What Happens When Fuel Runs Short? Or Does It?

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Political.

We've known for at least 3 decades that the Big 3 North American car manufacturers could market incredibly more fuel-efficient cars if they wanted to.

But they haven't. Because the oil companies -- predominantly from the same country -- have enough political clout to prevent loss of market demand for their product.

Meanwhile, we continue to know that fossil fuels are a finite resource. And, at least in the foreseeable future, the invasion of Iraq has not put that country's massive resources onto the market, as was promised to us when the invasion took place several years ago.

Supposing that there is a likelihood that the invasion of Iraq may destabilize the middle-east rather than stablize it, as the Bush administration believes, what happens to the world aviation industry if dread becomes reality and fuel sources run short?

Do aircraft manufacturers already know ways to make commercial liners more fuel efficient? Will they be implemented?

But that would be a long-run thing. What about short-term needs?

Are we barking up the wrong tree when believing that current middle-east fuel supplies will remain available, and are we being dangerously short-sighted in not preparing for the alternative in aviation?

What will keep the world's aircraft flying?

Batteries and ethanol are ok for cars. But what of airliners?

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:41 pm

If all fossiel fuels were to run out in the next 10 years, I'd wager that the following solutions would be put into play.

#1. Methanol, ethanol, fuel cells and batteries for ground transport.

#2. Bio-Diesel (from canola mostly) for aviation and other applications where power-to-weight ratio is very important.

There are already folks out there that have modified their diesel cars to run on leftover cooking oil from restaurants. The beauty of a diesel engine is that with compression that high, you can burn just about any gas or liquid that you can pump into it. With a few modifications, turbines (be they turboprop of turbofan) could also operate on a biodiesel.

If it's economically feasible (and profitable for the big multinationals), anything can happen. As it stands now, we're addicted to fossil fuels, and that won't change until the price goes up. Waaaaay up.

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:58 pm

w squared wrote:If all fossiel fuels were to run out in the next 10 years, I'd wager that the following solutions would be put into play.

#1. Methanol, ethanol, fuel cells and batteries for ground transport.

#2. Bio-Diesel (from canola mostly) for aviation and other applications where power-to-weight ratio is very important.

There are already folks out there that have modified their diesel cars to run on leftover cooking oil from restaurants. The beauty of a diesel engine is that with compression that high, you can burn just about any gas or liquid that you can pump into it. With a few modifications, turbines (be they turboprop of turbofan) could also operate on a biodiesel.

If it's economically feasible (and profitable for the big multinationals), anything can happen. As it stands now, we're addicted to fossil fuels, and that won't change until the price goes up. Waaaaay up.

There are not enough corn fields to divert from food production to fuel production to make your scenario possible.

North American governments already admit that corn-based fuel is totally insufficient to even supply current needs.

THAT is the BIG thing that nobody's paying attention to. There's only so much land. It can produce only so much corn. It can go to feed the populace or to fuel its needs. Not both.

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:12 pm

I don't buy the whole peak oil thing. I did some reading on the subject and learned that we are nowhere near out. Production costs will be higher for sure but we are nowhere near out. That's not to say that we shouldn't work on finding a more earth friendly form though. There is more oil in Alaska and off the west coast as well as the tar sands than has been pulled out of the ground in the rest of the world. Apparently.

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:26 pm

So the Yanks should, instead, pay attention to Canadian oil. Meanwhile?

swede · Post by **swede** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:10 pm

The processes by which oil is formed are not known. Therefore, there is a possibility that oil could be produced indefinitely. I didn't say probably, but the probability is there. I do not believe the phrase "peak oil" is a quanitifiable statement, so the whole point may be moot.

CarbIce · Post by **CarbIce** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:56 am

We will never get all the oil out of the ground, but thats due more to economics than availability. There comes a point where the Energy required to get the oil out of the ground exceeds the energy value of the oil extracted on the market. Peak oil is a decline, predictions were that 2005 would be he first year that oil demand exceeds capacity... by about 3%. This was based on world consumption at the time, but since consumption changed due to many factors its hard to predict how steep the decline could be.

When demand exceeds supply, the price goes up. Higher prices tend to destroy the demand, which in turn can bring the price down until demand starts up again. We already saw that happen this summer when the price broke $1. We could see this type of saw tooth variations in prices for a few years. Peak oil could manifest itself as a slowing of ecomonic growth, recession and eventually depression.

Currently Bio fuels require massive amounts of fossil fuels for the machinery and fertilizers to produce and process. And I believe it only has about 60% of the energy value as fossil fuels anyway. (not sure of that stat, but its significantly less) As mentioned too, we done have enough good farmland available anyway. and what we do have is all being ruined by poor farming practices or paved under for more Walmarts. Not to mention that the giant food farms that supply our stores also require huge amounts of fossil fuels to operate. Dont forget that the materials and manufacturing processes for these alternate energy sources are also largely dependant on fossil fuels.

Most alternate fuel technologies are not fully developed for mass production, and the the manufactur of oil (abiotic oil I think its called) - since its not really understood anyway, I dont imagine it will be available anytime soon... if its even possible. Ive read a fair bit, and am still not sure if I fully believe it..... its a very complex problem and I doubt anyone can have a clear enough picture of all the issues and variables involved to make accurate predictions.... but if it was true I doubt any government would tell people about it.

The best solution seems to be to pressure big companies to focus on providing better efficiency in their products or adopting renrewable, earth friendly alternatives. People also need to take responsibility for their actions and curb their own consumption and not wait for government 'to do something about it' cause if youre waiting for a goverment as stupid and wasteful as ours to solve a problem this big, were in real trouble.

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:17 pm

Peak Oil is a myth

Britain used to depend on coal more heavliy than the world depends on oil today. When easy accessible coal was depeleted technology changed previouly un-economic coal resources were processed. Then oil emerged and the demand for coal almost dissapered.

This is where we are with oil. Production has advanced far past what oil experts thought possible even 10 years ago. Oil production will not peak because we cant get anymore out of the ground it will peak as the demand for alternate technology replaces oil. "Green" fuels will replace mogas and as the technology is proven we will begin to see it applied to aviation.

Oil comapnies have known how to replace fossil fuel for about 30 years, but the technology is not perfect. They have maintaned a supply demand balance that keeps oil prices low enough that its easier to keep using oil. The occasional peak in demand is allowed to drive up profits, a portion of this profit is reserved for R and D so they are always a few steps ahead of the independant recearchers. The oil companies want a gradual shift towards green fuels and want to be at the leading edge of new technology and keep control of the economy.

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:42 pm

Torontoguy: I'm not saying that we'll replace fossil fuels with fuels derived from crops, just that they may eventually replace fossil fuels in applications where fuel cells and the like impose too much of a weight penalty. It won't be an easy switch, but it'll probably happen.

Carbice: You're right about the amount of energy contained it ethanol/methanol versus gasoline. You need to burn more of it to get the same amount of energy output. But if you can't get fuel for a gas engine, then a lower powered methanol engine is still a better bet.

You're also right about the economics. The oil that gets extracted is that which is economically viable. This fall, I was involved in some drilling in the Zama City area of Northern Alberta - the deposits we were after had been known about since the 1970's, but it wasn't economically viable to go after them until oil prices rose to their current level. The current boom in the oil and gas industry here in Canada is partially due to this phenomenon...an oil company will find out about a deposit, but put development "on hold" until it makes economic sense.