What is everyone thinking about oil?

[gtstang462002]

Engines that are tuned for ethanol (because it is super-high octane) perform just fine.

This part of your statement I have to disagree with. It is backwards. The ethanol is of the same octane grade as the gasoline. However it is a form of alcohol and one gallon of alcohol vs. one gallon of petroleum based gasoline the alcohol has less btu per gallon. Hence the reason that fuel economy drop s off. It takes more fuel to deliver the same amount of power. At a gallon for E85 even in a car/ truck that is tuned for it vs the E10 that the government is forcing us to use at approx 2.79 in my area with better fuel economy the price per mile is better paying a little more at the pump.

 

[DanMan1]

As oil prices continue to rise, that will put a lot of pressure on global politics. Famines will become more common along with more power outages. Brown-outs and rolling black outs are already common in the northeast and California, and South Africa.

The future is here now...

I was with you for most of it.
What Northeast brown/black outs are attributed to high oil prices? That's a new one to me.

 

[kellog]

Locoweed,

Very interesting link. I had not heard of Dr. Bartlett before. He has a very good point on population growth and one that is indisputable. He is likely also correct on Coal, Oil and by association, Natural Gas. I think it would be difficult to argue against him on these points.

I think his ethanol analysis is very weak. He needs to revisit this subject.

What he fails to address is new technology for energy such as wind, tide, wave, solar and especially geothermal (the inside of the earth as an incredible amount of stored energy). Wood is also a minute part of the solution (this is a Wood forum). We need to push very hard on these alternate energy sources.

Thanks for supplying the link.

 

[bama]

Does anyone remember the days of the 55 mph speed limit on interstate? I thought it would take forever to get where we were going. Why was that implemented?? CONSERVATION.

That word sure doesn't get used when it comes to vehicles! Sure, it takes more time, but it saves a heck of a lot of fuel. Nowadays, people are in a hurry to go everywhere. If I go 70 on the interstate, I get passed by multitudes of drivers going in excess of 80.

Not one single politician that I have heard has even mentioned the idea of fuel conservation!!

Sure, I would like to get where I am going quick, but I really don't like the idea of $5 or $6 gas! I have tried to drive slower, but feel that I cause a hazard on the road when so many people pass me(I go 55--speed limit is 70), so I stay with the "legal" road crowd.

I also agree about gas guzzlers. How many people need pickups/suv's and how many just like the way it makes them look.

 

[irishcountry]

I agree and I stress that I know some people really do need a truck and not everyone buys one for looks!! I would like to know a little more about diesels so i'll start researching that. I think this topic is obviously one that lots of people actually care about but theirs also that segement of society that I just don't know if they will ever even look at the problem till its digging too big a hole in their pocket or get offended if you bring it up like its not a issue now and oil renews itself all the time (yes i've actually heard that theory). Even if gas was free and flowed like water the fact that on the scale we use it we have to be putting "stuff" into the atomosphere thats enough to conserve when you can. I'm not starting a global warming argument but if their was no chance that could be true we are all still breathing our own exhaust and its only been 100yrs. what about 300 yrs. from now? The solar and wind thing is something that I feel if the goverment is really serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil then they should like was said start a program for those willing to use it, heck i'm sure more money gets wasted or used for stuff that we will never know about and I think plenty of people would be interested. Michigan just started net metering the catch you have to pay for a special meter and everthing pretaining to its installation not to mention your alternative source of power to use it which you would have to anyway another stipulation if you generate more than you use they will not buy it. Keep the posts coming!!

 

[windthrown]

This part of your statement I have to disagree with. It is backwards. The ethanol is of the same octane grade as the gasoline.

Not so. Ethanol has far higher octane than gasoline. RON for ethanol is like 130 or so. That is why they use it in many high compression racing engines, even though it has far less energy that gas.

 

[windthrown]

I was with you for most of it.
What Northeast brown/black outs are attributed to high oil prices? That's a new one to me.

My intended meaning here is they (outages) are caused by limits in energy, not necesserily the price of oil. High oil/gas/NG/LP/electric prices are the result of peak oil; demand is out-stripping supply, so the price is going up. Its the limited energy supply that is causing the rolling black-outs and brown-outs in most cases becasue energy demand duing peak use.

In the northeast in particular, and in the more recent cases of CA and ZA, limited energy available during demand peaks is causing a squeeze in supply. All of these areas have grown faster in energy need than the power companies have been able to supply energy. So they all have rolling balckouts or brownouts. However, in CA at least, there was also limited availability of NG when energy there was deregulated and it became a complete disaster; albit that NG 'shortage' was a synthesized scheme to make billions overnight. tight supplies there caused direct shortages and the price spikes were huge. I paid $120 for NG one month when I lived there. I was not even at my house for that whole month, and the temp was set at 50 deg. F. Its was insane.

 

[windthrown]

Does anyone remember the days of the 55 mph speed limit on interstate? I thought it would take forever to get where we were going. Why was that implemented?? CONSERVATION.

Yah, I remember those days of the double nickle. It totally sucked. I lived through the OPEC oil embargo days before that too. That also sucked.

Not one single politician that I have heard has even mentioned the idea of fuel conservation!!

Becasue we all still remember that it SUCKED to drive 55. Political suicide these days. Anyway, the price of gas is going to dictate conservation anyway. Once it hits $5 a gallon, people will stop driving so fast, and in many cases, stop driving altogether. At $4 a gallon, its already having an effect. Yah, some will still zoom by. But they are PAYING A PREMIUM to zoom past you at 80MPH.

Conservation will not work in the long run either though. The real issue is that we keep reproducing at a rediculous rate. Try as you might, make all the great technological advances that are put forward today in solar, wind, geothermal, or whatever, drive cars at 55MPH that get 100 MPG, and you will still run out of energy at some point. The population will always grow to strip the resources available. We are already in an overshoot in population; meaning that the planet can sustain about one billion w/o the oil and coal and NG being used at today's insane rate. We are somewhere between 6 and 7 billion now.

Too many people, limited resrouces. Bacteria in a petri dish.

 

[user 19670]

Not so. Ethanol has far higher octane than gasoline. RON for ethanol is like 130 or so. That is why they use it in many high compression racing engines, even though it has far less energy that gas.

Ethanal has high 'octane' by virtue of it low BTU content. Ethanol is far less explosive than gasoline so an engine that is modified to run ethanol won't ping.

Ethanol has almost exactly 1/2 the BTU of gasoline and since our cars/trucks have heat engines . . . The typical 90/10 mix gasohol we are often forced to buy has only 95% the BTU as straight gasoline and gives you poorer mileage.

Racing is not a good comparison since they can modify from the cat forward without getting arrested (you try that and see what can happen). Try going on a trip on pure ethanol and you will need either twice as many stops to fuel up or a hunormous fuel tank to enable driving the same distance as you used to with straight gasoline.

opcorn:

hunormous -- Halfway between 'huge' and 'humongous'

 

[habanero]

Ethanal has high 'octane' by virtue of it low BTU content. Ethanol is far less explosive than gasoline so an engine that is modified to run ethanol won't ping.

Ethanol has almost exactly 1/2 the BTU of gasoline and since our cars/trucks have heat engines . . . The typical 90/10 mix gasohol we are often forced to buy has only 95% the BTU as straight gasoline and gives you poorer mileage...

I think maybe you need to do a little research on the meaning of octane and btu content, because they aren't related in the manner you are suggesting. Octane rating is based on the resistance of a fuel to auto-ignite from compression and has nothing to do with BTU content.

You are correct, however, that ethanol does indeed have a lower btu rating than gasoline. But that isn't the end of the story. You'll never get as much energy out of a gallon of ethanol as you'll get out of a gallon of gasoline, but if an engine is optimized to burn alcohol (compression, timing, etc.), it can use the energy content more efficiently to get dang close to the same mileage. The problem is we are so married to gasoline (and can't buy pure ethanol), that we have to comprimise engine design to be able to burn a mix of gasoline and ethanol. This comprimise is the reason for the reduced mileage.

A better alternative, in my opinion, is butanol which has properties much closer to gasoline and can be made by a fermentation process as well. I've been opposed to butanol because the butanol I've used in the lab stinks terribly from an aldehyde contaminant found in it, but I've lately read research suggesting biofermentation pathways don't produce the offending compounds in as great of concentrations as traditional butanol manufacturing. The technology for fermentation of butanol, though, is in its infancy so it'll be a while before it becomes a viable option.

 

[Hugenpoet]

The following is a link to a site entirely comprised of information on what is called the "Peak Oil" theory. Peak Oil is a theory that essentially says that the world has a finite collective capacity to produce oil and petroleum liquids and that once that "peak" is reach an inevitable decline begins as the various oil fields world wide begin their depletion stage (begun in the US in 1971, the North Sea in 2001 and Mexico last year). Many believe that the world collectively has now just reached its peak production capacity and the amount of oil that will be produced each year in the future will be less and less. Not a very comforting thought in a world of increasing population and expanding economic activity in counties of high population.

http://www.theoildrum.com/?gclid=CIKrjunRtJECFQ1ZHgodenBpOw

 

[anti TC]

I don't know if this has been said as I can't stomach reading this entire thread, but here's a silly thought......... Why not adjust our lifestyles such that we don't impose ever increasing demand on the worlds resources? To clarify, ever increasing growth is usually associated with cancer.

Sheesh.... I sure hope Hillary wins as this country clearly is in need of a woman's touch when it comes to leadership.

 

[jdboy9]

I have to agree with you windthrown on the fact that our planet has become an over active petri dish

I'm just concerned at how much the planet can handle before it has enough and fights back in some ways I think it already has. Not that the planet is alive but it sure seems like it at times.

Well good luck to all of you and thanks for posting hope we can all just live comfortably and enjoy life because thats really what its all about. If conserving and changing lifestyles is what has to be done to enjoy it then more power to the people that can. I know i have changed a lot and will continue regardless if I'm a spec of dirt in a much larger problem.

 

[bama]

Yah, I remember those days of the double nickle. It totally sucked. I lived through the OPEC oil embargo days before that too. That also sucked.



Becasue we all still remember that it SUCKED to drive 55. Political suicide these days. Anyway, the price of gas is going to dictate conservation anyway. Once it hits $5 a gallon, people will stop driving so fast, and in many cases, stop driving altogether. At $4 a gallon, its already having an effect. Yah, some will still zoom by. But they are PAYING A PREMIUM to zoom past you at 80MPH.

Conservation will not work in the long run either though. The real issue is that we keep reproducing at a rediculous rate. Try as you might, make all the great technological advances that are put forward today in solar, wind, geothermal, or whatever, drive cars at 55MPH that get 100 MPG, and you will still run out of energy at some point. The population will always grow to strip the resources available. We are already in an overshoot in population; meaning that the planet can sustain about one billion w/o the oil and coal and NG being used at today's insane rate. We are somewhere between 6 and 7 billion now.

Too many people, limited resrouces. Bacteria in a petri dish.

I see your point. I guess I have it real good when both my wife and I live less than a mile from work. We don't drive anywhere except once a month to go to the "big" city(Grand Forks, ND--population 50,000). Our fuel bill has not gone up much.

I will try to remember how much it is costing the guy that zooms by me, next time.

Should we start seeing a level off in consumption when our nation's population beings to shrink? We are below the 2.0 birthrate, so unless that changes, we will start to get smaller.

 

[ADAMH]

PEAK OIL is coming....

and ethanol is a scam...brought about by the farm lobbiest...


its real cost is much higher once you add in the farm subsidies...not to mention the evnvironmental issues

 

[bama]

I don't know if this has been said as I can't stomach reading this entire thread, but here's a silly thought......... Why not adjust our lifestyles such that we don't impose ever increasing demand on the worlds resources? To clarify, ever increasing growth is usually associated with cancer.

Sheesh.... I sure hope Hillary wins as this country clearly is in need of a woman's touch when it comes to leadership.

I agree about lifestyle adjustment. We have done everything we can.

I hope you are kidding about HC. That woman is more machine than person!

I loved the tear thing before the New Hampshire primary. Must be nice to just turn them on and off when you want.

But, wait... Maybe that would work in negotiations with world leaders.. Just start balling and they will accept whatever terms she gives.

Sorry for the rant. She just doesn't seem genuine. I always though it was funny that she got elected in New York, but she was from Arkansas.

Not that I like any of the people we will get to choose from. I think there is a level of "slickness" with most politicians.

 

[windthrown]

Should we start seeing a level off in consumption when our nation's population beings to shrink? We are below the 2.0 birthrate, so unless that changes, we will start to get smaller.

The reproduction rate is leveling off or even shrinking now, but not the population. For two reasons. One is that a large part of the US population is young, so even a 2.0 birth rate will result in a higher population for one or two more generations. The other reason is emmigration. We have to keep importing cheap labor. Here in the PNW at least, there is a severe shortage of farm labor, and there is a huge stand-off between immigration control and demand for importing a low end labor market.

Also this is a global issue. In advanced countries, the reproduction rates are going down. Japan, Europe, US all are at or nearing declines. But the rest of world is still reproducing at an increasing rate. Global population estimates are staggaring; overshoot looks to be 11 billion or so before the decline from exhausted resources puts a massive strain on population. Famine, wars, disease and exposure will kill off large populations, in the hundreds of millions, and then in the billions. That is, if climate change does not radically alter our situation before that time and decrease population due to crop failures and famine and disease, and the wars that will break out fighting over what reserves are left.

Its going to get ugly. No time in human history has there been a 'good' time when populations decreased due to disease (as they did at the end of the Roman and Greek Empires, or during the black plagues of Europe) or when resources were reduced (China famines when I was a kid, or Mayan Empire demise due to drought). We are at the peak of modern civilization. Whether we have peaked in oil yet or not can be debated, but we are near, at or just past peak oil at this point. We will live to see the beginning of the great decline to come. Economic recession or depression, famine, wars, disease epidemics; all rather Biblical in purportion.

 

[windthrown]

Ethanal has high 'octane' by virtue of it low BTU content. Ethanol is far less explosive than gasoline so an engine that is modified to run ethanol won't ping.

Ethanol has almost exactly 1/2 the BTU of gasoline and since our cars/trucks have heat engines . . . The typical 90/10 mix gasohol we are often forced to buy has only 95% the BTU as straight gasoline and gives you poorer mileage.

Racing is not a good comparison since they can modify from the cat forward without getting arrested (you try that and see what can happen). Try going on a trip on pure ethanol and you will need either twice as many stops to fuel up or a hunormous fuel tank to enable driving the same distance as you used to with straight gasoline.

Have to disagree with several of your points here. Explosive is probably the wrong word to use here. Available potential energy is better. Ethanol is certainly energy poor compared to straight gas, but way more than half the value. Ethanol has almost exactly 2/3 the energy of gasoiline. Methanol is about half. Ethanol also has better octane becasue it burns slower and more evenly, not becasue there is less energy available. Also alchohol fuels burn cleaner than gasoline does, and will not affect a cat that I am aware of.

 

[gtstang462002]

Not so. Ethanol has far higher octane than gasoline. RON for ethanol is like 130 or so. That is why they use it in many high compression racing engines, even though it has far less energy that gas.

You are correct i should have fully done my homework on the octane rating before posting... Though what I do know from experience is that when I was forced by our wonderfull government to run E10 and the price of fuel went up at the same time by close to a dollar a gallon and my fuel economy went down the drain all at once ethanol fuels left a horrible taste in my mouth.

 

[gtstang462002]

I don't know if this has been said as I can't stomach reading this entire thread, but here's a silly thought......... Why not adjust our lifestyles such that we don't impose ever increasing demand on the worlds resources? To clarify, ever increasing growth is usually associated with cancer.

Sheesh.... I sure hope Hillary wins as this country clearly is in need of a woman's touch when it comes to leadership.

Because america is inept to change....