Are We all Doomed

[Stoptheworld]

Not wanting to be too much of a pessimist, but I just recently read an article in Airways (July 2006) about fuel. Basically, the jist of the story was that the airline industry as we know it is doomed because of fuel prices.

I had hoped (ok maybe I was a little overly optimistic) that prices would moderate. I had also hoped that new processes (actually a very old process) of deriving diesel and jet fuel from coal would help mitigate this problem and the industry we love (or love to hate!) would be saved.

As I write this, oil is trading around the $77/barrel price with the only way to go is up. I am sure that this topic has been beaten to death on this, and other forums, but I am curious (being quite new to this forum) as to what people who have been around might think and the different perspective that is brought.

I really hope that this article will prove to be wrong and that technology will come to the rescue again.

[CAL]

ticket prices will simply have to reflect the cost of running the aircraft...amd hopefully in turn along with many others things that contribute to cost of living index salaries should rise....ofcourse this typically doesnt happen so really the solution is finding an alternative source of energy to run these beasts and that is what will happen and we all know the technology is there to do it but it costs alot to implement and why would oil companies do that when they can get 77$ a barrel for the atmosphere killing nectar.....not to worry it will happen eventually, hopefully we can still breath....and rest assured that the oil companies will be the ones distributing it...

[co-joe]

There is a day in the foreseeable future when the world will have to find a new fuel. I saw a show the other day where a guy had figured out how to seperate hydrogen and o2 simply and easily and had converted his car to run on tap water. Other fuels will become available, but they're not economical yet.

As for the price of oil right now, the cost of fuel just gets passed on to passengers. The more fuel costs, the more tickets cost. What worries me is that if you don't work in the oil patch, then wages aren't going up. We get a 3% inflationary increase in wage annually where I work, but the cost of fuel, real estate, and a few other essentials is inflating at a much greater rate.

I forsee the complete and total erosion of the middle class in North America over the next 50-100 years. There will be rich and there will be poor and nothing in between, just simply because cost of living is increasing, but wages aren't.

My take on things is that it isn't an accident that 2/3 of the globe is covered in a mixture of the most explosive gas on the periodic table, and the element needed to burn it. We just need to find a way to fuel an aircraft with it.

[. ._]

The economy adapts, technology adapts. In our lifetimes, I can't see fuel being a HUGE problem. All we gotta do is put a million nuclear plants around, and we can get as much hydrogen as we need to power airplanes.

-istp

[water wings]

hmmm. if only we could figure out how to harness wind and sun.. hmmm... i wonder... l... then again, what would the Bush boys fight about?

"hey, that MY wind!!!"

[Kelowna Pilot]

Don't worry, the flying public will still get cheap airfares to fill seats.

Companies will just aborb the increased fuel prices by robbing workers pension funds and asking their workers to make other concessions...

[hazatude]

The answer lies in burritos and my arse...

[...]

The answer lies in burritos and my arse...

Somewhere, there's a poet without a verse.

[Apollo]

I don't see us being doomed - unless they come up with teleportation... But I'm sure we can arrange for some 'accidents' to occur to prevent that.


But as the situation stands now - the world relies on air travel - imagine all of a sudden the fastest way to get across the pond was by ship?

[I Like Myself]

What about that giant fan on the front of planes.
Can't that be used to make power?

[chief]

The economy adapts, technology adapts. In our lifetimes, I can't see fuel being a HUGE problem. All we gotta do is put a million nuclear plants around, and we can get as much hydrogen as we need to power airplanes.

-istp

Well Nuclear power is good for the purpose of producing electricity. There is not a single nuclear plant on the planet for the purpose of manufactured goods. I am currently reading a book "The Long Emergency" and although it is an interesting read it is terrifying too. It likes to mention the fact that everyone feels comfortable ignoring the fact that we are coming to and end of our fossil fuels and people have this misconception that "techonology will save us" and that hydrogen power is coming. Technology exists BECAUSE of fossil fuels. Well got some bad new for that. Hydrogen power needs fossil fuels to be manufactured. Creating hydrogen is very expensive and has a low ERoEI (energy returned to energy invested) ratio. It gives an interesting view of how most people have not a remote clue how important the fossil fuels are to us and hence Bush and the Middle East. It goes on quite a bit about the middle east and mention that OPEC overestimated their reserves on the oil. If they don't make everyone "believe" they have as much as we think they do, they lose the control to set the price of oil. Considering 90% of Saudi's exports are oil you can imagine why they want to have the bargaining power. Interesting to note that back in the day when oil was being discovered in Texas, the ERoEI was about 25 to 1 which is a lot of returned energy to invested energy. Nowadays with us having to go to the oil sands that value has gone below 4 to 1. ( actually i think it mentions 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 but I will just use 4 to 1). Also in Saudi the days of sticking the drill in and pumping out pure oil is long gone. Now with the seawater injection there is about 45% oil and 55% sea water that comes out of the taps meaning the have gone past their peak. Try picking up this book and reading it. It sure is an eye opener. Basically states that within our lifetime, the luxuries that we all enjoy will come to a quick halt and mass chaos around the globe will take over. His statements aren't just a point of view either. He has some pretty strong evidence.

[cinical]

I'm with CAL on this one

[lilfssister]

Well Nuclear power is good for the purpose of producing electricity. There is not a single nuclear plant on the planet for the purpose of manufactured goods.

Okay, maybe I'm slow(er than normal) today? If you live somewhere that has a nuke plant generating electricity, and there are manufacturing concerns in that place...is not nuke power being used to manufacture goods?

[Stoptheworld]

I just got back from the local newstand where they had an investment magazine highlighting alternative fuels. (I didn't pick it up yet as I had to make a choice between the mag or booze, guess which one I chose )

It had an item on the production of fuel from coal. 60 Minutes had an item on the same thing with the Governor of Montana. Maybe this will be the short term answer.

Long term, I guess we will need to come up with something better like Hydrogen. H2 can be produced from the electolysis of water. The issue then is, you need electricity. Enter: Nuclear (or wind or solar but these two are really not cost effective)

I can remember back in the '70s (when I was just a kid, no really!) when oil was around $35 per barrel, which is the equivelant of about $90 today, people in the states were lining up for gas or stations were running out. I haven't seen any of that happen (yet).

News analysts are saying there are risk premiums built in for instability. I can't help think that even though we are indeed running out oil, there are quite a few speculators and oil companies making a lot of dough even though the system is being adequately supplied (for the time being).

What the world needs (or maybe North America) is a new Marshall plan to get us off the black gooey stuff and into something truly sustainable

[g5]

"


...and it's 5, 6, 7
open up the pearly gates..

well, there ain't no time to wonder why
whoowee we're all gonna die!

[Mitch Cronin]

"


...and it's 5, 6, 7
open up the pearly gates..

well, there ain't no time to wonder why
whoowee we're all gonna die!

oi... that'll be "whoopee".

... as you were....

[North Shore]

A few thoughts:

Nuclear - not a great solution IMHO. All we will be doing is replacing one depletable energy source (fossil) with another (uranium.) Unless, of course, someone figures out fusion.

Any hope that governments in North America will get us out of this steadily thickening mess are dreams. Both leaders are heavily indebted to the oil industry, and so can't do anything substantial.

Oil Sands - ecological disaster, and criminal misuse of Natural Gas. Huge dollars invested, for comparatively little oil production.

Wind/Solar/Biomass - part of a solution, but woefully underfunded in terms of research.

Aircraft. Vital for many things - trade, travel, medicine, rescue...many others. Costs will go up and so will prices. Eventually will have to switch to biofuels or H2, as we realize that fossil fuels are too valuable to be burnt indiscriminately..

[. ._]

Yo chief,

I might be wrong, but if you have a million nuclear power plants making electricity, can't you zap it through some water to make hydrogen?

OK, I got a D in chemistry. I could be wrong.

But I'm pretty sure I heard that somewhere.

-istp

[Boss Hawg]

I don't think airplanes will ever run on anything other than fossil fuels. No other known alternative packs as much punch for the same weight, nothing else is as reliable. Plus, to do the research and development for a new powerplant that produces enough power by some other method, and get that certified would be incredibly lengthy (like 15 years) and expensive.

Best thing to do for now is use as many alternatives as possible to make electricity, power vehicles etc etc and use the fossil fuels where they can't be replaced, like in airplanes.

[twinpratts]

I'd rather look at the glass, and consider it half full... but you're entitled to your opinion.
Good luck with your life!

[Lommer]

The answer has to be nuclear, as it's the only solution availabe TODAY that can pack enough punch to rid us of our addiction to oil.

First, to address a few posts above:
1) Even though uranium is not a reusable resource like wind, solar, or tidal power, there are enough known uranium reserves in the world to satisfy the entire globe's power consumption for over 100 years. This does not take into account the certainty of discovering more uranium, and of improving technological advancements.
2) Yes, electricity can be used to make hydrogen by electrolysing water. The problem with this is that the process is less than 60% efficient. However, the only other reasonably-sized source of hydrogen is cracked fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas, and the cracking process produces as much CO2 greenhouse gas as burning the fuel in an internal combustion engine would. In the long run, improved battery technology is vastly preferable because it's an almost 100% efficient storage mechanism. As of today though, battery technology cannot compete at all with the portability/capacity that hydrogen or fossil fuels offer.

Second, why nuclear is the only answer:
We need to get off oil. It's totally unsustainable, and its destroying our planet. The major alternatives available today (Wind, solar, and tidal) do not have the capacity to replace oil inside of a decade or two (it takes an enormous wind or solar farm to replace a single coal plant, whereas most nuclear plants match or greatly exceed the output of a similarly sized coal plant). Note that I have not ruled out hydro power; it is a great option and should be employed wherever available. Unfortunately, hydro won't work very well for all the flat parts of the world. This leaves nuclear. I don't have a perfect answer for the waste problem. But there are some methods that help, and a small but growing nuclear waste problem is preferable to a world falling apart due to global warming (in my eyes).

What the future holds for airplanes:
At the moment, there is no power solution that can provide anything close to the power-to-weight ratios of gas turbine engines (including jets). Thus, for the forseeable future, airplanes will continue to require fossil fuels, but this will be okay if the pressure on fossil fuels is reduced because we switch our power generation and cars to alternative sources. Nonetheless, ultra-efficient airplane designs will be the way of the future, and we will see experimentation with alternative power methods. Who knows, some idiot might even bring back the nuclear airplane. As far as industry and the consumer is concerned, there will be tough times brought on by rising oil prices. Bankruptcies will happen and the industry will not experience growth like it could if fuel prices stayed low, but in the long run it will survive with higher ticket prices and more balanced costs.


Most of the above is factual, but a lot of it (certainly all the future predictions) are my opinion. I welcome comment and criticism.

[chief]

Long term, I guess we will need to come up with something better like Hydrogen. H2 can be produced from the electolysis of water. The issue then is, you need electricity. Enter: Nuclear (or wind or solar but these two are really not cost effective)

I can remember back in the '70s (when I was just a kid, no really!) when oil was around $35 per barrel, which is the equivelant of about $90 today, people in the states were lining up for gas or stations were running out. I haven't seen any of that happen (yet).

The 70's thing you were talking about was the embargo that the middle east put on the US and yes it did stir up a lot of crap. Did you know that gas stations were not able to sell gasoline on Sundays? I didn't. Also the US was right ont he verge of handing out ration stamps for gasoline. The embargo was lifted just before they had to issue them. Just goes to show you that even back int he 70's the US could not produce enough oil for themselves. Their lifeline was cut off. This talk about hydrogen power too. I thought it would be easy just like some of you. I didn't realize the hardships that go with it. I guess there is a lot more to it that we think. the storage is one. It would take a tank that is many times the size of a gasoline tank to hold the hydrogen due to the density of hydrogen you would need a tank several times the size to hold the same amount of energy. The tank would have to withstand 10,000 psi which from what I read can be done by the tank with the compound materials of today but what happens when the hdrogen leaves the tank to the engine. Lines and whatever would not be able to withstand this pressure. Hydrogen is very corrosive. There is the other problem. Not to mention the explosive properties of hydrogen. Hydrogen takes about 1/10 the energy needed to ignite gas and air. If any accident occurs it is sure to detonate and kill everyone in the vehicle. The book goes on and on about the hydrogen theory of power. To go back about the nuclear power plant and manufacturing. Yes nuclear power can be used for electricity. Now how are you going to manufacture that plastic component? Could you imagine the world without a simple item such as plastic? I never realized how many things need petroleum to be created. Almost everything you touch. There is the one chapter in the book "Alternative Fuels and why they won't save us". Interesting chapter. The future looks dim without petroleum.

[chief]

The answer has to be nuclear, as it's the only solution availabe TODAY that can pack enough punch to rid us of our addiction to oil.

First, to address a few posts above:
1) Even though uranium is not a reusable resource like wind, solar, or tidal power, there are enough known uranium reserves in the world to satisfy the entire globe's power consumption for over 100 years. This does not take into account the certainty of discovering more uranium, and of improving technological advancements.
2) Yes, electricity can be used to make hydrogen by electrolysing water. The problem with this is that the process is less than 60% efficient. However, the only other reasonably-sized source of hydrogen is cracked fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas, and the cracking process produces as much CO2 greenhouse gas as burning the fuel in an internal combustion engine would. In the long run, improved battery technology is vastly preferable because it's an almost 100% efficient storage mechanism. As of today though, battery technology cannot compete at all with the portability/capacity that hydrogen or fossil fuels offer.

And battery technology, even through all the R&D in the last century, has had neglegible advances. A battery made 70 years ago isn't all that much different than what it is now.

Second, why nuclear is the only answer:
We need to get off oil. It's totally unsustainable, and its destroying our planet. The major alternatives available today (Wind, solar, and tidal) do not have the capacity to replace oil inside of a decade or two (it takes an enormous wind or solar farm to replace a single coal plant, whereas most nuclear plants match or greatly exceed the output of a similarly sized coal plant). Note that I have not ruled out hydro power; it is a great option and should be employed wherever available. Unfortunately, hydro won't work very well for all the flat parts of the world. This leaves nuclear. I don't have a perfect answer for the waste problem. But there are some methods that help, and a small but growing nuclear waste problem is preferable to a world falling apart due to global warming (in my eyes).

The US department of energy has that the US gets about 10% of its energy from hydro and it only has the capacity to increase this another 5%.

What the future holds for airplanes:
At the moment, there is no power solution that can provide anything close to the power-to-weight ratios of gas turbine engines (including jets). Thus, for the forseeable future, airplanes will continue to require fossil fuels, but this will be okay if the pressure on fossil fuels is reduced because we switch our power generation and cars to alternative sources. Nonetheless, ultra-efficient airplane designs will be the way of the future, and we will see experimentation with alternative power methods. Who knows, some idiot might even bring back the nuclear airplane. As far as industry and the consumer is concerned, there will be tough times brought on by rising oil prices. Bankruptcies will happen and the industry will not experience growth like it could if fuel prices stayed low, but in the long run it will survive with higher ticket prices and more balanced costs.


Most of the above is factual, but a lot of it (certainly all the future predictions) are my opinion. I welcome comment and criticism.

[Bookem Lou]

Nuclear is not the answer. There is a lot of useless real estate in the Ukraine that can testify to that and is likely to stay that way for a few millenia. There are other pollution issues as well (residual radioactivity, thermal pollution etc.) The more nuclear plants they build is just going to increase the odds of another Chernobyl. If there were to be another terrorist attack using aircraft, hitting a nuke plant would sure make a large and expensive statement. Building more just increases the number of available targets.

I don't have any other solutions. I just know nuclear can't be the answer. In 50 years we'll all be living like hippies.

[g5]

That's right. Love is the answer. <3