam now as the United States -- the world's biggest energy consumer -- heads into the summer driving season.The concern is that this rising consumption is outpacing the discovery of new crude reserves.full CNN article here

: Edited May 26, 2004 by Jeber

[Guest Paracelsus]

Having worked for a major oil company from '81-'95, I always get a kick out of articles like this.There have been forecasts of oil running out, "in the next ten years", for the last forty years.Not to say that discoveries of major & minor reserves won't eventually come to an end... But that will not be the end of oil. One of the major factors in this is that the market price of oil makes it more economically advantageous to continue searching for new reservoirs of easily extractable oil, rather than extract all the available oil in older reserves.Accounting for the variables of geology and type of crude, only about ½ to 2/3 of the oil in most reserves is easily extracted. The remainder is deemed "not economically feasible". When "dry hole costs", and expenditures in general for locating new reservoirs reach a certain point at some time in the future...Believe me...Producers will return to their capped off sources and employ enhanced recovery techniques to extract what remains there. The technology has been around for a while. In addition to this, there are the (relatively) abundant sources such as oil shales and sands. But these are also high cost, and present greater environmental considerations than "well oil". The company that I worked for put close to a hundred million dollars of capital into developing a shale oil extraction facility in Parachute, CO., during the mid-70's to mid-80's... Only to moth-ball it when oil prices fell later in the decade.I believe strongly in research & development of alternate energy and for increased spending, both in the public and private sector, of ways to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. But some of the doom & gloom scenarios of the "Collapse of the Western World" when we run out of oil, just really makes me laugh.Other than our current need for it as a source of engine fuels, oil just really doesn't have that much impact in our economies. Petrochemical companies that make what is today, the raw materials for many things in our world, use mainly natural gas as a feedstock... not oil. Gas reserves are comparably enormous to those of crude oil. In the 30 mile stretch of highway between where I live and where I work, there has hardly been a week go by in the past three years without a new gas well going in.Well...That's enough rambling for now PS to beeTee - Your linky has a few too many "http://"'s in it (Got it fixed...thanks)

Edited May 26, 2004 by Jeber

[linuxdude32]

Even if we were to run low on available reserves, we wouldn't run out of energy. Economics dictates that oil prices would continue to rise as the supply diminished which would encourage the development of new energy sources like hydrogen fuel cells and alternative energies would become more feasible. If anything, governments should more heavily tax (at least in North America) the use of fossil fuels to promote alternative energy sources.

[Grasshopper]

Realistically though, here in America, it'll take a disaster of some sort to *encourage* that type of alternative development. Necessity is the mother of invention....not wishful thinking. We are too big to make that kind of change without some kind of prodding.

[Stryder]

Even if we were to run low on available reserves, we wouldn't run out of energy. Economics dictates that oil prices would continue to rise as the supply diminished which would encourage the development of new energy sources like hydrogen fuel cells and alternative energies would become more feasible. If anything, governments should more heavily tax (at least in North America) the use of fossil fuels to promote alternative energy sources.

Heavily tax?!?! Are you crazy?!?! We could already have viable alternative energy sources. The problem is not lack of funds, the problem is greed and corruption. The masters of the oil industry are probably the most powerful people on earth. They will never allow for alternative energy to succeed until it is economically viable for them to switch to it. Right now it is still cheaper for them to stick with oil. So that is the way it is going to be. I find it so quaint that people still think that it really matters who their elected officials are. For those of you not awakened yet, politicians are nothing more than puppets for the people who really control the world. Big Business runs the world, folks. And they do not have mankinds best interest at heart. They only care about the almighty dollar. To **** with doing what is best for mankind. The examples are endless:Let's take the automobile for example. Do people really think that they can't make it so that EVERY auto can get at least 50 miles/gallon? I find it hard to believe that the auto industry has had ZERO breakthroughs in the last 20 years in this department. They have. They just refuse to use the technology because it would eat into oil profits. Tires. They have been able to produce tires that would EASILY outlast the life of your car for years, but they will not release them to the public. That would almost ruin the tire industry.Light bulbs. Again, they can make relatively inexpensive light bulbs that would last 10 times longer than what is currently being sold. But that would eat into profits dramatically....and we can't have that.Diseases. If a cure all for cancer (or any other revenue generating disease) was found in todays world it would never be released to the public. There is too much money coming in for the research of these diseases. Billions a year in grants and donations would go away. They will never let that happen.Sad but true....it is the way of the world today. Stop and think about the last 30 years or so. What big breakthroughs have happened that was truly just a benefit to mankind without there being a huge profit attatched for someone? From the mid 1800s through the mid 1960s those types big breakthroughs were happening all the time. Do people really think that we have just hit a dry spell....especially with the advacements in technology that SHOULD make big breakthroughs easier and more frequent? No, there has not been a dry spell, there have been countless breakthroughs and innovations. They just refuse to use them. The common good of mankind is not a priority of the current powers that be. ****, it is not even a concern.End rant

[linuxdude32]

Heavily tax?!?! Are you crazy?!?! We could already have viable alternative energy sources. The problem is not lack of funds, the problem is greed and corruption.

The purpose of the tax is to make fossil fuels more expensive, not to raise funds - that's a side benefit. In Europe, they pay twice as much for gas as we do in North America. Because of the huge difference, Europeans demand vehicles that are more fuel efficient and the market provides them. At heart, I'm a Socialist, but I think many undesirable activities can be lessened simply by making it less economically viable to do them. What we're doing is the exact opposite. We subsidize the oil and gas companies with tax breaks which only encourages more of the same.Taxing fossil fuels won't convert us to using alternative sources overnight simply because those alternatives are much more expensive (at present). But reducing the price advantage in fossil fuels will make other forms more attractive.

[beeTee]

Great posts!! Especially Stryder. You nailed it on all your points. unfortunately, the list could go on and on....One of the things I've been wondering about for years now, is " What happened to Gasohol (sp?)" Back in the day, they started making a Petrolium substitute out of corn. It was at the pumps, cheaper than Gasoline (not that it was that expensive in 1979) and burned just fine. I remember filing the tank, running it out, then changing the fuel filter, and running for some time after that. I went into the Air Force shortly after, and never remember seeing it again.I can only think that a viable mineral oil substitute was a threat to the oil industry, and it was stomped out. At least that has been my thinking for 20 years now. I don't know if there was an issue with emmisions, or if running corn fuel damaged engines or not. Do any of you have any rememberances of this?I'll try and make some time at work tomorrow night and search for some answers for this.btw, Toyota is producing a hybird car now. the Primus and it looks like Honda is in on the game also.

[linuxdude32]

as to economical cars, until gas prices impact what's put on the table for dinner, suv's will be sold by the dozen.

That's what I was trying but you summed it up a lot better! :thumbsup:People continue to buy gas guzzlers, electricity (particularly in the US but Canada is too dependent on it, too) continues to be generated by too many coal and oil fired generators. Why? Because coal and oil are cheaper than gas, and nuclear, which would be cheaper than all of them, has fallen into disfavour. Economics dictates what people use.As far as gas companies trying to perpetuate the use of fossil fuels, well, they could make money off of solar and wind, too. Problem is that solar and wind cost a lot more per Kwh and can't work everywhere. Battery-operated cars can't go very fast or last more than a few hours on a charge which make them unsuitable at present for automobiles but the hybrids, now they're a great start.

[Peachy]

I read somewhere that the SUV market is driven by women (no pun intended). Apparently, the main reason women are choosing SUVs is that they perceive they will be better protected in a crash behind the wheel of an SUV. Whether this is strictly true or not I do happen to notice that a lot of women where I work drive honking big pickup trucks and SUVs. Maybe they just don't want to be called "soccer moms".

[longgone]

Excellent post here, I think (do not pin me on this) the fade out of the gasahol corn based fuel was in a great part due to an excessive production of the base product corn. If I can recall correctly when the big hoopla was being touted for it (mostly in the mid-west area) the farms that predominately produced corn went into hyper production and all of a sudden there was more corn than could be used by both man and machine and therefore the crops that were raised to a great extent went to rot.One major concern (the only one really) with nuke power is the "waste material" which is the actual reactor core and the control rods used to increase/decrease power levels. As soon as man figures out a way/means to either utilize or neutralize that problem nuke power will probably be the power for all electrical generating plants. To use it to power the family wagon will take great amounts of time/research to get a reactor that small. One last thing about nuke power is fusion and fission, one goes rum rum rum and the other goes kaboom.The hydrogen fuel cell that was mentioned would be a great idea. My only thought is that wasn't the Von Hindenburg filled with hydrogen gas and look what happened there. Is the hydrogen fuel cell filled with a liquid form or is it in the gaseous form as in the Hindenburg????Sooner or later "fossil fuel" will probably be all gone, but, I for one will not be here to see it. Heck for all I know I might become part of it.

[Peachy]

I believe a fuel cell works on the same principle as a battery: http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell1.htm

A fuel cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device that converts hydrogen and oxygen into water, producing electricity and heat in the process. It is very much like a battery that can be recharged while you are drawing power from it. Instead of recharging using electricity, however, a fuel cell uses hydrogen and oxygen.

It better not go Ka-Boom!!! because there are prototypes of notebook computers running off of fuel cells. Actually, the current technology transforms alcohol fuels like methanol into hydrogen for the fuel cell. There's a nice video from this site that explains how fuel cells work.The biggest hurdle in the adoption of fuel cell technology is that it takes massive amounts of electricity to generate the initial potential energy stored by the fuel cell. So, what we are talking about is creating the infrastructure to bootstrap the fuel cells. Typically, today it costs about $3,000 to $5,000/kilowatt hour to power a basic fuel cell stack. Interestingly, Dr. Ballard, the scientist who pioneered the development of the modern fuel cell, believes that we will have to rely on nuclear-generated electricity to get the fuel cells produced in massive quantities because nuclear is the cleanest source we have despite the problem of disposing of the waste products.

In the book Fuelling the Future, Dr. Geoffrey Ballard, " the father of the fuel cell industry," cleary outlines the following points:    * Hydrogen to be used in fuel cells must be manufactured.    * Fuel cells, which create electricity through a chemical reaction, aren't an efficient method for creating electricity, but they are an efficient method for storing electricity. They are, basically, batteries.    * From his perspective, the most viable way to create the hydrogen needed to power fuel cells is nuclear power.

[beeTee]

Today, I've had the time to look up about gasohol, or ethanol..... here are a couple. first a simple definition (which already doesn't sound so good for the product):

Gasohol a gasoline extender made from a mixture of gasoline (90%) and ethanol (10%; often obtained by fermenting agricultural crops or crop wastes) or gasoline (97%) and methanol, or wood alcohol (3%). Gasohol has higher octane, or antiknock, properties than gasoline and burns more slowly, coolly, and completely, resulting in reduced emissions of some pollutants, but it also vaporizes more readily, potentially aggravating ozone pollution in warm weather. Ethanol-based gasohol is expensive and energy intensive to produce, and can damage rubber seals and diaphragms and certain finishes if the ethanol is present in higher concentrations. Since 1998, however, many American automobiles have been equipped to enable them to run on E85, a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Methanol-based gasohol is also expensive to produce and is toxic and corrosive, and its emissions produce cancer-causing formaldehyde. Gasohol definition

and here is a more detailed report from Cornell, august of 2001...

ITHACA, N.Y. -- Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel takes a longer range view."Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published in September, 2001 in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .Among his findings are: Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist

It looks like there's good reason for gasohol to be abandoned!!

[ibe98765]

Heavily tax?!?! Are you crazy?!?! We could already have viable alternative energy sources. The problem is not lack of funds, the problem is greed and corruption.

The purpose of the tax is to make fossil fuels more expensive, not to raise funds - that's a side benefit. In Europe, they pay twice as much for gas as we do in North America. Because of the huge difference, Europeans demand vehicles that are more fuel efficient and the market provides them. At heart, I'm a Socialist, but I think many undesirable activities can be lessened simply by making it less economically viable to do them. What we're doing is the exact opposite. We subsidize the oil and gas companies with tax breaks which only encourages more of the same.Taxing fossil fuels won't convert us to using alternative sources overnight simply because those alternatives are much more expensive (at present). But reducing the price advantage in fossil fuels will make other forms more attractive.

One, Europe pays the same amount for oil wholesale as everyone else does. In point of fact, the main purpose of their high prices there IS to raise funds. AFAIK, people don't drive less in Europe because of the higher gasoline prices. It would be the same here.Two, economies adjust to the cost of living in them. In the case of Europe, that means that more people buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars. But I was watching a TV program the other day (CNN?) and it appears that there are plenty of people over there who still drive SUV's and gas guzzling cars.Three, if higher gas prices were such a great motivator for finding alternative fuel solutions, then one would think that Europeans would have already discovered, made practicable and be using alternative fuels widely in auto's. But they don't appear to be any nearer to this holy grail than we do. Humans, as a race, are a complacent group. We will almost always choose the easiest and cheapest short-term solution with little thought for the long-term. Witness global warming or the oil problems, for example. Neither of these issues are anything new. But making changes can have severe short-term economic consequences, so nobody in power ever really wants to address problems like these from the bottom-up. In cahoots with the auto industry, the Bush administration has fought an increase in the CAFE standards for gas mileage in cars, on the premise that it would make cars more expensive, thereby reducing sales. You should also know that while SUV's are used as cars here, they are rated as trucks byt he government. So they don't have to meet the same standards of fuel economy as regular cars. Again, both parties mentioned above have fought to maintain this foolishness. It is and has always been up to the leaders we elect to get the ball rolling on alternative fuels through funding research and making appropriate adjustments to the tax laws. The current administration does not appear to have much interest in pushing this agenda forward.

[beeTee]

One, Europe pays the same amount for oil wholesale as everyone else does.  In point of fact, the main purpose of their high prices there IS to raise funds.  AFAIK, people don't drive less in Europe because of the higher gasoline prices.  It would be the same here.

This is so true, Ibe. last week (week of 17 May) prices in Germany rose to €1.23 (for super) / liter (about $4.65 a gallon). Actually, we can't think with a 1-to-1 exchange rate anymore because of such a week dollar these days, that converts into $5.70 / gallon. People love thier cars here as much or more than in the US. I say more, cause those with high performance cars go out and actually drive at 120 - 140 mph or more on a regular basis. even those of us without high performance cars drive over 100 mph on a regular basis on the autobahn. Practically ALL two lane roads between towns have a speed limit of 62 mph. we get to DRIVE our cars here, not just put-put along. yeah, people love their cars here.

Two, economies adjust to the cost of living in them.  In the case of Europe, that means that more people buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars.  But I was watching a TV program the other day (CNN?) and it appears that there are plenty of people over there who still drive SUV's and gas guzzling cars.

Well Ibe, half and half. There ARE a lot of fuel efficient cars here, however, the rich are disgustingly rich, and the average get by. the rich drive thier big BMW and Mercedes that suck gas like the best of them. However, what the Europeans have done over the last decades is develop a much cleaner diesel program. A large percentage (~20% and rising) of cars on the street are diesels. They get great mileage and pay much less at the pumps (20-25 %). True, there are some SUV's here, but not like in the States. and most of them are surely clean diesel. the big rage here is mini-vans for families. again, mostly diesel..Another big difference is that a vast majority (better than 90%) of vehicles here are standard transmission. The automatics generally only come on high price cars. Unless things have changed, automatics get poorer gas mileage than standards.

Three, if higher gas prices were such a great motivator for finding alternative fuel solutions, then one would think that Europeans would have already discovered, made practicable and be using alternative fuels widely in auto's.  But they don't appear to be any nearer to this holy grail than we do. 

As I've mentioned above, we have a "clean" diesel engine here. as well, they make "BIO-diesel" here out of rapeseed oil. "Raps" is grown over here in spring and fall, and it beautifuly covers vast acres of farmland . I'll have to do a little research on the actual percentage of vehicles that run on diesel here, and a percentage of that that run Bio- diesel, but there is progress being made.

[ibe98765]

However, what the Europeans have done over the last decades is develop a much cleaner diesel program.  A large percentage (~20% and rising) of cars on the street are diesels.  They get great mileage and pay much less at the pumps (20-25 %).  True, there are some SUV's here, but not like in the States.  and most of them are surely clean diesel.  the big rage here is mini-vans for families.  again, mostly diesel..

Yes, but diesel isn't an "alternate fuel" technology in the true sense of the term. It is still petroleum based. Using diesel is just the consumers attempt to deal with the problem of high prices while still maintaining their chosen lifestyle as well as possible.Some stories in the news recently are also pushing diesel here. But I say forget diesel. We need to commit to new technology and get to work now, not later!

[beeTee]

OH!! I agree with you 100% on the alternative fuels!! It has been my thinking for many years that the oil companies / big business have been hampering the progression of solar / wind / alternative power. as Stryder posted earlier in this thread:

The masters of the oil industry are probably the most powerful people on earth. They will never allow for alternative energy to succeed until it is economically viable for them to switch to it. Right now it is still cheaper for them to stick with oil. So that is the way it is going to be. I find it so quaint that people still think that it really matters who their elected officials are. For those of you not awakened yet, politicians are nothing more than puppets for the people who really control the world. Big Business runs the world, folks. And they do not have mankinds best interest at heart.

[Peachy]

And hopefully, the 2004 Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or winner will get wide distribution before the US Presidential elections.

May 28th, 2004 11:11 amMichael Moore's Movie MomentThe Capital TimesMay 28, 2004Now that Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been awarded the Palme d'Or, the highest award of the Cannes film festival, the American film industry faces a critical test.Controversial and of the moment, praised by most reviewers and now internationally acclaimed, "Fahrenheit 9/11" surely meets the critical standard for wide distribution in the United States. In addition, Moore's track record of producing commercially successful films and television programs, as well as best-selling books such as "Stupid White Men," provides all the economic argument that ought to be needed for getting "Fahrenheit 9/11" into the theaters.Yet Moore has struggled with distribution issues. The Walt Disney Co., the mouse that does not have the courage to roar, refused to place the documentary in theaters because doing so might offend the Bush administration. Other major media corporations have apparently felt similarly intimidated, so questions remain about how thorough the distribution of "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be.That the administration does not want this film to be seen by the American people is now blatantly obvious. There is talk that Republican operatives may file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, apparently on the theory that artistic expression and free speech ought to be limited in election years.In case there was any doubt as to the source of the anti-Moore pressures, White House communications director Dan Bartlett went to the unusual extreme of condemning "Fahrenheit 9/11" before he, or presumably anyone else on the Bush-Cheney team, had seen it.

Thanks a lot Janet Jackson! You've really emboldend Oliver's Army, erm, I mean Ashcrofts's Army....

[longgone]

Ahhhhh ..... the smell of diesel .... standing beside a big ole Pete ... Detroit Diesel powered ... 500 hp ... intoxicating, I tell ya, just intoxicating .... Diesel whether it be #1 or #2 is not a clean burning fuel. It is one of the stages of the refining process before it gets to be gasoline. One advantage it does have over gasoline vehicles is that so far it is not subject to smog inspections and restrictions. Why, because they have not yet figured out how to do it, give them time. There have been several articles on the local news here about alternative fuels, one of them being, regular old vegtable oil (Crisco in the gas tank). Wonder when that will happen, they also had a brief clip, last night (Friday on the local news) about a car that got 1000 miles to the gallon, full story at 11 P.M. (past my bedtime). Not to step on anyones toes here, but I recall way back when (think it was in the 60's) a car that ran on water and got 50+ miles to the gallon. That story lasted several months until it suddenly went away (think one of the big 3 bought the rights to that). Now if they made a car that could run on pure corn alcohol (moonshine) they would a lot of stills popping up all over the country...

[linuxdude32]

One, Europe pays the same amount for oil wholesale as everyone else does.  In point of fact, the main purpose of their high prices there IS to raise funds.  AFAIK, people don't drive less in Europe because of the higher gasoline prices.  It would be the same here.

Wholesale, yes, but that's not what people pay at the pumps and where people do, Europeans pay much more for gas. Check this out:Seattle Times article - April 2004And another (though it looks like a similar source was used):

Europe's high taxes are intended to discourage driving and reduce pollution and congestion. Europeans do drive less, take public transportation more, buy more fuel-efficient cars and are more likely to use a bicycle for short trips.

Oakland PressFinally, a list I found of gas prices at the pump around the world. And from, the good 'ol CBC (Home country pride! ):http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/gasprices/Everytime I hear somebody whining about how high gas prices are I mention casually how much cola, milk, bottled water (which I think is totally ridiculous by the way, not that companies sell that, that people actually buy it), juice, etc. cost per litre (or gallon for metric-challenged Americans). We're a society that has gotten used to driving everywhere, even when there are alternatives like carpooling, transit and cycling simply because it's inconvenient for us.

Three, if higher gas prices were such a great motivator for finding alternative fuel solutions, then one would think that Europeans would have already discovered, made practicable and be using alternative fuels widely in auto's.  But they don't appear to be any nearer to this holy grail than we do.

That's because gas prices even there still aren't high enough to make driving gasoline-powered vehicles an undesirable activity - just high enough to make people grumble and maybe high enough to demand more fuel-efficient vehicles. Right now it's hitting people's pocketbooks, especially commuters, but very few families (at least in North America, can't speak for Europe) have decided they don't need two cars (or more).

[ibe98765]

And hopefully, the 2004 Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or winner will get wide distribution before the US Presidential elections.

Miramax inked the final deal to buy the distribution rights back from Disney for this movie yesterday (Friday, May 28).