Shale oil produces a lot of wastewater...considering one of our more pressing needs is likely to be clean water and healthy fishstocks theirein...I'm a fan of shale oil. I'm more keen solar or wind power to precipitate hydrogen to fuel the private vehicles we really need...but yes, we need condensed cities in which walking and bicycling are reasonable ways to get around, too, or maybe mopeds... I read somewhere that a motorcycle actually beats out a hybrid car as far as total carbon impact over the vehicle's life cycle-because of the freaking batteries-but I remember reading about a lead-acid "supercell" developed in Australia, so that may change. (And my Mom is still not happy about me planning a motorcycle purchase, even if it is full of planetary win) Oh and if we're serious about ethanol as a fuel? shouldn't we be using sugarcane? am I correct in thinking sugarcane's a more intensive producer of sugar per acre than corn? Not that I think ethanol's a good idea, really.... But I have to wonder about direct solar distillation of ethanol. If you can make a solar furnace, why not solar distilleries? As far as heating our houses...have any of y'all heard about what's called earthbag construction? It involves bagging up dirt in polyethylene sandbags, wrapping barbed wire around it, making a wall, and then plastering the same with waterproof cement. I kind of see this technique as a "poor man's retrofit," that could, in theory, be done on a lot of existing housing stock, to add passive thermal mass to it hella cheaply. If you want to get even cheaper, you fill that bag with 50% earth, 50% capped, unsunrotted soda bottles. (Although, of course, neither does a load-bearing wall make) I also want to make my someday-house out of earthbag construction, because I doubt my personal energy level's up to the rammed-earth and tires thing. (Probably have either a steel or steel-concrete frame underneath that)
I agree with Skeptical that the impact of peak oil and population growth is over-stated. As indicated on the map below, most population growth is taking place in poor, undeveloped countries. Population growth in the developed world is generally under much better control. Probably due to the fact that we are better educated, wealthier and have access to better healthcare. / Sorry, wasn't able to post the map because I'm new on the forum. It's available in the CIA World Factbook if anyone wanted to see it. The key to curbing population growth in the poorer countries is increased health, education and prosperity for the people there, which I think is slowly happening in a lot of places. China, for example, is becoming more prosperous with each and every day and they do not seem to have the same problems with rapid population growth that they once had. Although, admittedly, this may be due in part to their implementation of the one-child policy. As we approach and pass the point of peak-oil, the price of oil will rise as a result of the laws of supply and demand. A higher price for oil encourages increases in efficiency and the ever looming prospect of the world running out of oil pressures businesses, organisations and individuals to increase their efforts in finding alternatives. Take, for example, car manufacturers. They know that higher oil prices and the fact that oil will eventually run out are real possibilities and pose a significant risk to their business interests. As such, they are putting considerable resources into developing alternatives, such as electric cars. Of course, there are still considerable hurdles to overcome with electric cars, but progress is certainly being made. On fossil fuels generally, certainly in England, more and more projects for clean energy production seem to be springing up. You only need to look around you where I live to see that more wind turbine, solar panel generation etc is taking place. As such, our electricity network is becoming less centralised. The prospect of future smart-grids which could potentially link our network to the rest of Europes and deliver significant increases in our efficiency are real possibilities. Of course, we cannot expect solar and wind to provide all of our energy generation requirements. But, although there are environmental issues relating to the waste disposal, we always have the Nuclear Fission option to fall back on until Nuclear Fusion technology is viable. All in all, although I admit there are obviously significant hurdles to clear, generally speaking I see peak-oil as an opportunity for the world to wind its neck in (the western world mainly), clean its act up and improve its efficiency. Just imagine how much cleaner the air is going to be once we have moved on from burning fossil fuels and found cleaner more efficient methods of energy production.
We'll use and cling to oil until it becomes scarce. We'll fight unprecedented wars over access to it and ownership of it. During these wars will be the time when incredible breakthroughs in energy technologies will be made, as there won't be enough oil to kill each other fast enough to suit us and the new technology will provide a strategic advantage. That's pretty much how it will go down. We aren't even close to anything that will replace oil and keep the earth, and civilization as we know it, up and running. We haven't even formed a theory, no matter how far fetched, to replace oil in the modern world.
Actually, there is a process for manufacturing crude oil from waste. There is/was a plant in Carthage, Missouri that was accepting 270ton of waste from a ConAgra butterball turkey plant and producing 400 barrels of light sweet crude per day from it.
Manufacturing oil from waste is a parasitic process in that the amount of waste we generate is dependent on a thriving economy based on oil in which we throw a lot of things away.
Here in the DC area there's a cult who pick up the used fry oil from McDonalds, run it through a surprisingly crude filter, and burn it in their diesel cars. People tell them (and I'm not making this up) that when they drive by the air smells like french fries.
Ummm, no, because it can be applied to any kind of waste, from unrecyclable plastics to sewage sludge.
Neither of these are any kind of scalable energy solution. If everyone tried to run their cars on french fry oil, we would run out almost immediately. The only reason it works is because relatively few people do this. The only reason we generate vast amount of anything, including sewage and plastic, is because of the energy inputs we receive from oil. Plastic is oil.
Untrue, the Carthage plant is generally accepted to have exceeded breakeven - IE the energy contained in each barrel of oil produced is/was more than the energy required to manufacture that barrel of crude (and it was being sold at 10% under market value at the time), and there is no reason the process can't be scaled up further as long as a sufficiently large waste stream is available. My recollection of the process is that it's no more unscalable than say, manufacturing fertilizer.
That's what I mean. The waste stream when the oil runs out will diminish. It's like trying to live by breathing your own exhalations, it's only going to work for a short time.
The various kinds of biomass each have their own limitations. The scandal surrounding ethanol from corn is well known, and the effects that has on food prices. However, if we combine fuel from waste, from used cooking oil, from oil crops like rape, from cellulose, from algae, and others, we may get to the point where, together, they make a major and vital contribution to total transport energy. Add to that battery driven cars, synthetic fuel, and possibly (well in the future) hydrogen gas, and we will cover all our bases. Not overnight though.
There are huge stockpiles though, the North Pacific Gyre, for example, then becomes a minable resource, and I'm aware of plans to go back through landfills and mine them for useable metals. And besides. I never claimed it was a permanent fix, now did I?
It's not really a huge stockpile in the Pacific Gyre, all that stuff is widely scattered. You would burn more oil going around and collecting it than you could receive from the plastic.
You're already doing that. The biggest problem I see here, is a basic lack of understanding of oils. That is no mistake; it is plural. Accordingly, there is no such thing as "peak oil" rather it is "peak oils." Oils are graded based on their specific gravity: very light, light, intermediate, heavy, very heavy and what is essentially tar (bitumen). Oils are also classifieds as "sour" (high sulfur content) or "sweet" (low sulfur content). From that, we can infer that the cracking stills at oil refineries are tailored to handle a certain specific grade of oil (based on the specific gravity) and that the products refined from the various grades of oil will vary in quantity, from non-existent to plentiful. We can even infer that the catalysts used in sweet oils is not the same as the catalysts used in sour oils. The products we get from a certain oil determine its overall usefulness. For example, an heavy oil is good for tar, asphalt, petroleum jellies and solvents, two different types of diesel, and naphtha and paraffin for things like kerosene and aviation fuel. Unfortunately, from heavy oils we only get 6 gallons of gasoline from a 42 gallon barrel. Using better catalysts and cracking still designs, plus more efficient processes, we can squeeze another 3 gallons out of a barrel of heavy oil for a total of 9 gallons of gasoline. Contrast that with a light oil, like Bonny Light (Nigeria) or Arabian Light (Saudi Arabia) or Tijuana Light (Venezuela) from which we get 22 gallons of gasoline from a 42 gallon barrel. In fact, we get just a fraction over 44 gallons of products from a 42 gallon barrel of light oils. So should the import of light oils from foreign countries be cut off for any reason, you can all see where that would lead to total chaos as gasoline prices surge because of decreased supply. The other 22 gallons of products that come from imported light oils includes numerous feed stocks and other products, especially organic alcohols. An example of an organic alcohol is Neodol-25, Neodol-65 and Neodol-67 (those with a chemistry background know the number indicates the number of alcohol chains). Here's where a problem arises. All of the pharmaceutical drugs on the market since 1994 are made with oil-based organic alcohols made from light oils and only light oils. Without it, the alcohols cannot be produced, and the pharmaceuticals cannot be made. Those would be drugs like Plavix, Lipitor, Pravachol, Zocor et al that are used to treat angina, high blood pressure or high cholesterol. Without those drugs, the life-span of many people will be shortened (some almost immediately). That means a lot of people will die. So the real question isn't how much oil is available, it is how much of which types of oil are available and when will they peak or become expended. The heavy oils make the world go round, but it is the light oils, and to a lesser extent the intermediate grade oils that give the Western World, especially the US its standard of living.
As I said. For example. A crucial clause in my original statement which leaving out changes the meaning. Besides which, Ocean currents exist in gyre, and as I recall, the levels of plastics there are high enough to make extraction potentially viable. As byproducts you also get fresh water, and mineral salts.
All these things will be tried, but when oil gets around 5-10 a gallon, all hell is going to break lose. It will affect even your ability to get to your start-up to design a new fuel extractor. Technology is all well and good, but it's not energy. No combination of things will be able to meet our energy needs in the near future. The only question is how to manage our contraction, and we won't even have that discussion as long as people are deluded about how we can run Disneyland and the interstate highway system on algae or corn alcohol.
Sadly, I commute too far for one of those, and too fast. Have to be able to hit 75 mph for safety. We have a critical mass of Monterreanos who've moved up here...the driving style in my town is now Monterrey lite. My wife had a bad thought: we have lots of coal, and she thinks it highly likely we'd use it...and I could see it. Since carbon capture costs a lot more to build and requires a third more coal to make the same amount of electricity...I bet they'd be carbon-dumper plants too. Not a happy thought, but we're hardcore fossil fuel addicts. I know...I'm afraid it might not be a managed contraction because we've got our collective heads too far up our collective rumps about it. Meaning crisis, collapse, lots of dead people. I'll be one of them because I take medicine for asthma. I can grow some herbal alternatives that kinda-sorta work, although they're harder on my heart and not nearly as effective as the pharmaceuticals...but if I can't get real meds, my long term survival is unlikely. Main reason why I didn't reproduce-didn't want to hand that off to some poor kid. I mean...the one thing we ought to be doing ASAP while we still can is laying as much conventional (not high-speed) rail as we possibly can afford to do. Rail is way more fuel-efficient than any other mode of transport, but most people think of it as outmoded. Apropos of nothing...train engines have been "hybrids" for years now. The engines run at a relatively narrow RPM range, thus getting the longest lifespan out of the motor. The batteries are kept at 80% or above charge, thus making the batts last the longest they can. The linkage is electric, no mechanical drivetrain. Why hybrid cars aren't made like this-even with a tiny diesel engine for better fuel efficiency-I can't imagine. That would be the best use of existing tech IMO. Instead we get hybrid Suburbans. Makes me fantasize about taking a dead car and making my own damn hybrid with an outboard air-cooled motorcycle engine and a bunch of truck batteries under the hood.
Question: Mircea- Why do they( or can they ) not use plant-based alcohols in these drugs? Could you explain why substitution isn't possible/likely? In pharmaceuticals...it just seems like the amount needed is small, and the amount the customer's willing to pay is big...so people will be motivated to find working substitutes. If we get a lot poorer as a country I have to wonder if they'll finally end farm subsidies. In which case our diet-based cholesterol problems and heart disease cases will be significantly reduced.
