World Without Oil

Sure you can learn but when the metrics of today along with cultural and societal differences from the past, the outcome of a repeated event is not going to be the same. The US is $17 trillion in debt, most Americans are deep in debt, using more credit cards, living pay check to pay check, high unemployment, continued lagging economy, Europe in a recession, wars and unrest in many areas of the world, etc. all of which will effect differently the outcome of rising fuel prices. IMO in the USA due to the things mentioned above and others we have placed ourselves in a precarious position, basically teetering on the brink of something from economic to international issues, while a huge portion of the US public doesn't have an extra 10 cents to spend.

According to this EIA page, there are only about 1.5 trillion barrels of proved oil reserves.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?view=reserves

Pretty interesting that you believe we have affordable oil forever yet you also don't believe there will be any inflation in the price of that oil? Geo-political issues, supply issues, competing consumer issues, all will drive up the cost of oil in the future.

You have a very long way to go before you can claim the US will remain ahead of the curve on rising oil prices...like about 99% of society remains dependent and directly effected by oil...

 

: ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

: )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) : ))))))))))))))))))) : )))))))))))))))))))))))) : )))))))))))))))))))))))))

Exxon Mobil is one of the companies that interfere with the Usa administration . Already they can indirectly manage many country with money power .

 

MIGHT not be the same. Certainly the entire science of economics exists because some things, when hit with the same stimuli, they don't change much. Like people's behavior to a change in price.

The US commands the largest chunk of the world's economy to tax as it see's fit, most American debt is mortgage and student loans, both of which can be interpreted as a capital investment, not as a means to stock up on big screen TVs, Americans have been living paycheck to paycheck at least as long as I've been an American, unemployment isn't near as bad as it could be and isn't all that bad at all for those with skills and experience (plus I have stories to tell on why some of those people are unemployed, me having hired more than a few over the last few years), the economy has been growing for years, Europe has been a basket case and will continue to be because of idiot political ideas and a populace who only thinks we shouldn't have 3 months of paid vacation a year if your skin isn't the same color as theirs, come on OldMan you aren't saying anything which wouldn't apply to the globe over the past 1/2 century, and you suddenly think it matters for a different reason now?

Then I suggest they become less average and talk to some old farts who once lived in a land where competition meant something other than heading on down to the local social security disability application mill and signing up to be on the dole, what with so hard it is to be required to WORK nowadays. I agree that America is different, but I cannot be forced into a position where it I can't demonstrate how too damn many individuals have done it to themselves, and then whine when the expected outcome arrives.

I recommend less obesity, fewer self esteem building exercises in our schools, more head to head competition, fewer marijuana medical cards for anxiety, and a swift kick in the butt for everyone from today's children raised by Hollywood and video games to the parents who thought that was a good way to create a productive American citizen.

I am perfectly well aware of what world reserves are, and what those estimates are through time, and can talk for hours (and do) on how fortunate the planet is that this isn't anywhere near the amounts of stuff we have laying around to build gasoline from.

I referenced the EIA cost/supply estimate on what we have in inventory (of which reserves is only a subset) and how much it will cost. Certainly I have never said anything about inflation in the price of oil, and most organizations when projecting future prices do so in the context of real prices, so by definition they take inflation into account. Just like I do, I might add.

Sure. It is called inflation. We all know about it, it has been with us for centuries as well. Did you only recently find out about it? Fortunately for all of us, it also applies to wages, so the real issue is what is your real wage versus real costs, not just inflation of cost.

Actually, not quite. They are dependent on the PRODUCTS derived from oil. I can promise that it is extremely unlikely, bordering on silly, to think that you actually go and buy some crude oil and use IT in any of the items utilizing something manufactured from oil. Like gasoline. Or plastic.

 

The US is 100% dependent on oil so obviously oil companies are going to have some clout. Regarding those in government who might sell their souls to oil companies...no surprise since all of them are whores. No matter...the government of the USA has zero ownership in Exxon-Mobil...

 

http://www.mybudget360.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/household-debt.jpg this chart explains why things are different today...growing debt and declining savings and this applies to government and business and people. Since our MO is to live pay check to pay check most cannot tolerate a minor hiccup in the economy. Enter higher oil prices, inflation from higher oil prices, coupled with the above, and we have the potential for an economic disaster.

It doesn't make any difference why people and workers are the way they are today because we can't do anything about it. Long ago in another career I held positions in which I managed lots of workers, and yes it was a good challenge to excel, but today I wouldn't accept that position for all the wine in CA. I don't appreciate today's work ethic and I don't appreciate people's sense of entitlement.

Hey...you used EIA data so I presented EIA data which says 1.5 trillion barrels of 'proved' oil reserves. And I still don't care if the Earth holds 10 trillion barrels because it's the cost of oil, and of oil products, that will limit our consumption...at least those of us who pay our way. Higher oil prices directly effect inflation so it's just a matter of how much inflation average people can tolerate? Yes, income will also increase but if the economy is in a recession or depression due to an oil crisis, then kiss income increases goodbye.

I remember $145 per barrel oil prices so your $120/barrel future price is meaningless. $5/gallon gasoline will set the economic abyss in motion.

 

Okay. Fine. $5/gal is potential disaster. I'm in. So now, what do you recommend to mitigate this potential disaster?

Same here.

Actually, I referenced IEA work. Different organization, and different types of data, the IEA information was for a supply/cost curve, the EIA was just listing what are pretty much just proven reserves.

Those Canadians are still waiting for that abyss then, after more than half a decade of $5/gal + they are still driving big American pickup trucks. Whatever must they be thinking, no one told them they are in an abyss!!

In all seriousness, so what do you recommend? You obviously place a high causal value on gasoline prices that some Californians, most of Canada, all of Europe, have been dealing with for some time, fine, so tell us, if you are appointed grand high minister of preventing the horrifying abyss that those poor Canadians and Europeans have been living through, what do you recommend to mitigate against Americans being reduced to their standard of living?

 

IMO the trillion$ solution to everything is for someone to design an alternative non-fossil fuel which can be produced at required quantities and is affordable that simply takes the place of oil products and allows all current machines and equipment to continue their use.

Short of the above solution, and primarily regarding economics, how can Americans greatly reduce their consumption of oil? We must reduce the number of fossil fuel personal vehicles and replace them with non-fossil fuel machines which are the same price as current vehicles. In parallel, we must get people out of their personal vehicles and using non-fossil fuel public transit systems. I'd like to see all buses and 18-wheelers converted to hydrogen. For the billions of lawnmowers and weedwhackers and leaf blowers and small generators and water pumps and ATV and other recreational equipment including smaller water craft...all of them need a synthetic non-fossil fuel.

The problem in implementing the above is fourfold; First, it's all voluntary. Second, people hate change. Third, it must be facilitated by the private sector. And fourth, it can take several decades to implement. If we look at how long solar power generation has been viable, and how long we've had hybrid-electric and electric vehicles, and that these segments today are only 1-2% of what's in place, it's easy for me to surmise that short of our asses being on fire this change will take many decades.

Canada has what a $2 trillion economy while the US has a $15 trillion economy?

To answer your last question, if the price of fossil fuels will increase to levels which create economic recession or worse, and the private sector economy has not moved much towards reducing oil consumption, then the government must force the change. This can be accomplished with CAFE standards and public transit and R&D funding for sustainable non-fossil fuels. And the first implementation needs to be all government vehicles...

 

That is an impossible mission statement, not any hint as to how you think our species can do...something...to avert this looming disaster caused by...$5/gal gasoline.

Well, count me in as part of the happy transition then.

Considering the sheer abundance of fossil fuels we have on this planet, why is your synthetic fuel solution required to be non-fossil?

I guess that century or two of fossil fuels we have laying around will come in handy then.

I don't trust the government to do the right thing any farther than they can be thrown. Are you seriously suggesting they can in ANY way tell people to do something and stick to it when the people can't stand the idea and it will cost them money, time, or convenience?

 

Which is why I said it was the 'trillion$' solution.

Have no problem with fossil fuels as long as you can scrub 100% of the detrimental emissions. Same with coal fired power plants; scrub 95-100% of the emissions and no problem.

Your 'century or two of fossil fuels' will be worthless when the price of fuel becomes unaffordable and/or negatively effects the economy. As long as oil production is accomplished in our free enterprise system the prices of the oil will be determined by supply and demand...world supply and demand. While other areas of the world might be able to tolerate higher and higher prices of oil, if the US cannot, then our economy crashes. At this point, the only choice is to nationalize all oil holdings on US property hoping to keep the prices low until alternatives can be implemented.

We only have two choices; voluntary or government intervention. If the oil hits the fan and people/business won't volunteer to create change, then our only remaining choice is government...

 

So you basically want to shut down most power production in most of the developed world. Fine I suppose, but now you can understand why considering this "voluntary" is a joke, why the government advocating it is a joke, and your cure sounds alot worse than $5/gal gasoline.

I have already referenced how high crude prices can get from the IEA literature, it doesn't go much higher than what we have already seen in 2008. So you certainly don't get to claim it is unaffordable when we ALREADY have.

The government is no more capable of RUNNING an oil and gas company than it is capable of supplying regulators able to stop Deepwater Horizon events. So forget about them saving you, those jokers can't do anything except steal from those who are capable of making things work and hand it to their constituents so they'll keep them in office.

So neither of these are going to work. Got a backup plan after voluntary turns into just (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing and whining because Mommy can't use her 6000# monster truck to drive Johnnie to little league practice, and the government, as usual, fails at whatever they pretend to try and fix today.

 

Who said anything about 'shutting down power production'?

We have the technology to scrub unwanted emissions from coal fired plants so it's just a matter of the cost to install and maintain. Why can't we collect the harmful crap from our vehicle exhaust systems?

I don't have any 'cure' regarding gasoline?

Today there's yet another article in the paper about prices of oil/gas causing inflation in the US. Ratchet it up to $5/gallon and this will force more inflation and in parallel will force reduced spending. Any higher than $5/gallon for sustained periods IMO will spell doom and gloom to the US economy.

You have referenced $120/barrel prices a few days ago and are now referencing $150/barrel?

A nationalized oil/gas production industry simply takes out the profit motives which reduces the price to consumers. Nationalized oil would also stop exports unless the US could see long term supplies larger than demands.

It doesn't make any difference if people and government refuse to prepare for an oil crisis. They will simply feel the pain when it happens and the US government will be vulnerable internationally. All I have said from the beginning is IMO the US economy and it's citizens cannot tolerate $5+/gallon of gasoline. And my question has been consistent; if we can't tolerate higher prices of oil/gasoline, then why aren't we talking about this and being proactive...

 

You did when you said "down with fossil fuels", and fossil fuels my friend includes coal. Without coal, you are going to shut down power production everywhere except maybe France.

We have been scrubbing stuff since we began using unleaded fuel and started attaching catalytic converters to our cars. And for someone so concerned about price, exactly what do you think Joe Sixpack is going to use to pay their electric bills if you quadruple the cost of their electricity? Joe Sixpack can't buy beer! Time to riot! Here come recessions and depressions!

And economic theory says that is exactly what is needed to cause the sorts of behavioral changes needed to cure the problem. Economics is really cool that way.

Sure. While most humans, including most on this forum, are comfortable with pretending the world is a deterministic place, it really isn't, and $120, $150, $170, it is all within the range of possibilities considered by the IEA for another 6 or 7 trillion barrels of stuff to feed our oil based transport stuff.

Sounds like we should nationalize grocers so we can have cheaper groceries, once we remove the profit motive, that should happen right? Nationalize shoe sales while we are at it! Gun manufacturers! Hell, is there ANYTHING which wouldn't be better nationalized? Or do you just have a beef against oil and gas companies? And I might mention, oil is sold in an international market, so even if our government nationalized every drop of oil in our borders, the price wouldn't change. Sorry.

And I continue to point out that we aren't near the wimps that the Canadians are, and they are doing just fine with $5+/gallon of gasoline, so I think we could do BETTER than them! No riots, revolutions or great depressions until at least $6!! Did I mention gasoline is currently $9/gal in France? Even the cheese eating surrender monkeys are better than us! No! It cannot be!

 

I never said 'down with fossil fuels'? I said I have no problem with them as long as we can scrub their harmful emissions. If we can't, or refuse, to scrub the emissions and can't afford future prices of fossil fuels, then we better find alternatives quickly.

When you say things like 'quadruple the costs of their electricity' it's obvious you are just sensationalizing the discussion which is a waste of everyone's time. The FACT that we use coal, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, and alternative sources, means the price of coal-fired power is just a percentage of our overall costs. And adding effective scrubbers to coal plants does not quadruple the costs to the consumers.

Greatly increasing the cost of fossil fuels will definitely force change, however, what good is the change when the nation and it's citizenry are in an economic depression?

Fact is you and others have no idea what the costs of producing a barrel of oil will be in the future. There are too many variables.

So by nationalizing oil, and removing the profit motives, there would be no cost savings? I'm not an advocate of nationalizing anything...it's just an option when the oil hits the fan.

You seem to ignore the fact that the price of gasoline in other countries has nothing to do with prices in the USA and especially their economic impacts??

 

You do not appear to relate how you think things will happen, with real world, completely expected consequences of those things. Scrub power plants as clean as you want and it will price electricity out of the reach of regular folks, causing the same results as $5/gal gasoline. And "quickly" isn't necessary based on fossil fuel amounts, unless you have another fear related to the use of fossil fuels beyond just being worried about Canadian type gasoline prices?

Sorry, it is a recognition of basic economic theory (you did ask I not use personal examples, but admittedly that is too easy). You don't get sumptin for nutting. Demand completely pollution free power generation and you won't be able to afford it. The generation of power in any form requires something be DONE, and when humans DO stuff, you no longer get sumptin for nutting. Utilities expect to be PAID back OldMan. Which means...$$$$ for those they sell their super clean, hasn't harmed a fly power to.

True. Scrubbing emissions to the level you are apparently advocating might be much worse. Might not even be possible. Do you have an objection to just building loads of nuclear plants instead? That would seem to get around the emissions problem you appear to be worried about pretty effectively.

You mean like how Canada is suffering from the depression caused by their $5/gal+ gasoline? Sorry OldMan, you keep avoiding my response on this issue, and you really can't because it tends to discredit your entire concept. And you know it. Those western Canadians don't seem to even be all that bothered by it, to be truthful. Admittedly, it has been a few years since I drove through the width and breadth of both Alberta and British Columbia (and the Yukon) but just last year it didn't look all so depressed to me. Took the daughter to a conference in Calgary, the place was absolutely hopping. $5+/gal didn't seem to bother them any more than it did me. Certainly I didn't become depressed after tanking up.

Says you. I could make an honest argument that I am a professional guesser, but it doesn't matter, neither you nor I am in a position to contradict the information put forth by large, well financed, experienced and trained professionals who do this kind of work for a living. Just because you can't figure out how to estimate costs doesn't preclude those better trained, experienced and with more information from doing so.

Well, the good news is we didn't do the last couple of times "the oil hit the fan" so I'm not too worried about that being the first response next time around.

You will have to be more specific. The price of gasoline in Venezuela is like... $0.25/gal...I don't think this has much to do with prices in the USA, and I'm not sure it has any economic impact here either. Same with, say, $9/gal in France.

 

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-cooled-coal-emissions-air-health.html Read this short article and the proposed costs associated with this single solution to scrub coal fired power plant emissions.

 

Good article. So instead of spreading CO2 around in the air (and other nasties) we precipitate them out, and have the near equivalent of nuclear waste nasties to dispose of some other way? Sounds like a good idea, only costs 25% of the energy output of the plant, seems reasonable.

Do you have any experience whatsoever with the costs of STORING CO2 at these "facilities" which don't appear to be utilized in the cost calculation? The last time I checked out the CO2 which needs "stored" from a single GW coal fired power plant, it ran about 150 barrels of liquid CO2 per minute.

150 barrels a minute, 9000 barrels an hour, 216,000 barrels per day per GW of generation. 338 GW of coal fired power in the US? 73 million barrels a day of storage. Fortunately the study says this CO2 could be stored hundreds of miles away, which is great! So we need 20 Alaskan pipelines moving this CO2, to a place where we can store 73,000,000 barrels a day. The SPR holds about 730 million barrels, and is the largest storage system of any kind on the planet. So we remove all the oil, dump it on the ground perhaps, or fill up all the swimming pools in the country with it, and fill it up in 10 days of electric generation CO2.

Gotta love the academics though, their attitude of "Just pump those 73,000,000 barrels from yesterday over the hill George, we've got the next 73,000,000 coming in, need the room!" is hysterical.

So now what is the plan for the CO2 storage OldMan? And what additional costs might that entail do you think?

 

There is a ton of drivel to thumb through on this page, but the title is a world without Oil. The World has a Oil driven Economy for two reasons. One, Oil is Cheap and Abundant. And two, Industrialists made it happen to make money, pure and simple. They were already making non-oil plastics and experimenting with Electric Cars before Oil washed over the world. If this world Never had Oil, then theres the assumption that our Modern world never would have been.

This I find Offensive. The Human Race is extremely smart and resourceful and the Universe is made up of two things. Energy and Empty Space. We would have found a plethora of other ways to convert this Energy to spin the proverbial wheel.

Why havent we? The answers should be glaringly simple. First, no reason to when Oil is, again, so cheap and plentiful. Two, for the last 100 years, most research into alternative energies was bought out by Oil companys and squashed out of self preservation.

Considering that a typical oil companys profit alone is larger than the entire GPD of most of the world countrys, I think its pretty safe to say that they are funding a full court media blitz to keep people in the Dark about alternative energies by spreading false reports about the Evils of Solar and wind energies and about how wonderful Oil is. Sorry Peak Prophet. I'm looking at you. You have bought right into the whole myth that research into alternative Energies will Bankrupt the World causing a Global catastrophe. Take a look at who's funding this Pro-Oil research, and anti-alternative energy research and you will see big Oil's fingerprints all over it.

 

Just how do you plan to sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere? At temperatures where life can exist, the stuff isa gas and gas systems eventually leak.


As for Alaska Sol's rant, my OP was to outline what a world without oil would look like.

A world without oil looks like 1855.
A world without fossil fuel looks like 1763.

 

Well, the real price of oil isn't currently "cheap", said "cheap" being the real price of oil from about 1930 to 1970. And what do you mean by "oil driven economy", if I recall correctly the last number I saw said that maybe 7% of the world economy, or labor, or something, was involved in the exploration, develeopment, distribution and sale of oil and gas stuff. But if you mean "driven" as in "most of the oil goes to transport uses" then sure, nearly all of it does that.

I think it is referred to as capitalism. Capitalists like it, so apparently does America.

We did. We have. We are. Oil is obsolete, just doesn't know it yet. I like PVs on the garage, and an EV to soak up the watts. Insulate well, use natural gas where possible, let the suckers driving ICE powered machine worry about what those little numbers at the local oil extortion consortium say, they don't bother me much anymore.

Actually, I say that oil is obsolete. I drive an EV, and part of that power is derived from the solar panels on the garage roof. The more my state puts up windmills, the more of even my normal power supply comes from wind. Sorry, you will have to demonize elsewhere, I'm the wrong oil guy to accuse.

 

Not quite. Fossil fuels might have been a nice start, but the human ingenuity which turned a geologic waste product into a global transportation fuel, applied exclusively to PVs and other alternatives, would certainly have put them to good use. The world would look different, but it would still be here with way too many people probably, and we would using all sorts of other things to spin wheels, move us around, grow our food, etc etc.

 

http://www.duke-energy.com/environment/air-quality/sulfur-dioxide-scrubbers.asp

Excerpt;

Why does SO2 need to be scrubbed?

Sulfur dioxide is a reactive gas – so when it meets other gases within the earth’s atmosphere, a fine, secondary particle forms. Emissions from automobiles and trucks, industrial processes, wood burning stoves and forest fires, and surface mining and agriculture activities also contribute to the formation of fine particles. An abundance of these fine particles or SO2 within the atmosphere could impact our health and the environment.

In 1971, the United States Environmental Protection Agency first established air quality standards relating to SO2 and fine particles and updates the standards periodically. All Duke Energy plants continuously monitor emissions to ensure air quality regulations are met.

How does a scrubber work?

Once sulfur is burned and produces SO2, the exhaust gas passes through the scrubber where a spray mixture of limestone and water reacts with the SO2. The reaction enables the SO2 to be removed before it’s released into the atmosphere. Duke Energy’s newer scrubbers are typically designed to remove 95 percent or more of the SO2 from the exhaust gas. The white plume that comes out of the stack is water vapor.

What happens to the SO2 that is captured in a scrubber?

When SO2 combines with limestone, a primary byproduct is calcium sulfate, commonly known as synthetic gypsum. A recyclable product, synthetic gypsum is used in the manufacturing of wallboard and cement, and as a soil amendment in agricultural and construction applications.

Much of the synthetic gypsum produced from Duke Energy’s scrubbers is reused in these and other applications. Unused byproducts are properly disposed of in approved landfills.

 

Great! So we have an improved atmosphere without SO2 in it!

Now where do we put 73,000,000 barrels a day of liquid CO2?

 

When SO2 combines with limestone, a primary byproduct is calcium sulfate, commonly known as synthetic gypsum. A recyclable product, synthetic gypsum is used in the manufacturing of wallboard and cement, and as a soil amendment in agricultural and construction applications.

 

Dirty little secret about sulfur dioxide scrubbers: It produces two products.

A mixture of calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate (depending on temperature) and carbon dioxide.

SO2 + CaCO3 yields (CaSO3 or CaSO4) + CO2

 

So...does ANYONE know what we do with 73 million barrels a day of CO2?