New German 4 seater gets 157 MPG

I don't cook, I just go to that Irish restaurant at the
corner.........McDonalds.

 

Ok, thanks. I'm a beer guy myself and plea ignorance when it comes to
wine.

 

I don't know what group you are posting from, I'm posting from sci.enegy
where the subject has been beat to death. First, peak oil is a liquid
fuel challenge, the grid doesn't presently address it. I've shown you
the numbers on ethanol, if you think it is anything but an ADM handout
you are just believing in the hype. Here is how belief works. I can
believe I can fly but that belief won't keep me from dying if I leap
from a tall building. Hydrogen is a joke. First, you need a source of
energy and that comes from methane reformation. We have already peaked
in natgas production in North America. And that is just for starters.
The saying is, 'Hydrogen will always be a fuel of the future.'

The first cheapest alternative source is GTL (gas to liquids) and that
has started in the Middle East. But so far we are talking around
200,000bl/d, a drop in the bucket. Demand/production disparity could
grow to 2-3mb/d/year by the end of the decade. China and India's demand
is growing briskly.

Could we fix this? Yea, with reasonable lead time. Get yourself a copy
of the Hirsch report. Just one million barrels a day is a huge number.
Almost seven times the _gross_ output of Brazil's ethanol. 14 times if
the EROEI is 2, (which I doubt). The only reason Brazil is energy
independent is because they produce over 2mb/d of oil.

Could the world get along with 2-3 mb/d/year less oil? Not in the
present paradigm. The system by which money works will be crippled. What
do you think the joke about helicopter Bernanke is all about? After WWII
Europe had to accept the dollar standard or suffer gold outflows. But by
the seventies we were a debtor nation and Nixon closed the gold window.
Asia soon became stuck with our securities as a required reserve to
survive. By 97, the Asian financial crisis hit. It was carry trade that
fueled the bubbles in the likes of Thailand. Countries that acquired
debt instead of exporting and accumulating U.S. securities suffered the
worst. And we are doing it again. But since LTC the derivatives market
has grown much larger. Japan is now taking the punch bowl away and we
are pushing on $300 trillion in contracts. But something is very
different this time. 97 pushed oil and other commodities into the
ground. There was excess capacity. This time around there is no excess
capacity and the CRB continues its clime even while markets are breaking
down. Is it just driven by speculation? You will find plenty of folks
that think it the case. So which will it be? Does the world move into
severe recession and quell the demand for commodities? Maybe so as feds
around the world look like they are ready to push pretty hard. Or does
new liquidity get injected into the system to keep China's banking
system afloat. It may put of contraction but means commodities remain
scarce as demand continues to grow. So you get serious inflation and it
can't be cut off because of the risk of deflation. Because of the
quality of U.S. and China's debt, deflation would bring the world down.

The situation is unprecedented. We don't have a next cheaper liquid fuel
to exploit and keep growth on the road. We don't have a monitory system
that can survive without growth. We seem to be heading for a cliff and
the guy behind the wheel is pushing on the accelerator.


--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

 

I'm mainly a beer guy myself but do enjoy a decent wine too.

What's your favourite beer btw ?

Graham

 

What are they doing then?

No, we have not. It is not a 'scare'. It is what the numbers say.

Why would you think that? They are going to spend $60billion/mb/d to
keep the price of oil 'down'? Business doesn't work like that.

Where do you get this stuff? I want to read the article that shows
'they' are in this mindset.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

 

First off, I'm posting from alt.politics.correct. so you know where I'm
coming from; we just started this discussion last week. I don't know
much about hydrogen, but from what I gather, hydrogen will do nothing
more but produce electricity which would be the primary fuel for
automobiles. From what I can see, Hydrogen cars are nothing but a fancy
electric car which won't go well in the market. So I agree with you on
this one.

But Hydrogen Technologies produced a engine that burns on water. After
the report on our local news channel, they got over 30,000 e-mails. But
if they were able to economically produce such a engine, the water vapor
would be a new problem with Global gas.

BINGO! Oil production is their solution along with all that fine sugar.

That remains to be seen. I just read a pretty good book on the subject
written by John Roberts. He has been retired since the age of 29 due to
his marketing techniques. He predicts some of the same things you are.
But in his book, he also states that scarcity produces action which (in
the end) stabilizes the market, and in some cases, reverses the market,
so I don't know if things are going to be as serious as you might think.

One thing is a little scary though, in his book written a couple years
ago, he predicted precious metals rising to new highs due to the lack of
interest in mining. Sure as hell, the metals market rose to nosebleed
levels. And he is saying the same about fuel. But here in Ohio, we are
known as the Saudi Arabia of coal, and new technologies have brought us
ways to burn this coal without the negative environmental impacts we
once had. A solution? No. But somewhat promising.

 

I drink the cheap stuff; MGD. The doc told me to lose weight so I'm
trying Miller Light. Ugh. But I guess it's better than no beer at all.
A friend recommended that I go to the stronger stuff with less
carbohydrates. I really don't care for the strong stuff. I don't know
how I would react to it today, but when I was younger, it made me
violent. Not a good combination when you're 6'4" at 230 lbs. The one
great thing about beer is, you can get a buzz and be too bloated to
think of anything but sleep by the end of the night. ; {

 

Not familiar with that one, being British and all....

Ah yes. No taste. They promote it heavily over here btw.

Your friend may be right about avoiding the unwanted carbs.

The issue about making you aggressive is a curious one. It seems that various
different drinks have different effects. When I used to drink Scotch whisky I
was aware it could make me agumentative. Yet Irish whisky ( or Canadian )
doesn't ! I've had no trouble with rum either or vodka seemingly.

One of my favourite beers ( a continental one ) called Stella Artois is called
'wife beater' by some bar staff I know for its alleged effect, yet it's never
troubled me.

I get no trouble with Holsten Pils either. In fact most drinks seem to make me
talkative and harmlessly friendly followed by sleepy - lol !

Now - about those CFLs - I lost the thread now but I must suggest you try them
again.

Graham

 

That happened during the Nixon Administration. People thought the world
was coming to an end.

If they really felt that there would be no source of new oil, you can
bet they would be on to the next thing. They may not present it to us
until the time comes, but they would be on to it.

When "they" addressed the Congress not long ago. The theme of their
presentation is that we need to continue oil exploration along with
improving the refinery process. We need to supply this nation (and the
world) with new sources. I didn't listen to the whole thing, but I
don't recall any concern about lack of sources.

 

It is all the precursor that you must consider. You have to produce the
hydrogen, (the biggie). You have to transport the hydrogen. You have
store the hydrogen, on board and off board. You have to have a
completely new consumer infrastructure. All are very big challenges
without practical solutions. Add it up and hydrogen can't be made to
replace oil.

You can't burn water. It is an ash. Get yourself a science book and
learn a little about thermodynamics.

Oil is a finite resource. They are probably producing < .1 mb/d
equivalent ethanol. It is having no effect. Why are you having such a
hard time getting this?

Well, then he is wrong. There has never been a scarcity without a
subsequent cheaper replacement until now. But perhaps he provides an
example.

But it not about markets. It is about economies and money. Reread my post.

And again, it is not that we can't stop gap the shortage in liquid fuels
using coal. But it is anything but quickly implemented or cheap. Do try
to understand how immense 3mb/d/year is. To replace that with coal
liquefaction would require some $200 billion/year, in today's dollars.
And we don't even have the infrastructure to build the infrastructure.
Read the Hirsch report.

But it would only be a stop gap for a couple of generations. Until coal
peaks. Then we really do have a problem if you don't think it now.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

 

Ah yes, you people drink the good stuff. Over here, all domestic beer
is regulated to contain minimal alcohol. But I kind of like it that
way, I drink more beers before I get a buzz.

Really? I wouldn't think it would go over big over there.

Lol. The good beer here costs a pretty good penny. You can go broke
buying this beer if you are a beer lover like myself. I live in the
State of Ohio--one of the highest taxed States in the Union, and much of
that tax comes from booze and cigarettes. But I remember a beer I loved
years ago called DAB. I believe it was a German beer, and a six-pack
would be all you needed. I looked for it a couple years ago and had no
luck finding it. So I guess it's the ole MGD (Miller Genuine Draft) for
me. But I'm on vacation next week and perhaps I'll give Holsten a try
if I can find it here.

 

I didn't. I don't know anyone else that did. How old were you?

Ok, so you are saying that because oil companies are not pursuing
alternatives, peak oil isn't happening. So, why are 'they' building GTL
plants? They are because it is the next cheapest resource. They are
because they can't find enough places to stick a straw in the ground and
bring new production on line. What happens when Ghawar dies? Will you
jump off a building because you want to 'believe'?

Discoveries are 10% of production now. Refineries are efficient because
that is the way business works. Get your blinders off and start taking
an objective look at this. Jumping from buildings is not healthy.

What new sources? Don't you see that rhetoric doesn't pull a rabbit out
of a hat? You don't know where this new production will come from but
instead of looking for yourself, you will 'believe' what 'they' tell you.

What new sources!?!

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

 

I think you're correct there--at least from what I am getting out of it.

Lol, perhaps when I get some time when the weather gets crappy.

Because I think that if we setup ourselves in the same way, it would
lower the price of oil. Another thing I don't understand is, if all
these alternatives are so negative, why in the world are we investing so
much time and money into them? I can understand Federal money--most of
that is wasted, but the private sector is heavily investing in ethanol.
Now if they thought it would be a fly-by-night thing, they wouldn't work
so hard to bring it to market. 90 some plants in operation in the US and
33 more being built. In the last year or so, they entered the Commodity
market. Forgive my technical ignorance, but something doesn't add up
here.



After all, the Federal Government is spending money on this Hydrogen.

Last I read, we have enough coal in this country to provide us with
energy for more than a century; that's every single home across the
country. It has the possibility to replace the liquid natural gas we are
using today.

 

At the time I was a child, but my family always talked politics. I
remember the hysteria going on during those years.

To be honest, I don't know that they are the people building these
plants.

Alaska is one place; Congress had to fight like hell for that one and I
still don't know if that will take place. Just recently, Florida and
California rejected a proposal for offshore drilling there. Here in
Ohio, the debate continues about running a pipeline from Canada under
Lake Erie--where oil there was once considered untouchable. Today, they
have the ability to draw oil from there. Hell, just a couple years ago,
Utah came up with a large oil reserve. Utah? But that will remain
virgin as well with all the politics involved.

 

hydrogen - requires energy to make.
solar, when I was at university they were on the sylabus - they take
more energy to produce than they produce int heir lifetime.
electric - generated how?
ethanol - heavy dependance on corn

so, 2 of your suggestions aren't alternative fuels, just different
types of battery, and, along with the 3rd require energy to be
produced still for them

nuclear is the way to go.

 

Good morning Ray,
We have been through this before. The 'doing so much', and 'spending so
much' is media hype without numbers. Ethanol is heavily subsidized, a
farming handout. In real terms it adds up to squat. The consensus is an
EROEI of 1.3 for corn ethanol. Last year we produced 4 billion gallons
_gross_.

We demanded 25 quad for transportation in 2002

http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php

4E7 * 77E3 is .3 quad _gross_ production. .1 quad net.

You should ask why the lie as the physics doesn't add up. Start with,
'Where will the energy for this hydrogen come from?'

Do your own math. I can find you articles that depict any truth I'd
like. But if the article is not back by numbers, it is worthless.

Proved reserves, and that is all of it, 1 trillion tons. In fifty years
demand for liquids will be roughly 150 mb/d and production will likely
be 40 mb/d. Production of liquids from coal equivalent, 1 trillion
barrels to fill this gap.

Call it 18E6 btu/ton for the aggregates of coal. 5.8E6 btu/bl of oil.
One third of proved reserves for the oil, you are at half with
electrical and methane production. The half way point is the general
peak of a resource.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

 

And it was duck and cover when I was a kid. But those that crunched
numbers knew we were many decades away from peak oil. And that is the
point.

Natural gas capacity is still in excess except in North America. If we
had seen a cold winter there would have been rolling blackouts.

ANWAR may have 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil. 120 days worth at
present world production. We may see production at something over 1 mb/d
in a decade. Today we demand 21mb/d.

Same thing applies.

What do the numbers look like?

Not that I ever read about and I've been getting the oil and gas journal
for a while.

You really have to start putting some numbers in your head instead of
believing. 85mb/d. Over the next three years new project may offset
declines in older fields. But there really isn't much planned after 2010
because there just have not been the discoveries to exploit. After 2010
world demand will easily be at 90mb/d unless things go bad with economies.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

 

Just the minor problem of waste disposal. It does biodegrade, just takes a
thousand years...:-(

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

 

1) "Light" beer does not help you reduce weight. Less beer does,
however.

2) Stella Artois is quite pleasant Belgian plonk which has good
image-advertising in Britain which says it (i.e. Stella) is "reassuringly
expensive". This means it is reassuring for Inbev shareholders. It's the
cheap 'daily drinker', together with Maes.
http://www.inbev.com/

3) DAB = Dortmunder Actien-Brauerei, a major brewery. From Dortmund
(yes, Germany).

There are so many good micro-breweries in North America now or good smaller
brands like Yuengling and Sam Adams - why do you drink Miller-fizz?

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

 

1) please don't top-post, its very annoying
2) there are other methods of disposal, ecept the last major
initiative lost all its govt. investigative funding in 2002 - the
project was called, IIRC, the proton transmutation project.

Basicaly, its a protonic particle accelerator. fires protons at the
waste to effect a form of fusion, and make lements either safe, or
into another fuel form.

Oh, and don't forget nuclear reprocessing, where the US is, I believe,
the only country that specifically prohibits the process by law
(either on its own soil, or contracting out to somewere like
sellafield)