Energy Central EnergyPulse Home
Home Subscribe Login Contribute to Energy Pulse Advertise on Energy Pulse About Energy Pulse Feedback to Energy Pulse
Search Articles:   
  You are here: Home > Fossil & Biomass > Article Display


Free Newsletter
Sign up today for your free subscription to the EnergyPulse Weekly Update - delivered directly to your e-mail box.
e-mail:


 

Biofuels: The Promise of the Next Generations

Feb 10 2010 - 1:00 PM Eastern - Your location

The second wave of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, algae and others bypass the food vs. fuel controversy and are on the cusp of commercialization. This webinar will review the latest developments in the advanced biofuel space with leading companies more...

Conducting a distributed chorus

Feb 17 2010 - 12:00 Eastern - Your City

Join Intelligent Utility managing editor Kate Rowland, along with a panel from PHI including Rob Stewart, manager of technology evaluation and implementation, and Todd McGregor, AMI director, for an interactive discussion about this company's work to build a more intelligent more...

21st Century T&D: Building the Transmission Piece of Smart Grid

Feb 18 2010 - 12:00 Eastern - Your City

Join industry leaders and Marty Rosenberg, Editor-in-Chief of EnergyBiz magazine, for an interactive discussion about the critical relationship between transmission and distribution (T&D) investment and smart grid success. As the energy enterprise gets smarter toward the consumer end with smart more...

Transforming the Electrical Grid: Addressing Transformation Strategies to Implementing A Smart Grid

Feb 25 2010 - 3:00-4:00pm Eastern - Your City

This webcast should be attended by those individuals that are responsible for identifying, planning and evaluating Smart Grid solutions, including those that empower and engage consumers and are easily assimilated with existing or new technology and business processes. more...

Smart Grid Revolution

Feb 18 2010 - Feb 19 2010 - AUSTIN, TX - USA

ACI's Smart Grid Revolution February 18-19, 2010 A two day strategic event bringing together utility professionals, government & state officials & consultants involved in deployment of the smart grid. To learn strategies which will improve energy efficiency programs & operations, more...

EnergyBiz Leadership Forum 2010: Energy's Emerging Architecture

Feb 28 2010 - Mar 2 2010 - Washington, DC

In 2009, a global economic meltdown collided with an energy crisis to turn the world on its ear. In the United States we've witnessed an unprecedented spending on energy resource development and infrastructure. As a result, a new energy architecture more...

CERAWeek 2010

Mar 8 2010 - Mar 12 2010 - Houston, TX - USA

CERAWeek, IHS CERA's 29th Executive Conference, is recognized as a leading forum offering insight into the energy future. Each year senior policymakers, energy and power executives, and financial and technology leaders from over 55 countries engage with CERA experts in more...

2nd Annual Thin Film Solar Summit Europe

Mar 17 2010 - Mar 18 2010 - Berlin Germany

The conference will provide a comprehensive analysis of the thin film industry and its key challenges in an interactive manner. Leading companies will share their experiences through panel debates and high-level presentations. A great opportunity to network with the whole more...

Gas and Electric Business Understanding Seminar

Feb 24 2010 - Feb 25 2010 - New York, NY - USA

Gas and Electric Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the natural gas and electric industries. Position yourself for career success by gaining a solid understanding of how each business works, including key physical, market and regulatory aspects, as well more...

Gas Business Understanding Seminar

Mar 1 2010 - Mar 2 2010 - Houston, TX - USA

Gas Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the natural gas industry. Position yourself for career advancement by gaining a solid understanding of how the gas business works including key physical, market, and regulatory aspects and how market participants navigate more...

Electric Business Understanding Seminar

Mar 3 2010 - Mar 4 2010 - Houston, TX - USA

Electric Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the electric industry. Position yourself for career advancement by gaining a solid understanding of how the electric business works including key physical, market, and regulatory aspects and how market participants navigate this more...

Gas Market Dynamics Seminar

Mar 3 2010 - Mar 4 2010 - Houston, TX - USA

Gas Market Dynamics offers participants an in-depth understanding of North American natural gas markets and how they function. Enhance your career by furthering your knowledge of market structure, supply and demand, services offered in gas markets, and how various participants more...

Energy Central
Power Network




Fossil & Biomass


We know you have something to say!
There is an immediate need for articles on the hot topics in the Power Industry! EnergyPulse, like no other publication, also provides a means for our readers to immediately interact with experts like you.
 
Contribute Today!
Please view our Author Guidelines and send submissions to the editor.

Click For More Articles on Fossil & Biomass
 
The Impact of Oil Supplies on World Peace
9.7.05   F. Mack Shelor, Independent Consultant, South River Consulting

Article Viewed 6044 Times
21 Comments
E-mail Article Printer Friendly
 
  • Email This Author
  • Comment On Article
  • About The Author
  • More Articles By This Author

    The world is finally waking up to the idea that oil and natural gas are finite commodities and that world demand currently and for the foreseeable future will exceed world supplies. As with all commodities, when demand exceeds supply, the price will continue to rise until sufficient numbers of consumers leave the market to re-balance the supply and demand equation.

    The fact that appears to be emerging that could not have been anticipated is that oil demand, on a worldwide basis, does not appear to be strongly impacted by price. In fact, oil demand is continuing to increase even as the price is rising. While it is only conjecture, it appears that the expanding economies that represent 75% of the world’s demand are not strongly impacted by price. While the poor economies that represent only 25% of the world’s oil demand do not have a strong enough market position to bring the price back in line. As the demand in the poorer economies decreases to its minimum levels (which does not represent a significant reduction in demand), the demand in the expanding economies simply takes up the slack.

    In practical terms this means that the strongest economies in the world will continue to expand and the weaker economies will decline. More specifically, the 35 European countries, the U.S, Canada and Mexico, China, India, South Korea and Japan, Australia and Brazil will continue to expand. The oil supplying nations will continue to enjoy exceptionally high profits and should also continue to expand. But, all of the other nations of the world will decline. This means that 25% of the nations will enjoy prosperity while 75% will decline.

    What is interesting in the above statistics is that there is one exception to all of the other countries mentioned; Brazil. More than 25 years ago Brazil made the decision that it didn’t want to be slave to the oil companies and suppliers. As a result, they have developed a fuel supply system largely based on Ethanol. The result of this decision is that Brazil has a positive balance of trade and is not being broadly impacted by the recent increases in oil prices.

    The question must be asked, why haven’t other countries, including the U.S. moved in the same direction?

    Ethanol and the U.S.:

    The recently passed U.S. Energy Bill mandated the use of only 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol. While this is a step in the right direction, it makes a person wonder what would have happened if the Energy Bill had mandated 42 billion gallons of Ethanol instead of 7.5 billion gallons. The U.S. currently consumes more than 23 million barrels of oil each day which is more than 25% of the world’s production. At that consumption rate the U.S. consumes 352,590,000,000 gallons of oil each year. 42 billion gallons of ethanol represents approximately 12% of the total oil consumption. asked, why haven’t other countries, including the U.S. moved in the same direction?

    First, our oil imports would fall by one billion barrels each year at a cost of more than $60 billion/year or about $5 billion/month. Second, the domestic economy would expand by more than $73 billion/year just from the ethanol sales and more than $40 billion/year in by-product sales. When a typical multiplier effect and down-stream industries are considered, the total positive impact on the domestic economy would be more than $500 billion/year.

    From an environmental point of view, 12% ethanol in the transportation sector would result in a significant reduction in new greenhouse gas production. When all of the other potential ethanol producers are included, the world could continue to expand and the industrial impact would be reduced.

    The farming sector of the U.S. economy would operate at full capacity, several million new jobs would be created and the Social Security Trust Fund would have many new participants forestalling the bankruptcy of that social contract.

    Terrorism and the lack of oil supplies:

    Why is ethanol so important? As mentioned above, 25% of the World’s nations will continue to expand while 75% will be in decline because they cannot afford to compete in the purchase of scarce oil supplies. I suppose conventional logic would dictate that all of these people, approximately one-half of the Worlds population will simply suffer quietly while the other half happily enjoys their expansion and increased ability to have new toys and homes. I think not.

    What will happen is that these disenfranchised, under-educated, under-fed and under-employed people will become the next generation of terrorists. They may not go by the same names that we currently hear from the middle-east, but they will develop into activists and terrorists and they will have a cause. The great “Satan” will be the U.S. and the other expanding economies.

    Why is Ethanol so important?

    The single largest Balance of Trade issue with most developing and third-world countries is the purchase of fuel supplies. Many of these countries produce small amounts of oil but most purchase the bulk of their oil supplies. Why don’t all of the countries between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer produce ethanol from sugarcane? Why don’t these countries use something that they grow to produce something they need? Why don’t these countries decrease their Balance of Trade deficit by producing some of their own fuel? Why don’t these countries expand their job base by producing some of their own fuel?

    The answer to these questions is not simple. Many of these countries are former colonies that have enjoyed price supports on the export of sugar. Many of these countries simply have not recognized the enormous change that is occurring in the Worlds economy and the impact that these changes will have on them.

    To some level the U.S. and other expanding economies depend on the third-world economies as outlets for their goods. If these economies are allowed to contract, the expanding economies will lose markets for their products. Therefore, countries that join the energy production sector by producing ethanol will be in a better position to purchase goods and services provided by the other expanding economies.

    Ethanol is not “The Solution” to the world’s energy supplies, but it is certainly one of the solutions. Within the next ten years the World’s oil demand will exceed 100 million barrels per day. If ethanol production worldwide could reach 10 million barrels per day, the pressure on oil price, refining capacity and exploration would be reduced. But, more importantly, the ethanol producing countries would be able to join the other expanding economies, reducing the political pressures and the potential for terrorism.

    A recent article by Cathy Procter, The Denver Business Journal on August 7, 2005 provides some interesting pieces of additional information. Oil is expected to remain in the range of $50 to $70 per barrel for two years, said Mark Rodekohr, director of energy markets and contingency information for the federal Energy Information Administration. And the price of natural gas, used by 69 million homes, businesses and manufacturing plants across the United States, could climb to $12 per thousand cubic feet in the next two years.

    The demand for oil has risen every year but one in the last 20, and shows no signs of slowing, particularly with the economies of China and India growing, said Tom Petrie, chairman and CEO of Parkman & Company Inc., a Denver-based oil and gas investment firm. In the past, excess production has cushioned consumers from big price jumps at the pump. But that cushion is gone.

    Worldwide demand for oil in 2005 is expected to be about 84.7 million barrels per day, up 2.4% from 2004. Petrie predicted that oil prices would remain between $40 and $60 per barrel with occasional price rises to over $80 per barrel; I believe this is incorrect.

    He then explained that existing oil production would decline between 2.5% and 8% in the next five years. On the low end this would be a loss of 10 million barrels/day and on the high end it would be a loss of over 28 million barrels/day of supplies. Of course these supplies would be replaced by new production that is predicted to be between 13 million and 25 million barrels per day to the market by 2010. Statistically, this means that oil production may not increase over the next ten years. Based on the current expansion levels, and using a future expansion level of only 1.5%/year, the demand for oil should exceed 100 million barrels/day within ten years.

    When you balance these two figures, it is clear that oil supplies five years out will be about the same as they are today. If demand continues to increase the pressure on price will actually increase and we may see prices approaching $100 per barrel of oil on the market.

    On the natural gas side, production dropped by 2% in 2004 despite higher prices and a drilling rig count higher than it’s been in 20 years, Stu Wagner, an analyst with Petrie Parkman stated.

    Summary:

    The immediate reaction to this is probably that I have reached a long way to establish my position. I would argue that a very quick examination of the Middle East and terrorism, as well as the fact that the U.S. went to Iraq and has protected Kuwait from invasion would serve as an excellent proof that the expanding economies will protect their positions to get oil or some other fuel source.

    Other expanding nations such as China and India have been smugly content to watch the U.S. protect the availability of the world’s oil supplies. They will let us spend our money and our lives to keep the oil flowing. This begs the question of how these countries will behave when supply and demand are seriously out of balance. Will they participate in protecting the availability of supplies for everyone or will they only protect their own self-interest by literally taking the supplies that they need. The nations that surround China and have oil should be concerned.

    Technology will expand the efficiency associated with conversion of agricultural products into ethanol. While this will not solve the energy crises it has the potential for expanding supplies and expanding the base of energy production.

    Oil supplies may expand incrementally, but it appears that the expanding economies will increase their demand at a greater rate than the supplies will expand. Based on the continued imbalance of supply and demand it is reasonable to project further increases in oil price.

    Ethanol production has the potential to increase supplies by 10 million barrels or more per day if the sugarcane producing nations and other starch based crops enter the market. While 10 million barrels per day will only represent 10% of the world’s supplies, it appears that oil supplies do not have the potential for this same level of expansion.

    More importantly, more than 50 nations may have the potential to enter the production side of the market. These 50 nations would be able to reduce their balance of trade, improve local job conditions and participate in the current economic expansion.

    The fact is, if we don’t move to the interim step of maximum world ethanol production, along with other renewable energy sources, we are going to create a two class world of “haves” and “have nots” that will sponsor an economic terrorism for the next 100+ years, or until there is an economic substitute to oil.

    For information on purchasing reprints of this article, contact Tim Tobeck ttobeck@energycentral.com.
    Copyright 2010 CyberTech, Inc.
     
    Contact The Author
    Email the author
    E-mail Article Printer Friendly
     
  • Click Here For More Articles on Gas


  • Click Here For More Articles By F. Mack Shelor
  • Do you agree or disagree with this article? Send in your own article.

     

    Readers Comments

    Date Comment
    barry raleigh
    9.7.05
    If the world oil consumption is 100 mbbl/d in the next 10 years or so, and, the US consumption is 25 mbbl/d, a 10% share generated by ethanol would require 2.5 mbbl/d of ethanol. Switchgrass, a carefully studied example of an ethanol crop, generates 5 tons per acre of biomass. A yield of 4bbls/acre of oil energy equivalent ethanol from switchgrass cultivation is currently achievable. Proponents say we can double that production. If the yield is conceded to be 8 bbls/acre, then supplying 10% of our 2015 oil consumption would require more than 25% of our entire US acreage of arable land. Inasmuch as world grain reserves have fallen more than 50% in the past 5 years and world population is rising, arable land will not likely be turned to energy production except to provide waste biomass for ethanol production. We should use all of it that is economically viable but supplanting 10% of our oil consumption may be an unrealistic hope. This argument is based on a competing demand on agricultural land to supply food that seems inevitably to increase. The alternative, a near-term decline in world population, is either a fairy tale or a horror too grave to contemplate. Barry Raleigh

    Len Gould
    9.8.05
    "Other expanding nations such as China and India have been smugly content to watch the U.S. protect the availability of the world’s oil supplies. They will let us spend our money and our lives to keep the oil flowing." - I've contended from the beginning that the "War on WMD / Regime Change" invasion of Iraq was simply a poorly thought out colonial adventure which will bite back hard. Given the number of times we Canadians have been vilified for not joining, i find it interesting to see this now in mainstream.

    "The nations that surround China and have oil should be concerned." - Esp. given the Iraq precedent. On Ethanol: from study documented in article by David Pimental at http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/pimentel2003.pdf

    1) "In the U.S. ethanol system, considerably more energy, including high-grade fossil fuel, is required to produce ethanol than is available in the energy-ethanol output. Specifically about 29% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy in a gallon of ethanol." - Other IMHO less believable studies have come up with barely positive figures. Why is this not part of the discussion?

    2) "using Shapouri, Duffield, and Wang’s optimistic data, in order to substitute for a third of the gasoline used per automobile, Americans would require as much cropland as they need to feed themselves!"

    3) "Until recently, Brazil had been the largest producer of ethanol in the world. Brazil used sugarcane to produce ethanol and sugarcane is a more efficient feedstock for ethanol than corn grain (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996). However, the energy balance was negative and the Brazilian government subsidized the ethanol industry. There the government was selling ethanol to the public for 83c= per gallon that was costing them $1.25 per gallon to produce for sale (Pimentel and others, 1988). Because of serious economic problems in Brazil, the government has abandoned subsidizing ethanol (Spirits Low, 1999; Coelho and others, 2002), and without the subsidy, ethanol production is no longer economically feasible for the producers."

    At minimumj, i would need to see these addressed before considering ethanol further. Now, bio-diesel from biomass via enzymes, that makes sense.

    Roger Arnold
    9.10.05
    The issue addressed here--the impact of oil supplies on world peace--is a vitally important one. I'm not sure how much can really be said about it in one 3000-word article, much less a short follow-up comment. Well, maybe a long comment..

    I agree with the author that the comparative oil indepencence that Brazil has achieved is laudable. I don't know to what extent the financial cost of ethanol fuel from sugar cane is subsidized by the Brazilian government, but it is certainly the case that it is not subsidized by massive imports of oil. Brazil imports very little oil, in comparison to the amount of ethanol it produces, and only a small portion of what it does import goes to producing ethanol. It is successfully turning sunlight into liquid fuel for its transportation sector. That fact alone gives the lie to claims by skeptics that biofuel production ultimately consumes oil in amounts comparable to the amount of fuel produced.

    The problem with Pimentel's studies is that they are based on current agricultural practices in the U.S. Those practices are shaped to maximize economic returns in the context of cheap petroleum products and a farm subsidy program. His studies have much to say about the dubious wisdom of an expanded ethanol fuel program in the current context, but little to say about how biofuels could work in a different context. There are ways to maintain soil fertility and achieve high yields of biofuel crops that don't involve profligate use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and fuel-guzzling cultivators, dryers, and other farm machinery.

    Having said that, I have to agree with Len that there is no way that biofuels will be able to replace oil at the rate we currently squander it. There just isn't enough arable land to grow biofuel crops on that scale. And even if there were, competition for land use between fuel and food would guarantee that both fuel and food would become very expensive.

    The only realistic way we have to reduce our dependence on oil imports is to reinvent our transportation infrastructure. It's possible to do so: it's absurd that we routinely haul around 3000 pounds of metal to take us wherever we wish to go. It's not just unnecessary and wasteful, from an engineering perspective, it's inelegant. (Oh, and it also kills about 40,000 of us every year.)

    Sadly, I think the chances are slim to zero that we will embrace the reinvention of our transportation infrastructure as the economic driver that it could be. Thinking big and boldly has been a declining fashion, ever since John Kennedy was assassinated. We'll stay wedded to big cars and trucks, and mile upon square mile of concrete and parking lots, for as long as we possibly can. And meanwhile, remaining oil supplies will become increasingly precious prizes over which the elites of nations contend. They call it "the Great Game". And that's what it is, to those whose children are not on the front line.

    James Hopf
    9.11.05
    Roger,

    The future isn't THAT gloomy! While I agree with you on the limits of bio-fuels, we have plenty of options waiting in the wings (and just around the corner), the best example of which being the plug-in hybrid car.

    This technology is capable of reducing our oil consumption by a factor of 6 to 8 (per mile traveled), and may eventually evolve into pure electric car technology that can remove oil consumption entirely. Given the greatly reduced consumption of liquid fuel, a great fraction of that fuel could be provided by biomass sources, or perhaps by domestic synthetic fuel sources where hydrogen is added to carbon feedstocks (coal?, CO2?). (And hey, if we feel we must accomplish basically the same thing at a much higher cost and at less than half the well-to-wheel efficiency, there's always hydrogen!)

    With the above technologies, we can primarily power our transportation needs with domestic energy sources that we have in abundance (coal, uranium, wind, sun, etc....), with biomass probably playing some significant role. These technologies will also result in a substantial increase in the efficiency of transportation, in terms of primary energy consumed per mile driven, as compared to today.

    Personally, I'm skeptical that Americans will ever give up the convenience of the private automobile. We'll use the technologies above, and will even be willing to pay significantly more for transport, before we'll do anything to fundamentally alter our society, or how we get around. The bottom line is that, even now (and in the future), transport fuel costs are just not a high enough fraction of people's incomes to radically change their behavior.

    Graham Cowan
    9.11.05
    "Individual mobility is much valued, and no amount of propaganda has succeeded in making people forego it. As fast as countries become prosperous, their citizens buy cars even when their wise men oppose it."
    (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/energy.html)

    --- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
    boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

    Len Gould
    9.12.05
    At least that proportion wealthy enough

    Mike Hoy
    9.13.05
    As depressing as this reading is, I fear it may be overly optimistic. The author quotes a reference to "new oil production predicted to be between 13 million and 25 million barrels per day to the market by 2010". Such claims of increased production are common but may be made by people without sufficient knowledge to make them. There is a large body of contradicting and well qualified opinion that indicates world oil production is at, or very near, peak right now and simply cannot be increased because insufficient new oil has been found and older fields are playing out.

    Santiago Velez
    9.13.05
    We need to decentralize our energy generation and centralize our energy consumption. We need to take advantage of economies of scale in the manufacturing of electricity generating plants (modular and mass produced) and then develop a consuming society that does not require a new infrastructure. Combustible fuels are unfortunately decentralized in their use, with hydrogen fuel no exception, whereas plug-in electric cars need only access the grid. At this point we can focus on the losses of transmission and distribution system of the electricity grid, instead of trying to maintain multiple distribution infrastructures (gas, oil, etc.). Look at your electricity bill, about half is transmission and distribution, you don't think part of that is in your gas bill? The key to efficiency is simplicity, minmize the process variables and the process can be maintained and improved much more efficiently.

    Mark Thompson
    9.13.05
    I do not pretend to completely understand the inner workings of our oil based economy. However I am surprised that no one sees the obvious happening. Unless we make it a national or even global effort to shift our economies from a diminishing resource we will be faced with "oil wars". What happens to China, India, even the US when oil production does not quench our thirst? You are already seeing world turmoil in an effort to secure access to this non-renewable resource. Governments jockeying for contracts, invading oil producing countries, governments attempts to purchase production assets (Unocal).

    As a country we should look at ending our oil based economy with as much fervor as it took for us to go to the moon. We see our stance as a country diminishing as we see new economies such as China and India growing their market share. This is an opportunity for us to change the dynamic. Become the leader in energy conservation, renewable resources, new TECHNOLOGY!

    Otherwise we are doomed to unstable energy supply leading to unstable economies, and nothing to say about terrorism.

    Roger Arnold
    9.13.05
    I sincerely hope you're right, James, about the future not being "THAT gloomy". This is a complex subject. It becomes even more so when one has to distinguish between what could technically happen vs. what is most likely to actually happen. Technical possibilities are easy for an engineer to delineate; likely political and economic developments are hard.

    When I'm wearing my engineer's hat, I get very excited by the possibilities I see for making things better. Plug-in hybrids for better fuel economy are just the tip of one large iceberg. But when I switch to my observer's hat and look at what's actually going on, it's hard to retain much optimism. To a large extent, my gloom about future wars and conflicts over oil resources is based on what has been unfolding over the past few years. How many Americans, even, (never mind the rest of the world) seriously believe we would be in Iraq if it weren't for Mideast oil? How many believe that the Pentagon's new doctrine asserting the right to employ preemptive nuclear strikes will discourage nuclear proliferation and make the world a safer place to live? We are in the grip of madness.

    Victor Bush
    9.13.05
    Mark has hit the nail on the head. The is a growing chorus of professionals espousing the notion that a major effort, with the sacrifice and determination this country put forth when entering into World War II, will be required to achieve the objective of energy independence in time frame required.

    Unfortunately the general population is only beginning to understand the problem much less understand the effort and sacrifice that will be required of us. The politicians are equally as ignorant or unwilling to make the tough choices required as it may hurt their chances for reelection.

    Of course there are those that will say the higher costs of fossil fuels will cause more to be discovered and people to conserve more. While this may be true, it may be too little too late. History will be judge of what was the right thing to do.

    Murray Duffin
    9.13.05
    Nice collection of valid points here. Victor I would disagree re politicians. They seem to be more motivated by corporate lobbying. Harvard published a survey some time ago that showed that near 80% of Americans, including more than 70% of republicans favor legislating higher CAFE standards, and yet the politicians do nothing, because big auto and big oil resist. Murray

    Graham Cowan
    9.13.05
    It's important to understand that just about everyone a politician talks to in an ordinary workday is big oil. Every civil servant is an oil baron, cf. http://www.opec.org/library/Special%20Publications/pdf/2004.pdf.

    --- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
    boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

    Don Hirschberg
    9.14.05
    i haven't done the calculations myself but I have noticed where competent people over the years have independently reached the conclution that ethanol is an energy sink, not an energy source. The calculations for hydrogen are obvious - really no calculations are necessary. Hydrogen is an energy sink, and always will be. Because there is no hydrogen on this planet all hydrogen has to be manufactured and no matter how you do it, it will always take more energy to make than it returns.

    Oil is by far the best fuel for powering transportation. Nothing else comes close. Alas, we are at or very close to "oil peak." Maybe even this year world oil production will peak and inexorably forever decline - while demandstill increases. Whether it peaks this year or a decade hence would have almost no difference to our dilemna.

    We really only have one problem. The world is today what it is because of fossil fuel usage over the last 250 years. In this time world population has increased from hundreds of million to close to 7 billion - about 10 times. Oil depletion, global warning and impending water shortages are only symptoms - the desease iis too many people.

    Don Hirschberg

    Brad Vincent
    9.14.05
    Any serious discussion about the production of alternate transportation fuels (ethanol, bio-diesel, hydrogen, etc), must address the energy required to produce them, as recognized by some of the commenters here. To produce alternate fuels from fossil fuels is a lose-lose proposal. Not only can't you get back the energy you put in, you pollute the environment while you're doing it. The only realistic approach is to use renewable energy sources. Granted, we're talking about a lot of energy here. This approach would require significant investments in wind, solar, hydro, wave, nuclear, etc but is the only solution that yields a positive energy balance and is environmentally friendly.

    Mark Thompson
    9.14.05
    Seems like everyone agrees including the author that something needs to be done regarding our energy supply.

    What can a guy do to make a difference other than buy hybrid and conserve energy as much as possible. How does one get ideas raised above the noise?

    Len Gould
    9.14.05
    One point is that producing transportation fuel (somehow) is a great way to make use of intermittent and remote windpower resources, IF ONLY someone came up with a way to do it that's not so difficult and expensive as hydrogen. Must be some way to economically use intermittent electricity to attach hydrogens to carbons?

    Roger Arnold
    9.14.05
    Hey, have you been reading my mind, Len? I've been working on an article about that, but haven't finished it yet.

    Don Hirschberg
    9.14.05
    For well over a hundred years it has been established that the Laws of Thermodynamics preclude perpetual motion machines. Science not only tells us what can happen, but just as important what can’t happen. Few realize this and lives have been spent on fatuous efforts to make a perpetual motion device, or cycle. Few who try to make perpetual motion “machines” realize that’s what they are indeed trying to do. A simple example: If you use any hydrogen fueled device to generate electricity which in turn is used to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen so produced will always be insufficient to run the device. There are no clever ways to make end-runs around thermodynamics. Sure, hydrogen atoms can be “stuck” on carbon atoms to make hydrocarbons but there will always be a net lose of useable energy. A homey and obvious example is if you were to take a car to the top of a hill (by any means whatsoever) this car going down hill will not replace the energy used to put it on the hill. Another example: Any storage battery must yield less than it took to charge it.

    A common perpetual motion trap is when inventors try to feed back into the system frictional heat or discharged “waste heat.” The fallacy here is that heat will not travel “uphill” (from a lower temperature to a higher temperature) without an outside source of energy. In common usage “waste heat” of course might be used to heat a building for example, but that use is outside the thermodynamic cycle – the machine is unaffected and doesn’t know anything about it.)

    Don Hirschberg

    Mike Hoy
    9.15.05
    What is the big deal about alternate sources of energy (particularly for transportation) taking more energy to produce than they can deliver? All living things, and humans in particular, spend all their time converting one form of energy to another and always at less than 100% efficiency. Solar and wind power is quite inefficient and so are nuclear reactors and steam turbines. That is no reason not to produce electricity in this way. If Hydrogen or some other suitable fuel for transportation could be economically manufactured from electricity produced by these means, it would be huge improvement on the current situation and should not be discouraged because it is "inefficient" or a "net-loss".

    Len Gould
    9.15.05
    Roger: Yeah, both Johney Carson and i are well known for it. Great idea though, I'd like to read it when you publish.

    Don: I fail to see the relevance?

    Add your comments:
    Please log in to leave a comment!

    Top

        Home | Register | Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | About Us | Feedback
       Copyright © 2002-2010, CyberTech, Inc. - All rights reserved. Read our Terms of Service.