Future of engines with oil shortages?

[b2tf]

Originally Posted by EF_Dave

the problem with using electric cars is that where does this electricity come from? mostly coal and oil in australia, oil power stations will be out of the picture, then soon enough we will rid the earths supply of coal as the electricity output will be huge, by trying to power all of the transport vehicles, then where will we be? electric cars is definately not the answer.

I think you're missing something though - combustion power stations arent the only type available. Hydroelectricity and solar energy are proven ways of generating power in the right circumstances. I would have no problem with the outback of Australia being covered in solar energy gathering cells if it makes a difference.

[donno]

Originally Posted by kypez

On the contary, I think they will be the go. Say we use hydrogen to produce a constant combustion level (not going up or down depending on acceleration) we could subsitute the petrol engine that does this in our current hybrids. And since this is a more stable environment, it would be easier to control the conbustion make it safer to use hydrogen.

By electrical, it doesnt mean we plug it into a power point. As dynamo's become more efficent, they made be used to generate power within the wheels. So many possibilities.

And finally, what to say we need to continue to use coal or oil based power production, atomic fuel can be used though I dont know how much of that is available and cant remember if its only the U 235 isotope that can be used for power generation as well, I do remember is the only one used in weapons.

Uranium is used in fission reactors, and old skool fission bombs. Uranium is enriched in nuclear reactors into plutonium (238 i think) to use in modern nuclear bombs, which destructive powers is driven by a fusion reaction (same as the sun). Fusion reactors are in development, but are atleast 20 years away, 10 before a break even point. Just a little trivia on our radioactive friends.

The problem with fission reactors is the waste (that and the obvious horror stories, its actually an uncontrolled reaction. It takes 100s of years to decay. Fusion on the other hand takes mearly a decade, while producing much more energy.

That asside, hydrogen is currently produced via electrolisis (zap water to split the two hydrogen molecules). Electrolisis needs electricity. Electricity is made by fossil fuels. See a pattern?

[kypez]

Originally Posted by donno

Uranium is used in fission reactors, and old skool fission bombs. Uranium is enriched in nuclear reactors into plutonium (238 i think)

*snip
That asside, hydrogen is currently produced via electrolisis (zap water to split the two hydrogen molecules). Electrolisis needs electricity. Electricity is made by fossil fuels. See a pattern?

238 is another Uranium isotope that doesnt decay right for fission or fusion. EDIT: Plutonium cant have the same weight. (stupid me)

Yeah, but the idea to replace a motor with a hydrogen one seems more realistic and in our life times. All they need is a source to start the electrlysis process and then it will be self sustaining producing oxygen to support the combustion of the hydrogen. Maybe even a battery that is used to start the car, bit like waiting for the oil to heat in an old diesel engine.

Merlin is quite correct, although the amount of reserves are given pessimistically as 20 years and optimistically as 50 years.

Don't forget, as oil requirements begin to outstrip supply bidding wars will erupt and the richer countries will have the lion's share of what remains.

Australia once produced 70% of oil used however this figure is now vague.

We have ample reserves of coal BUT if you use these coal reserves to also replace oil then you use them much faster. (think about the need of sunscreen with a pf factor of 100)

Regards Prof. Rabbit

Originally Posted by merlin

I have somewhat something to do with the industry - I attended a 5 day seminar last week - among other things one of the presentations was about oil reserves.

The speaker stated that oil reserves had peaked long ago and no new significant finds have been found since. Meanwhile oil usage is increasing despite the price trend increasing as well. They estimated that there is approximatley 30 years worth of oil remaining however the cost to buy this oil may reach huge levels well before the 30 years is up - they estimated upwards of $200 US a barrel.

Oil is not just used for transport but many other things as well (e.g. a laptop computer requires x amount of oil to produce).

They speculated - keep in mind this is ONLY if alternatives to oil where not found then there would be a shift in the way we start to live. That is communities would become small, self-contained and self-sufficient.

Now - speaking only for myself here - am of the belief that the fuel companies have alternatives already invented but are waiting for the oil to run out first before releasing them...let the conspiracy theories begin

Merlin
Your friendly local public servant.

[donno]

Originally Posted by kypez

238 is another Uranium isotope that doesnt decay right for fission or fusion. EDIT: Plutonium cant have the same weight. (stupid me)

Ahh indeed, I stand corrected. Pu is 244, and uranium 238 is an isotope.

No, sorry, it takes more oil in terms of energy to produce a solar panel than the panel produces in it's lifetime, thats why we don't have them dotted all over the landscape. Wind generators are only marginally better as well as ineficient.
(relative to power stations)

We do have an abundance of natural gas, however in terms of volume Vs available energy you use considerably more.

Regards Prof Rabbit

Originally Posted by back2thefutura

I think you're missing something though - combustion power stations arent the only type available. Hydroelectricity and solar energy are proven ways of generating power in the right circumstances. I would have no problem with the outback of Australia being covered in solar energy gathering cells if it makes a difference.

[ZC-Cruiser]

What about that thing that converts wave action into electricity - will it be a goer or just more pie in the sky?

[paul351xb]

I read about a company developing a motor that worked on magnets. The engine looks like a drum and the magnets turn on and off causing the interenals of the engine to spin. The company trying to develop it said that they had hope for the ideas development but needed financing. They claimed the engine could be retrofitted into exisiting cars. I saw this on television about 2 or 3 years ago but have not heard anything since. Did anyone else out there hear of this or see it on TV?

[kypez]

Originally Posted by paul351xb

I read about a company developing a motor that worked on magnets. The engine looks like a drum and the magnets turn on and off causing the interenals of the engine to spin. The company trying to develop it said that they had hope for the ideas development but needed financing. They claimed the engine could be retrofitted into exisiting cars. I saw this on television about 2 or 3 years ago but have not heard anything since. Did anyone else out there hear of this or see it on TV?

yep, thats a dynamo, similar to what was used to older bicycles to power a light. Trouble with it is creating a constant power flow. It would need a another engine (like the concept discussed earlier) ie a generator. This is what toyota did for its electrical supercar using the V6 as purely to generate the power to run it. The electrical motor runs the car. This way it uses very little power and can substitute a 4 cyclinder motor instead which would use even less fuel.

Here is a link to an article by the BBC on alternatives, a bit limited but you get an idea about how much is being invested in alternatives.

Regards Prof. Rabbit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3782801.stm

Originally Posted by paul351xb

I read about a company developing a motor that worked on magnets. The engine looks like a drum and the magnets turn on and off causing the interenals of the engine to spin. The company trying to develop it said that they had hope for the ideas development but needed financing. They claimed the engine could be retrofitted into exisiting cars. I saw this on television about 2 or 3 years ago but have not heard anything since. Did anyone else out there hear of this or see it on TV?

[BOSS 540]

Didn't FORD believe there was an "oil crisis" imminent in the 80's and the dinosaur V8 reign was coming to an end?. That worked really well for them didn't it. Sure, nothing lasts forever, with countries like China and their demand going thru the roof its going to happen maybe sooner than later. I still think were safe for quite a while though and the oil companies DO have a back up plan.

This is how the 70's and 80's oil crisis happened and a little of what is happening now...


1973 was the yea r of the Yom Kippur War. With encouragement from the old Soviet Union, Syria and Egypt ganged up on Israel and after a rough start, Israel kicked their asses. The Islamic world was very ticked off - especially at the assistance that the US had given Israel in airlifted military equipment. So a lot of pressure was brought to bear on the leaders of the Arab oil states to punish the US and we got the famous OPEC embargo of 1973.

But it was more than that. The OPEC embargo was effective precisely because it was now recognized by everybody that the US had passed its all time oil production peak. We no longer had surplus capacity. We weren't the swing producer anymore, OPEC was. We were pumping flat-out just to stay in place, and depending on imports to make up for the rest.

That was a tectonic shift in world economics.

That's exactly when OPEC seized pricing control of the oil markets. We had a very rough decade. 20 percent interest rates. "Stagflation." High unemployment. Stock market in the toilet.

We had a second oil crisis in 1979 when the shah of Iran was overthrown. The 1970s closed on a note of desperation. Everything we did in America was tied to oil and foreigners were jerking our economy around, and it led the worst recession since the 1930s.

But we got over it and a lot of Americans drew the false conclusion that the these oil crises were a shuck and jive on the part of business and Arab oil sheiks.

How did we get over it? The oil crises of the 70s prompted a frantic era of drilling, and the last great oil discoveries came on line in the 1980s - chiefly the North Sea fields of England and Norway, and the Alaska fields of the North Slope and Prudhoe Bay. They literally saved the west's *** for 20 years. In fact, so much oil flowed out of them that the markets were glutted, and by the era of Bill Clinton, oil prices were headed down to as low as $10 a barrel.

It was all an illusion. The North Sea and Alaska are now well into depletion - they were drilled with the newest technology and - guess what - we depleted them more efficiently! England is now becoming a new oil importer again after a 20 year fiesta. The implications are very grim.

January 8, 2005
James Howard Kunstler

Originally Posted by HSVETA

Didn't FORD believe there was an "oil crisis" imminent in the 80's and the dinosaur V8 reign was coming to an end?. That worked really well for them didn't it. Sure, nothing lasts forever, with countries like China and their demand going thru the roof its going to happen maybe sooner than later. I still think were safe for quite a while though and the oil companies DO have a back up plan.

Anyone notice this happening now?

Today...Crude oil for June delivery rose as much as 63 cents, or 1.2 percent, to $51.46 a barrel in after-hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was at $51.28 at 9:24 a.m. Sydney time.

Regards Prof. Rabbit

March 7, 2005
I, for one, would be concerned about the price of oil and inflation -- that is the loss of purchasing power in the dollar. The recent price jump in oil is happening in March, you see, a couple of months shy of the so-called spring driving season. Typically, in recent years, oil prices have seen their biggest bumps around Memorial Day, when Americans resume long-distance motoring in earnest after staying close to home all winter. If oil stays in the low to mid $50 range for a while, it would not be unreasonable to expect $60 a barrel oil in May. And that is assuming that no untoward geopolitical shock will occur, say the assassination of a Saudi prince, or an attack on an oil installation.

Jim Kunstler

Originally Posted by HSVETA

Didn't FORD believe there was an "oil crisis" imminent in the 80's and the dinosaur V8 reign was coming to an end?. That worked really well for them didn't it. Sure, nothing lasts forever, with countries like China and their demand going thru the roof its going to happen maybe sooner than later. I still think were safe for quite a while though and the oil companies DO have a back up plan.

[DRU842]

Two points to remeber in this discussion.
The oil crisis in the '70s meant oil prices doubling in a very short period. What we are seeing at the moment is not anything like such a change in percentage terms. For us in OZ our relative strength of currency over the same period vs the US$ has helped significantly, in minimising the effects.
Demand for oil & energy related materials is highest during the Northern Hemisphere winter. As has been pointed our here oil is not only used for energy production but industrials such as plastics, solvents etc.

Originally Posted by XRFPV8

We don’t have oil shortages atm, there is a shortage of refineries to deal with the crude oil.
The Arabs keep it like that so it boosts there oil values.

Thats right, thats how you keep the value of something up !!! : :the_finge

if the arabs let the oil out more freely and the govt reduced excise from nearly 50cpl then fuel would be about 45 or 50 cpl !!! like gas.

Here is a quote from the Financial Times...

Saudi Arabia failed to provide the United States with any new promises or assurances over oil supplies ahead of a key meeting between Crown Prince Abdullah and George W. Bush at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas on Monday.

Mr Bush voiced concerns this week about Saudi Arabian production and the country's ability to increase output in the event of a severe supply disruption. His comments are the most vocal since he became president, and mark a departure from protocol by a US president about the world's biggest oil exporter, and former special friend

Originally Posted by james

Thats right, thats how you keep the value of something up !!! : :the_finge

if the arabs let the oil out more freely and the govt reduced excise from nearly 50cpl then fuel would be about 45 or 50 cpl !!! like gas.

Which gas? LPG is cheap because it is originally a waste byproduct, natural gas is very different, both in content and pricing.

Note also that natural gas wells do not slowly lose output like an oil well, rather a gas well goes from output to 0 very quickly.

Regards Prof. Rabbit

A point to note also, currently Americans are paying 45 to 49c per litre and COMPLAINING BITTERLY, Europe is paying several times more than us,

However also remember that America alone uses 25% of the worlds oil production each day.

You will notice that European cars tend to be small and economical, our cars tend to be in the middle while American cars are one order larger again.

Regards Prof Rabbit

Originally Posted by DRU842

Two points to remeber in this discussion.
The oil crisis in the '70s meant oil prices doubling in a very short period. What we are seeing at the moment is not anything like such a change in percentage terms. For us in OZ our relative strength of currency over the same period vs the US$ has helped significantly, in minimising the effects.
Demand for oil & energy related materials is highest during the Northern Hemisphere winter. As has been pointed our here oil is not only used for energy production but industrials such as plastics, solvents etc.

[niko]

theres still alternatives like gas...

Hi Niko,

Just which gas do you refer to?

LPG is a byproduct (actually a waste product) from refining oil (no oil = no LPG).

Natural gas has a problem, it's liquid only at -260c, that means ultra high pressure tanks, constant ice forming on tanks and fuel lines and a host of dangers with super cold liquids. (unless you a bus using a huge tank of compressed (not liquid) gas.

Regards Prof. Rabbit

Originally Posted by niko

theres still alternatives like gas...