How much petrol is there left?

Submitted: Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:07
ThreadID: 48317 Views:5499 Replies:15 FollowUps:17
This Thread has been Archived
G'Day all,

we were talking about this the other night, so amongst our well informed and knowledgeable group, can anyone put an estimate in years on this one?

Also will it reach a point where it sky rockets in price as people fight over the remains? (is thunderdome real?? LOL)

Rgds

Ron
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: robak (QLD) - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:36

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:36
It is not a case of how much is left but at what point will it's extraction be too expensive to be used as a fuel in cars.
AnswerID: 255439

Reply By: Notso - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:44

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:44
There is some story around that the Oil Shale deposits in Aus and Tar sands in Canada and other places will become economical to extract at some stage and 400 years supply is available in these deposits, or so the story goes??

Anyhow the conspiracy theorists will say that all these "Water into Fuel" technologies that have been suppressed by the oil companies will also surface so "she'll be right mate"
AnswerID: 255442

Follow Up By: Baldrick - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:57

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:57
I have a Hiclone and that enables me to use tap water as fuel so I'm not worried.

Mind you, there is a water shortage!
0
FollowupID: 516593

Follow Up By: Member - 'Lucy' - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:39

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:39
You baaaaaaarstard, you!

So your the one that got the last Hi-clone are you.

May a drought be upon you forever
0
FollowupID: 516623

Follow Up By: Mr Fawlty - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 18:49

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 18:49
Just on the QT we look like getting recycled water in the ACT so it should be in plentiful supply, but if you run short let me know I could part with some for $2/litre.....
0
FollowupID: 516667

Reply By: Robin Miller - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:34

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:34
It will never become such and issue in our lifetime Ron , for good fundamental reasons.

However manipulation and refinery capacity are bigger issues and I'm sure price trend will be up.

The fundamental reason why it will be kept in check is because 85% ethanol can run in almost all petrol cars made this century with some small mods , and this increasingly available alternate fuel and Gas availability will keep price from not reaching stupids heights in Aust.

Robin Miller
AnswerID: 255449

Follow Up By: KSV- Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:50

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:50
Ethanol is not a panacea - it is only cheap enough (cheaper then petrol right now) because we do not consume it enough. If (say) 85% petrol will be replaced with ethanol we need to use half of our dessert as sugar cane fields and for obvious reason it will not work. Plus (minor issue) ethanol is not as energy rich as petrol (diesel even better).

As posted above it is very unlikely that we see "doom of oil" in our life, but incredibly high petrol prices in 10-20 years time is high probability. In my opinion aviation in significantly bigger danger then auto - at current technologies there are no alternative for aviation fuel at all. As for car it is more then likely that we will be using electro or hybrid cars more and more - does not helps in dessert though.

Also it is huge possibility that direct syntes of hydrocarbons (developed back to WWII by Nazi) became economically viable when oil price became high enough.

And generally speaking humanity have not got *ANY* energy alternative for future except of nuclear power.
0
FollowupID: 516600

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:55

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:55
Hi Ksr

I think that used to be the feeling , but our own more recent studies have show that while Ethanol is a mixed blessing its actual effective mileage loss has been put at about 3% in FORDS/HOLDEN and is not considered significant.

The amount of arable land required has also been estimated to now be considerably less based on the brazilian experience in which that make not much less than we would need on areas about 10% size of Queensland.

And as long as they do it in Queensland us Victorans will be quite happy

Robin Miller
0
FollowupID: 516607

Follow Up By: Flash - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:00

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:00
"And generally speaking humanity have not got *ANY* energy alternative for future except of nuclear power."

Sooo true. Meanwhile the stupid greenies are against mining uranium and even more against nuclear power.
How bad does global warming have to get before a few people wake up to the fact that NUCLEAR POWER IS OUR ONLY HOPE. Australia is right behind the eight ball on this!

As an engineer I can tell you the other options do not stack up. Sure we need em all (Wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) but the fact is that without nuclear we are stuffed!

And yes, oil will NOT run out in any of our life times, but it'll sure become too expensive to use!
Hooroo
0
FollowupID: 516608

Follow Up By: Ingtar - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:25

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:25
Also as an engineer, I can tell you that nuclear power is not our ONLY HOPE, and I say this hoping not to enter the nuclear debate, I just get frustrated when people say that we have ONLY one option.

I think all options need to be weighed against each other, for benefits and risks. And for risks, you need to consider not only the likelihood but also the effects of things going wrong, in a risk matrix such as that used in OH&S.

And surely the best option is to stop being so consumer driven, and use less. The benefits are two-fold - you help reduce global consumption (which may seem trivial when Joe Blogs down the road uses twice as much, but you can change so much), but you also reduce your own reliance on these things (which can help buffer you from things such as fuel price hikes).
0
FollowupID: 516615

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:50

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:50
>Also as an engineer, I can tell you that nuclear
>power is not our ONLY HOPE

James Lovelock thinks it is... and he knows a bit about these things...?

Mike Harding
0
FollowupID: 516659

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 19:36

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 19:36
Hi Guys

Gotta get in on this engineers love in.

Unfortunately the desicion has already been made and it was made not by a logical process but its an inevitable outcome of the massively overiding herd instinct of our kind.

Our future is nuclear , it will be fun playing at the margins with various solar whatever schemes but nuclear it will be.

We have walked this path before and subsequent to the first energy shocks in the 70's we have approximately tripled our per person energy consumption despite the then dire warnings, and overdosed on every energy consuming convience.

If we must throw in none engineering terms like "hope" , lets lets hope their are enough engineers and time to at least make fusion our nuclear future.

Robin Miller

0
FollowupID: 516675

Follow Up By: Mr Pointyhead - Friday, Aug 03, 2007 at 11:27

Friday, Aug 03, 2007 at 11:27
As a Physist (Yes there are a few of us in Australia !) I would urge caution before heading down the fission reactor path. It is really a last resort technology rather than a first choice. Unfortunately there is still no long term safe way to deal with the radioactive waste produced by fission reactors (Neither glassification nor unfortunately synrock provide stable long term storage that is not prone to leaching), not to mention the difficulties in decommissioning fission reactors when they reach the end of their economic life. I really do not understand why there is so much of a push to invest in fission at the moment, given the risks involved. But then again, maybe it is because the problems of fission will not be the problem of the current proponents of fission but their grand children.

However fusion reactors are a different story. There is some very interesting and hopeful work going on at the moment in this are. For example see:

Site Link

This technology looks like a promising long term clean energy solution. There are also other fusion research projects going on using magnetic containment for the plasma that have passed the energy break even points. It is unfortunate that our current governments have not seen fit to invest tax payer dollars in these areas of research that really are showing long term promise for providing clean base load energy.

As for fuelling our 4x4's don't forget biodiesel!
0
FollowupID: 516757

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Friday, Aug 03, 2007 at 12:00

Friday, Aug 03, 2007 at 12:00
Some years ago I designed some electronics for the JET (Joint European Torus, a research project to develop usable nuclear fusion) project and did an unofficial tour of the tokamak and support systems - an amazing project and one which may yet bring us clean energy.

www.jet.efda.org

Mike Harding
0
FollowupID: 516761

Reply By: Ron173 - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:02

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:02
Some interesting replies and points.

Hope we dont go ethanol, my boat wont run on ethanol, and as far as I am aware cannot be modded to do so.

AnswerID: 255463

Reply By: Gerhardp1 - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:10

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:10
Back in 1991, we were told there was less than 20 years supply left.

Back in the early 70s we were told there was about 10 years left, although memory might be letting me down on that one.

So it looks like every 15-20 years the supply doubles even though the user base is increasing exponentially.

My view is that every drop of oil that can be extracted and sold at a profit will be extracted and used. It's not only petrol that relies on the oil supply, but also various plastics and other by-products that we can't live without these days. Even if Ethanol/hydrogen/solar/whatever replaces petrol for cars, the pumping of oil will continue until there is not a drop left.
AnswerID: 255467

Reply By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:23

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:23
There are more reserves in the Athbasca tar sands in Canada alone then there is at present in Saudi Arabia. There are heaps of known oil deposits all around the world that are considered to be 'uneconomic' at present but that's only because big business wants a quick return for little expense. Note the following term "BRIC'. It stands for the emerging countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China. These economies are huge and booming, they are consuming incredible amounts of fuel and the infrastructure behind the worlds oil supply is having difficulty in keeping up. Petrol 'extenders' such as ethanol (about 10%) are already available in most western countries.
AnswerID: 255470

Reply By: TimS - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:48

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 13:48
Opinions amongst geological experts vary but the general consensus seems to be that the world is either at, or very close to "peak oil", that is, the point at which we are consuming more oil than we are producing/extracting. Once this point is reached and the realization sets in, two things will start to happen very quickly.
1. The price of oil will climb steeply.
2. The risk of wars being fought over dwindling reserves will increase. Some might say that the US presence in Iraq illustrates this nicely.

Common sense dictates that the world cannot go on using increasing amounts of a finite fuel source. It is less than 100 years since the start of modern oil usage and the global economy is wholly dependent upon this extremely efficient fuel. Oil and it's byproducts are an integral part of our lives, much more than people realize. Then there is the rapid industrialisation of countries such as India and China who are consuming vast amounts of the precious black stuff just at the time when production is plateauing!! Double whammy!!

At some stage soon, we'll have to develop viable alternatives (ethanol, nuclear, wind, solar etc... are just bit players in this scene) and manage a transition from an oil based economy to a economy based on some alternative/s, or face the consequences.

It's going to be an interesting ride .....

AnswerID: 255475

Reply By: Dave Thomson - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 14:41

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 14:41
Funny nobody's even mentioned Liquid Hydrogen yet , its a fantastic alternative but too expensive ??? so was the first model T belive me if they had to do it they would , fact is its not too bad for them to market it yet, but if the oil went they WOULD,
just my 2 bob's,
Dave
AnswerID: 255479

Follow Up By: robak (QLD) - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:18

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:18
Liquid hydrogen is not an alternative because it does not occur naturally and is therefore nothing more then a form of storing and transporting energy.

The energy stored in liquid hydrogen comes from power stations in the form of electricity. This electricity is then passed though water to separate hydrogen and oxygen into a gas form. The hydrogen is then compressed into a liquid which can be used as a fuel.

The energy released from liquid hydrogen is nowhere near the energy put into it. This, plus the cost of compressing the gas, makes hydrogen an extremely expensive and inefficent fuel which can only be afforded by companies on huge budgets (like NASA).
0
FollowupID: 516650

Follow Up By: Member - Oldplodder (QLD) - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:30

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:30
There could be some interesting developments in hydrogen storage over the next few years, and not based on liquifing the gas, but at a nanotechnology level. Storage and fuel cells are being strongly pushed at the moment.

Using green energy to create the hydrogen makes more sense.

But hydrogen is going to be a bit player for a few years until the technology becomes economical and the car companies back it. Afaird car companies are very conservative when it comes ot engine technology as we have seen with a few ideas over the last few years.
And of course, the petrol companies will not be interested in hydrogen unless they can have a monopoly such as they have now, and most probably will actively fight it.

What I can see from my little corner anyway. :o)
0
FollowupID: 516654

Follow Up By: robak (QLD) - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:40

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:40
It's still only an energy storage device that we need to put energy into. No different to a lead acid battery (except that it would be smaller).

Laws of physiscs suggest that we can't create or destroy energy. Oil has the advantage in that the energy was put into it, by the sun, millions of years ago and therefore without any direct cost to us.
0
FollowupID: 516657

Follow Up By: Member - Oldplodder (QLD) - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 19:43

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 19:43
Agree, basic law of physics. Energy out can not exceed energy in.

But green energy (solar/wind/tide) to collect hydrogen is using the sun's energy now instead of that being stored millions of years ago. :o)
0
FollowupID: 516677

Reply By: Ron173 - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 14:58

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 14:58
I think the alternative fuel is going to be used, whatever that may be.

However at this point in time, I think it wont quite be the type of fuel that makes it big, but more so the person or organisation which produces an easily adaptable modification to the ICE (internal combustion engine) so that it can run on an alternative fuel.

Being totally hypothetical of course.... imagine we fill our tank with water, and throw in a tablet or two which dissolve and create a useable octane rating.
(I know its ridiculous, I'm only trying to illustrate a point)
The company who makes/invents the tablets could charge $100 a tab or whatever they like.

This may not be in the form of a tablet, it could be some sort of catalyser or another bolt on type of modification, but point is if the ICE can continue it will be a HUGE success and of great benefit to the world in general.

Ron

PS Robin...I'm working on the tabs!!!
AnswerID: 255481

Follow Up By: Mr Fawlty - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 18:53

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 18:53
I wonder where BillS is... he would assure us all his device will solve all our problems....
0
FollowupID: 516668

Reply By: jomah - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:43

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:43
With all these worries about the dwindling fuel oil reserve I guess its about time the government bit the bullet and banned the sale and use of those terrible gas guzzling four wheel drive vehicles; especially the one with the fat wheel, lots of driving lights, numerous antennas protuding all over and giant heavy roo;bull;wombat bars which makes them use even more of our precious reserves of oil. So do the right thing for the future of your children boys and rush out tomorrow or sooner and trade the ugly great beast (no not your wife) on a pryus Har har har!!!
AnswerID: 255513

Reply By: Mike Harding - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:59

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:59
Sometimes... I wish it would run out - and then we would be forced to stop worrying about all the trinkets, trappings and urbanities of money obsessed and possession centred Western society and get back to the really important issues of family, friends, community and support of others without worrying about wide screen TVs or who owns the latest zap-pow-gadget.

Mike Harding
AnswerID: 255514

Follow Up By: Mr Fawlty - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 18:57

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 18:57
Mike that's a bit rough, the government at the current time gives all females who bear children a $4000 grant towards the BIG screen TV of their choice....Just today I bought myself a new gadget a set of matching screwdrivers from ALDI and for the record it was a "family" choice, SWMBO found them.
0
FollowupID: 516670

Reply By: The Landy - Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:59

Thursday, Aug 02, 2007 at 17:59
There are still plenty of known oil resources around the world; however they remain a resource as distinct from a reserve simply because the cost of extraction at the current price is not economical. Upward movements in the price of oil will change the business case, but the oil supply will come at a greater cost.

Someone touched on refining capacity and this is an important part of the price equation when looking at refined products. There is a global shortfall in refining capacity and whilst time will address the problem it is a slow process to build and bring on additional capacity, not too mention the capital cost of doing so. Someone has to pay. Consequently, refining margins will remain high and these will impact directly into the price at the bowsers. Buying shares in oil companies that produce refined products might be the best way of offsetting this cost!

Plenty is made about the virtues of the alternative fuel sources, especially ethanol. However, often overlooked is the hidden cost that will come from going down this path. We have already seen price spikes in sugar at times when the oil price has been high. Farmers in the US are diverting resources away from traditional food crops towards the production of a lower grade corn crop that can be used in ethanol production. In fact, many soft drink manufacturers are now moving back towards using cane sugar in the production of soft drinks due to the increased cost of using modified corn sugar which has traditionally been cheaper then cane sugar.

This development will hit the hit pocket at the supermarket in time; the reality is that the cost of energy is going to become more expensive as the demand for it increases. Heaven forbid, imagine it, the price of your standard box of Skippy corn-flakes goes through the roof because the price of oil increased yesterday! Is nothing sacred?

China’s demand for cars and the energy to drive them is going to increase in large multiples as its population becomes more affluent and earns the disposable income to pay for them.

Doom and gloom, maybe, but let’s face it the world energy juggernaut is a monster that cannot be stopped……….I guess the cost of that trip across the Simpson or down the CSR; the annual pilgrimage to Cape York is going to become more expensive – best we all get out and see Australia while it is affordable!

Phew…that was a bit of a rant!

Good luck, I’m off to the supermarket to stock up on my Skippy corn-flakes…
AnswerID: 255515

Reply By: Austravel - Friday, Aug 03, 2007 at 14:07

Friday, Aug 03, 2007 at 14:07
Good thread.

However more of a problem than oil etc running out is the damage due to burning/combusting these fuels. Most scientist agree that way before we run out of oil, coal etc the earth and so all of us will suffer the effects from wasting our energy reserves at such a rate.
AnswerID: 255669

Reply By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Friday, Aug 03, 2007 at 14:42

Friday, Aug 03, 2007 at 14:42
OK that is enough engineering/scientific stuff. So let me me see if understand all the issues.

1) We won't run out of fuel in my lifetime.
2) Might cost a little more
3) Might not be petrol as I know it now
4) Mine and all the other offspring will have to do something for themselves and their kids
5) If point 4 doesn't exist - no problem
6) If point 4 does exist it will be about time they did something and I will not be around to bail them out again

Can't see the problem so long as keep the money supply happening.

Kind regards
AnswerID: 255676

Reply By: Richard Kovac - Friday, Aug 03, 2007 at 21:25

Friday, Aug 03, 2007 at 21:25
2050
AnswerID: 255742

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)