[kvm_mkdb]

I've been reading lately about the problematic of 'Peak Oil'. It is no end-of-the-world scenario, but a very real problem we are starting to face, and one with very big consequences.

I'll start linking to a Presentation to a House of Commons All-Party Committee by C.J. Campbell, a veteran petroleum geologist. It's a short and concise presentation, and can be summed up in the sentence "The bottom line is that there is a rounded one trillion barrels left to produce.".

Another (longer) presentation by the same geologist offers a little more insights, and some graphs:

This is the world as a whole.

• The green bars show discovery, highlighting a few exceptional spikes in the Middle East.
• The oil shocks of the 1970s cut demand so that the actual peak came later and lower than would otherwise have been the case.

A Swiss magazine published last month a very detailed analysis, which refers to the current events - "Iraq and the Problem of Peak Oil"
Some snippets:

Today, much of the world is convinced the Bush Administration did not wage war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein because of threat from weapons of mass destruction, nor from terror dangers. Still a puzzle, however, is why Washington would risk so much in terms of relations with its allies and the entire world, to occupy Iraq. There is compelling evidence that oil and geopolitics lie at the heart of the still-hidden reasons for the military action in Iraq.

It is increasingly clear that the US occupation of Iraq is about control of global oil resources. Control, however, in a situation where world oil supplies are far more limited than most of the world has been led to believe. If the following is accurate, the Iraq war is but the first in a major battle over global energy resources, a battle which will be more intense than any oil war to date. The stakes are highest. It is about fixing who will get how much oil for their economy at what price and who not. Never has such a choke-hold on the world economy been in the hands of one power. After occupation of Iraq it appears it is.

The era of cheap, abundant oil, which has supported world economic growth for more than three quarters of a century, is most probably at or past its absolute peak, according to leading independent oil geologists. If this analysis is accurate, the economic and social consequences will be staggering.

The problem in oil production is not how much reserves are underground. There the numbers are more encouraging. The problem comes when large oilfields such as Prudhoe Bay Alaska or the fields of the North Sea pass their peak output. Much like a bell curve, oil fields rise to a maximum output or peak. The peak is the point when half the oil has been extracted. In terms of reserves remaining it may seem there is still ample oil. But it is not as rosy as it seems. The oil production may hold at the peak output for a number of years before beginning a slow decline. Once the peak is past however, the decline can become very rapid. Past the peak, there is still oil, but each barrel becomes more difficult to exploit, and more costly, as internal well pressures decline or other problems make recovery more expensive for each barrel. The oil is there but not at all easy to extract. The cost of each barrel past peak is increasingly higher as artificial means are employed to extract it. After a certain point it becomes uneconomical to continue to try to extract this peak oil.

Because most oil companies and agencies such as the US Department of Energy speak not of peak oil, but of total reserves, the world has a false sense of energy supply security. The truth is anything but secure.

After OPEC raised oil prices in the 1970's, non-OPEC oil projects began to be profitable in the North Sea, Alaska, Venezuela and other places. Oil production increased markedly. At the same time, in response to the higher oil price, many industrial countries like France, Germany USA, Japan dramatically increased the energy from nuclear power plants. The combination gave the illusion that the oil problem had vanished. It has not, far from it.


If in fact many of today's major sources of oil have peaked, and are about to fall off drastically, and at the same time, if world energy demand continues to grow, and not enough oil is found even to replace existing depletion, the global economy faces a crisis of staggering dimension. This would also begin to explain the shift of US foreign policy in the direction of a crude neo-imperial military presence globally, from Kosovo to Afghanistan, from West Africa to Baghdad and beyond.

Obviously, the easiest, most economical solution is to find new giant or super giant oilfields where large volumes of oil can be extracted and brought to world markets at low cost. That is just what is not the case today. According to a recent report from the Colorado School of Mines, 'The World's Giant Oilfields,' the world's '120 largest oilfields produce close to 33 million barrels a day, almost 50% of the world's crude oil supply. The fourteen largest account for over 20%. The average age of these 14 largest fields is 43.5 years.'

The above study concludes that 'most of the world's true giants were found decades ago.' Over the past 20 years despite investment of hundreds of billions dollars by major oil companies, results have been alarmingly disappointing.

Discuss™

[voodoo]

Oil as a fuel is history. Hydrogen combined with solarpower is what will come.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Oil as a fuel is history. Hydrogen combined with solarpower is what will come.

If the USA would put as much effort (and resources) into perfecting alternative energy sources as they have into waging war (theoretically, to obtain oil), then this problem would not exist.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
If the USA would put as much effort (and resources) into perfecting alternative energy sources as they have into waging war (theoretically, to obtain oil), then this problem would not exist.

Bah I'm not blaming the US for this one. It isn't an omnipotent country. Far from it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
If the USA would put as much effort (and resources) into perfecting alternative energy sources as they have into waging war (theoretically, to obtain oil), then this problem would not exist.

Naturally, it's up to the US to solve the world's problems.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Naturally, it's up to the US to solve the world's problems.

Hasn't that been our MO for the last 60 years or so? Plus... it's not exactly as if we would just be solving the world's problem, but we would also be relieving ourselves from our dependancy on oil imports.

[chabig]

We'll really need that oil to heat things up. Scientists say it's going to be pretty cold in the future due to impending Global Cooling.

Chris

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Hasn't that been our MO for the last 60 years or so? Plus... it's not exactly as if we would just be solving the world's problem, but we would also be relieving ourselves from our dependancy on oil imports.

That's better.

As long as we don't share the solution with other countries - I'm happy to find an alternative to the US dependence on oil.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Naturally, it's up to the US to solve the world's problems.

Well, I'm not sure the US solved many problems with the Iraq invasion, but it certainly created a few.

one of the problems it created is that the cost of holding Iraq is far higher than anyone in the Bush administration thought, and while it seems that the cost was originally going to be paid off in oil, that is no longer the case as the insurgency and instability has severly crippled oil production.

The US is, however, the world's largest consumer of oil, by far, partly by industry and partly by consumers for heating and gasoline. In fact, IIRC, the USA alone consumes around one quarter of the world's oil.

I'm not sure what percentage of American cars still have such large engines compared to Japanese, Korean and European makes, but when I was there a couple of years ago most of the cars had engines with capacities of around between 3 to 4 litres. (Over 200 cubic inches). That is the reason American cars don't sell here, for example. No one can afford the gas for them.

I'm sure that if US cars would reduce their motor sizes on average that that curve of oil consumption could last longer. Perhaps I'm just dreaming though.

[RooneyX]

We can use Virgin Olive Oil. Then the US can attack Italy and take out the Mafia and steal the businesses of all self-employed coffee shop owners by replacing them with Fartbucks and MadCowDonalds!

[osiris]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Naturally, it's up to the US to solve the world's problems.

Well yes, naturally. Particularly when the US is the largest consumer of oil & oil related products.

So of course, rather than build vehicles with smaller engines, the trend is bigger: Large trucks with Hemis (Can you say Hemi?), the SUV craze increased consumption, plus the manufacture of said vehicles also consumes more oil in manufacturing. As if our beady eyed redneck oil friends in Texas want us to consume more oil. Nah, they're nice people...

But we won't run out of oil all at once, what will happen is the supply will shrink, and prices will rise to European/Asian levels. Food will cost more, construction will cost more, and the cost of living will skyrocket. When oil hits $3 this summer, then $4 next summer - maybe then people will be more concerned and stop saying "Hemi"

[Nicko]

Here is hoping that oil becomes more scarce and expensive. Crisis often brings innovation

~ and hey, fusion power is just 20 years away..... like it was 20 years ago.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Here is hoping that oil becomes more scarce and expensive. Crisis often brings innovation

~ and hey, fusion power is just 20 years away..... like it was 20 years ago.

fusion is far away but hydrogen is here.

I see fusion happening when we can make a reactor in orbit. I'm just not sure how to transport the energy back to earth. :/

[Nicko]

Originally posted by voodoo:
fusion is far away but hydrogen is here.

I see fusion happening when we can make a reactor in orbit. I'm just not sure how to transport the energy back to earth. :/

Bah! I'll just move to space when that happens!

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by osiris:
Well yes, naturally. Particularly when the US is the largest consumer of oil & oil related products.

So of course, rather than build vehicles with smaller engines, the trend is bigger: Large trucks with Hemis (Can you say Hemi?), the SUV craze increased consumption, plus the manufacture of said vehicles also consumes more oil in manufacturing. As if our beady eyed redneck oil friends in Texas want us to consume more oil. Nah, they're nice people...

But we won't run out of oil all at once, what will happen is the supply will shrink, and prices will rise to European/Asian levels. Food will cost more, construction will cost more, and the cost of living will skyrocket. When oil hits $3 this summer, then $4 next summer - maybe then people will be more concerned and stop saying "Hemi"

That's why privatizing all industry doesn't work. It's their profit that comes before society. Nationalisation and regulation of oil along with economic consumption is best.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Here is hoping that oil becomes more scarce and expensive. Crisis often brings innovation

~ and hey, fusion power is just 20 years away..... like it was 20 years ago.

Sadly, you're probably right. It usually takes a crisis to move things forward.

I always thought Natural Gas would be next. Isn't the US the Saudi Arabia of natural gas reserves?

[IonCable]

There are some, particularly Russians that believe they have proof that oil replenishes itself and made by geological activity, not by the remains of dinosaurs. There is a reference to it in the wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

NPR about a year ago discussed this same idea on Science Friday. Of course, neither the oil companies nor the environmentalist what this to be true. The Oil companies don't because if oil is a renewing resource it's value drops and the environmentalists because they can't use the arguement that we are running out it and need to stop depending on it.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Here is hoping that oil becomes more scarce and expensive. Crisis often brings innovation

Yes, necessity is the mother of invention as they say. Much as SUVs bother me, we're going to have to replace oil with an alternative energy source sooner or later either way.

[Developer]

Very few oil is remains of dinosaurs.

Also environmentalists are not against use of oil because it's a limited resource, environmentalists are against the use (burning) of oil because it releases bound CO2 into the atmosphere.

[Sherwin]

Hmmm...

The answer?

[chris v]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
If the USA would put as much effort (and resources) into perfecting alternative energy sources as they have into waging war (theoretically, to obtain oil), then this problem would not exist.

You know, I'm all for alternative, clean and sustainable energy sources (as much as the next enviro-wacko, tree-hugger, anyway) and I'd like to see a re-alignment of U.S. priorities (and the funding to match) but I've got to play the devil's advocate here.
What innovative, new energy technologies have come out of Europe, land of a thousand Nuke plants, lately? What about the Japanese? Mag-lev trains? Clean, sustainable energy isn't as easy a challenge as it might seem, even given strides in solar and hydrogen power. There's still the price barrier that has to be broken with solar, and the thing people seem to conveniently forget abut hydrogen, is that extracting the pure element comes at an expense as well. It takes a significant amount of energy to extract hydrogen, and guess what kind is most commonly used? Yup, petroleum.

We need to think about lowering demand as much as alternatives. There's copious, egregious waste of resources all around, and actually, there's more money to be made/saved in the short term in the business of conservation than there is to be made in alternative fuels.

CV

[osiris]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
That's why privatizing all industry doesn't work. It's their profit that comes before society. Nationalisation and regulation of oil along with economic consumption is best.

I agree. In my dream world, all utilities (gas, oil, communications) as well as essential food items, would be owned by a not-for-profit government entity and distributed by the same. Taxation is already in place, but if the oil industry's profits were to be halved and funds shifted for the creation of new energy sources, everyone would benefit. But that'll never happen.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Oil as a fuel is history. Hydrogen combined with solarpower is what will come.

Hydrogen comes from oil.

and example of oil; heptadecane = C17H19

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Hydrogen comes from oil.

and example of oil; heptadecane = C17H19

not the only source. H2O comes to mind as a plentiful source.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
not the only source. H2O comes to mind as a plentiful source.

Yeah. But, as chris v pointed out, it takes a lot of energy to extract.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Yeah. But, as chris v pointed out, it takes a lot of energy to extract.

yes, but I was responding to a post that appeared to be making the point it was available only in oil.

I would say that at present methods developed to extract hydrogen from water are not energy-effective, but that doesn't mean that will always be the case....

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I would say that at present methods developed to extract hydrogen from water are not energy-effective, but that doesn't mean that will always be the case....

Yup.
Do you know much money, how much research is being put into hydrogen extraction? I couldn't find any data on this...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Yup.
Do you know much money, how much research is being put into hydrogen extraction? I couldn't find any data on this...

sorry, not offhand. i'd guess its less than the amount of overcharging by Halliburton in any given year.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Yup.
Do you know much money, how much research is being put into hydrogen extraction? I couldn't find any data on this...

Last year Bush pledged $1.2 billion in research funds, which most agree is barely a tenth of what's needed to even begin tackling the problem. That doesn't include any private research grants that may have been pledged since then, however.

(Link goes to SotU address; relevant passage is around the 20th paragraph.)

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Last year Bush pledged $1.2 billion in research funds, which most agree is barely a tenth of what's needed to even begin tackling the problem. That doesn't include any private research grants that may have been pledged since then, however.

Yeah, but that mostly goes to the energy industry, researching extraction from fossil fuel...

[swrate]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Naturally, it's up to the US to solve the world's problems.

the opposite,
its the world that is up to solving US problems.



Europe never had the same problems as the US has to reaprovision on black gold, because of the relations and the geographical proximity, with the Eurasian bloc and with the Middle-East. Plus the various common war experiences, alliances, kingdoms, empires falling....

It is US who has the main problem.
No more gaz
How can US make sure enough petrol will be provided for the citizens the next two to three decades?
Insure....
Balance sheet....
?
Long term contracts with the Middle-East
Co's will sign under our (guess who's) conditions, and so on.


America, US is the most dependant nation in the world.
Look at the energy consumption maps, or the power maps.
Kerosene idem

Researches to find alternative ressources have long been tested all over the planet. Europe is working hard on finding substitutes for pooped polluting materials.

The US until now was not interested.


so the problem is the opposite:
It's up to the world to solve the US's problem or at least help US because how help such a super powerful nation, US WAKE UP, then a solution will be found.

But how respect limits, resolutions, conventions signed, if you know many don't follow the rules?
covered up
prescription immunity

babel for you

[swrate]

Originally posted by theolein:
Well, I'm not sure the US solved many problems with the Iraq invasion, but it certainly created a few.

one of the problems it created is that the cost of holding Iraq is far higher than anyone in the Bush administration thought, and while it seems that the cost was originally going to be paid off in oil, that is no longer the case as the insurgency and instability has severly crippled oil production.

The US is, however, the world's largest consumer of oil, by far, partly by industry and partly by consumers for heating and gasoline. In fact, IIRC, the USA alone consumes around one quarter of the world's oil.

I'm not sure what percentage of American cars still have such large engines compared to Japanese, Korean and European makes, but when I was there a couple of years ago most of the cars had engines with capacities of around between 3 to 4 litres. (Over 200 cubic inches). That is the reason American cars don't sell here, for example. No one can afford the gas for them.


I'm sure that if US cars would reduce their motor sizes on average that that curve of oil consumption could last longer. Perhaps I'm just dreaming though.

I should read the whole thread before replying, but my blood boiled to spliff's remark about US solving....
.
Same direction
Many other motors use kerosene
flights.
houses heat with it

They are maps on the net, i came across a few before.
It is also said that soon India and China will need much more Kerosene shortly, more people are buying cars, whereas in the US near to maximum quota applies, everyone or nearly has a car.
and a burning car too! 3 to 4 liters, when here average would be 2?

Does US have restriction and pollution check's on cars
ok now au pot d'échappement

[swrate]

...........

I'm sure that if US cars would reduce their motor sizes on average that that curve of oil consumption could last longer. Perhaps I'm just dreaming though. [/B]

yes it would be easy to use less.
dp

[adamk]

Originally posted by chabig:
We'll really need that oil to heat things up. Scientists say it's going to be pretty cold in the future due to impending Global Cooling.

Chris

april 28, 1975?


for lerk, my first thought about using water ito get hydrogen is using a limitless energy source no one has mentioned here yet - solar. and while looking for the SciAm article, i found this - Plants May Point Way to Clean Hydrogen Fuel.

The current method of splitting water into its component parts, electrolysis, is much more costly than both natural gas and gasoline and is therefore not a feasible route to hydrogen fuel. The new work could help lower such barriers. "Manufacturing hydrogen from water using the photosynthetic methods would be far more efficient than using electrolysis," Barber says, "and if we can learn how to use even a fraction of the 326 million cubic miles of water on the planet we can begin to address the world’s pressing need for new and environmentally friendly energy sources."

also of interest from the same source. - The End of Oil

...
It's tempting to dismiss Deffeyes as just another of the doomsayers who have been predicting, almost since oil was discovered, that we are running out of it. But Deffeyes makes a persuasive case that this time it's for real. This is an oilman and geologist's assessment of the future, grounded in cold mathematics. And it's frightening. Deffeyes's prediction is based on the work of M. King Hubbert, a Shell geologist who in 1956 predicted that U.S. oil production would peak in the early 1970s and then begin to decline. Hubbert was dismissed by many experts inside and outside the oil industry. Pro-Hubbert and anti-Hubbert factions arose and persisted until 1970, when U.S. oil production peaked and started its long decline
...
In a delightfully readable and informative primer on oil exploration and drilling, Deffeyes addresses each point. First, the discovery of new oil reserves is unlikely--petroleum geologists have been nearly everywhere, and no substantial finds have been made since the 1970s. Second, billions have already been poured into drilling technology, and it's not going to get much better. And last, even very high oil prices won't spur enough new production to delay the inevitable peak.

"This much is certain," he writes. "No initiative put in place starting today can have a substantial effect on the peak production year. No Caspian Sea exploration, no drilling in the South China Sea, no SUV replacements, no renewable energy projects can be brought on at a sufficient rate to avoid a bidding war for the remaining oil."

i had a chance to talk with some regional managers at schlumberger, an OFS (oil-field services) who is halliburton's biggest competition. he said that this oil pinch was something the company was already preparing for, so i would say it's safe to say, oil is on it's way out.

IMO biofuels and waste (e.g. diesel engines and mcdonald's fry grease) are probably the most easily implementable solution to our transportation needs. diesel's are not as popular for cars these days, but the infrastructure is in place. commercial trucks and trains all run on diesel and it takes little/no modification to convert diesel engines to biofuels.

ioncable - couldn't find the article you mentioned. got a link?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by osiris:
I agree. In my dream world, all utilities (gas, oil, communications) as well as essential food items, would be owned by a not-for-profit government entity and distributed by the same. Taxation is already in place, but if the oil industry's profits were to be halved and funds shifted for the creation of new energy sources, everyone would benefit. But that'll never happen.

Well said, comrade

[voodoo]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Hydrogen comes from oil.

and example of oil; heptadecane = C17H19

lol as Lerkfish points out an abundant source of H is H2O

And when you burn H you get H2O.

The Sun is the real power while H is just a medium that never ends. Clean, powerful, transportable, renewable energy. The trick is to harness it.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by voodoo:
lol as Lerkfish points out an abundant source of H is H2O

And when you burn H you get H2O.

The Sun is the real power while H is just a medium that never ends. Clean, powerful, transportable, renewable energy. The trick is to harness it.

I wish crystal meth could drive cars. We'd never need to pull over again.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by adamk:
IMO biofuels and waste (e.g. diesel engines and mcdonald's fry grease) are probably the most easily implementable solution to our transportation needs. diesel's are not as popular for cars these days, but the infrastructure is in place. commercial trucks and trains all run on diesel and it takes little/no modification to convert diesel engines to biofuels.

Yes. But don't forget that you also need to produce those machines + replacement parts; that entails steel production, transportation, etc. (and in turn, all that is needed for that production, etc.) - it will require much more energy that we could possibly harness from biofuels.

Thank you for the links, both very interesting articles.

[ambush]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Oil as a fuel is history. Hydrogen combined with solarpower is what will come.

Except you need a lot of energy to separate h20 in dihydrogen

more than what it gives you.


and solar is NOT convenient

[Sven G]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Oil as a fuel is history. Hydrogen combined with solarpower is what will come.

... Of course, if there will be the possibility to do so - i.e., to assertively bypass the irrational profit-and-fùck-everything-else "motivations" in the current primitive oil-based "economy".

Solar energy is, of course, the best option - if it can be effectively implemented on a global scale...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ambush:
Except you need a lot of energy to separate h20 in dihydrogen

more than what it gives you.


and solar is NOT convenient

had a chemistry professor who offhandedly proposed a hydrogen-powered vehicle in class one day: the basic mechanism is that you start with a full hydrogen tank. Additionally, you have a water tank. As you drive, rotors connected to the axles generate electric current which hydrolizes the H20 and separates out the hydrogen. the more you drive, the more you process the fuel you need to drive.
It was a concept utilizing the work derived from burning the fuel to produce more fuel.
I have no idea if it is even remotely feasible, but it was an intriguing idea.

[Developer]

Yes, the concept is called "Perpetuum Mobile" and people have been trying to build such things for thousands of years.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Developer:
Yes, the concept is called "Perpetuum Mobile" and people have been trying to build such things for thousands of years.

well, no he wasn't describing a closed self-sufficient system. I probably didn't explain that well enough. You would still need to prime the pump periodically because the process would still produce less than it used, but at least it would reduce the overall energy consumption required for the priming fills.

[adamk]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Yes. But don't forget that you also need to produce those machines + replacement parts; that entails steel production, transportation, etc. (and in turn, all that is needed for that production, etc.) - it will require much more energy that we could possibly harness from biofuels.

Thank you for the links, both very interesting articles.

not sure if you got my point. without modification, diesel engines can burn vegetable oil in place of diesel fuel. there is no need for new production or modification of previous engines. to use an apple motto "it just works".

here is a link (sorry couldn't find a better one)

run a diesel car on vegetable oil

Returning home, he looked round for alternative fuels, and tried a bit of central heating oil, which worked, he says, reasonably well. Then, remembering his schoolboy mechanics, he popped some cooking oil into his Volvo. "It mixed with the little bit of diesel I had left in the tank," says Nicholson. "Not only did it work, the vehicle actually behaved better. I never heard my car sound so good, there was a fantastic noise, not a clickety-click, more of a grunt. And then, of course, there was the smell." He used vegetable oil to tide him over until the blockade ended. But so happy was he with the performance it gave, that he decided to use it full time, and set up a website to exchange information on biopower.

He discovered that they have been doing this sort of thing in Germany for years - not simply because it is cheaper, but because of the environmentally beneficial effects of using sustainable fuels made from rape and sunflower seeds rather than fossil fuels. Over there it is a sizeable industry, supported by tax breaks; it is no coincidence that Mercedes and Volkswagen engines are the most cooking-oil tolerant on the market. Indeed Mercedes motors are so accommodating that they will, apparently, run on lard.

some of my friends are looking to buy old diesels just for this purpose...

[adamk]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Solar energy is, of course, the best option - if it can be effectively implemented on a global scale...

in texas, there are houses that are connected to the grid and actually generate money for he homeowner because the few PV cells they have generate enough to run the house with energy to spare. the electricity meter actually runs backwards!

aside from the startup costs, it is an option, implemented locally (ie yours and your neighbor's house) has advantages globally (less emissions from burning non-renewable fossil fuels). even if you don't agree with CO2 creating higher global temperatures, having less of the stuff in the first place (along with all the other chemicals) must be a good thing.

as far as using solar power to get hydrogen from water, yes it would be a very intensive process, but hopefully research in the article i posted earlier will lead to something beneficial and feasible.

but placing all our eggs in the hydrogen basket requires the inutility of biofuels, which is an inaccurate assessment.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by adamk:
not sure if you got my point. without modification, diesel engines can burn vegetable oil in place of diesel fuel. there is no need for new production or modification of previous engines.

I got your point. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough: the imminent end of cheap oil is no doomsday scenario - by recycling old diesel motors and using a bio-fuel mix we (as human beings) will be able to alleviate the most serious problems.

That doesn't change the fact that producing new machines, spare parts, transporting them, etc. will be a serious challenge. There is no way we will be able to sustain current levels of industrial output consumerism, etc. by replacing oil with bio-fuel.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Profit will be our doom.

Until we start thinking towards the well-being of others, we won't make it.

Oil is an excellent comodity but without rational usage, it will make some people very rich and their descendant very poor.

Looking for alternative fuels is, of course, an excellent course of action. But looking for one does not mean we will get in time. I want to believe we'll all be alright, in the end.

But I think we should take the easy way to ensure success. We need to stop thinking about our personal needs and think a bit more collectively.

My 2 cents.