Posted - 2010.04.18 16:05:00 - [91]

 

Electric and Hydrogen can IMO both work, might even end up seeing both of them on the roads in the future:
Electric = Much cheaper option. Not much range or speed compared to petrol. Fine for places like the UK, but next to useless in many parts of the US.
Hydrogen = Performance/Luxury option preferred by motor enthusiasts. Much faster than electric and likely more range(?), but also much more expensive.

Now ATM there's 3 big problems with both:
1) Source. Where does the Electicity (to power Electric or to produce Hydrogen) come from?
2) Infrastructure. How will you recharge your batteries, where will you go to top up on Hydrogen?
3) Range. A tank of Petrol on any fuel-efficient car will take you much further than either option could ever hope to.(from what I've read, pls correct me if I'm wrong)

Anyway, IMO Electrics will start to be slowly phased in over time, but even with skyrocketing fuel prices there will still be people running on Petrol as for them Electric simply won't be an option, for whatever reason. Eventually (and I'm talking maybe 30 years from now so who knows) Petrol will have been phased out almost completely, which is where the few people still using it would switch over to something like Hydrogen.

Posted - 2010.04.18 17:45:00 - [93]

 

Originally by: Rawr Cristina

---

Electric and Hydrogen can IMO both work, might even end up seeing both of them on the roads in the future:
Electric = Much cheaper option. Not much range or speed compared to petrol. Fine for places like the UK, but next to useless in many parts of the US.
Hydrogen = Performance/Luxury option preferred by motor enthusiasts. Much faster than electric and likely more range(?), but also much more expensive.

Now ATM there's 3 big problems with both:
1) Source. Where does the Electicity (to power Electric or to produce Hydrogen) come from?
2) Infrastructure. How will you recharge your batteries, where will you go to top up on Hydrogen?
3) Range. A tank of Petrol on any fuel-efficient car will take you much further than either option could ever hope to.(from what I've read, pls correct me if I'm wrong)

Anyway, IMO Electrics will start to be slowly phased in over time, but even with skyrocketing fuel prices there will still be people running on Petrol as for them Electric simply won't be an option, for whatever reason. Eventually (and I'm talking maybe 30 years from now so who knows) Petrol will have been phased out almost completely, which is where the few people still using it would switch over to something like Hydrogen.

---

Lanthanum, lithium, and various other rare earth elements are needed for EVs. A mass build out of EVs is really next to impossible.

Posted - 2010.04.18 18:46:00 - [95]

 

I'm more interested in batteries made of carbon nanotubes. They don't rely on rare-earth elements, they rely on, well, carbon.

Posted - 2010.04.18 19:11:00 - [97]

 

Originally by: Zeba

---

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

I'm more interested in batteries made of carbon nanotubes. They don't rely on rare-earth elements, they rely on, well, carbon.

---

Oh the technology is out there its just that there is no will in the oil and auto industry to invest in that research when the short term still looks good using the current tech. Remember kids that the people running these corporations are for the most part old men who could care less what happens in the next few decades and are simply getting all they can get now whilst the getting is still good. Irrational in the long term yes but something about obscene amounts of power and money do that to people. Now once the old men get booted out by the young men with futures to look out for then you will see changes across the board. Provided the old men don't get replaced by slightly younger old men that is..

---

Well yeah, but advanced batteries don't HAVE to be used in cars. I expect they'll be developed for things like laptops and mobile phones in the short term. There's certainly demand for that, and I don't see the oil barons objecting too much to that. Hopefully by the time the oil runs out, the technology will be mature enough to bung in cars.

Posted - 2010.04.18 19:39:00 - [99]

 

FYI, this website is one of the best I've found for getting a reasonably good view of the energy situation:
TheOilDrum.com

The problem is that we're close to the point where demand exceeds supply. It is quite probable that point was passed when oil hit $147 (the world simply couldn't produce more oil), and that this was a reasonably large part of the reason we got into the recession.

When that point is hit, price goes up hugely. Why? Because we shift from the point where oil is priced at "who is willing to sell at a 'cheap' price" to "who is willing to buy at an 'expensive' price". In effect, you don't get a gradually increasing price, but a price jump.

At some point that point will be hit and we don't fall back under it again. At that time you'll be looking at oil over $200+/barrel and gas at $6+/gallon. As it will take 20+ years to switch from fossil-based energy to something else, we'll remain at high (and increasing) oil/gas prices for a long time!
At that point it MAY be too late, as the energy required to replace the fossil technology may be way to expensive to produce (because of high prices) for things like solar panels and electrical cars to be affordable.

The 20 years is a very optimistic estimate IF we make a determined effort! This is not likely....

Posted - 2010.04.18 21:00:00 - [101]

 

Edited by: Kerfira on 18/04/2010 21:13:52

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

What a bunch of ****s if that's true. Source?

---

If you're referring to my post above, it comes from any number of articles and scientific papers I've read over the last couple of years. TheOilDrum is a very good site to keep up to speed and learn from, since it has a very good daily recap of what goes on in the worlds media, as well as a regular stream of good scientific reports.

There's also a number of books that can be recommended:
"Twilight In The Desert" - Matthew R. Simmons
"Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller" - Jeff Rubin
"$20 Per Gallon" - Christopher Steiner

The short-term trends are of cause difficult, probably impossible to predict, but the mid/long-term trends are pretty terrifying:

• Most of the worlds large oil fields are in terminal decline. This means they produce less and less. One such is Mexico's largest field which used to supply more than 1/20th of the oil use in the US (it is now in rapid decline).
• The discovery of new oil fields doesn't get anywhere near the depletion of existing fields, not to mention covering new demand.
• The new oil discoveries are generally very difficult to produce (like being at 10km depth) thus the oil from them will be very expensive.
• Another source of new oil are old fields that have been closed, or old discoveries with inferior oil. They were closed or deemed inferior for a reason!
• A lot of the new oil being brought in is 'heavy sour' oil, and the oil being depleted is 'light sweet'. This is basically a quality indicator and to produce fuel from heavy sour oil is MUCH more expensive.
• Any oil field discovered today will not go into production until 10 years in the future (and that only if you can get the financing for it). Those scheduled to go into production in the next 10 years will not replace replace losses from declining fields (or satisfy new demand).

All these points are facts. They point in only one direction, though the exact time when they'll cause drastic price increases is unknown. Some reasonably plausible research say we would be there now if it hadn't been for the recession restricting demand.

The recession however is only a temporary reprieve. Countries like China and India are still increasing their use of oil/gas, and are rapidly eating up the surplus caused by the lessening demand from the industrialised world...

Another thing to keep in mind that the PRIME ingredient of fertiliser is natural gas... Once that runs out, some research indicate that the earth can feed 2 billion people without it...

Draw your own conclusions

Posted - 2010.04.18 22:40:00 - [103]

 

People always bang on about how they will power there cars and stuff... which is laughable.

The real issue is in how much oil is used in the production of food - the transport of food - the water purifcation proccess. These are the things that will directly impact on peoples day to day life.

And the whole argument that there IS more oil and gas is flawed as it takes a huge amount of time and ofc... oil, to set up the inferstructure at say... Alaska.

By the time this new oil was in circulation, it would be presumed that there will already be serious mass impact on the western way of life.

It really is a very intersting time to live in - some shiz is gonna go down in our lifetimes, and even the most blinkered and optamistic person can fell the presence of these facts.

Woooooooooooooooo

Posted - 2010.04.18 23:24:00 - [105]

 

Originally by: Umega

---

Edited by: Umega on 16/04/2010 16:18:27

Originally by: baltec1

---

Originally by: Umega

---

Hmm last time I checked World History it was US 2 vs UK 0. But ok.. sure we can forget those two since they were so long ago. You might want to salute the next japanese flag you see for kicking our ass pretty good to the point it stopped you from growing up speaking german as the UK language. But whatever, I know.. history is irrelevent I guess.

---

I would say its more like its UK, US, Russia, Poland, free french, china, Italy, and many others 2. Germany, Japan, ottoman empire and Italy 0.

Although Japan should get one point because they fought along side the British empire in WW1 and italy was a bit all over the place, maby 1.5 for them? And minus .5 for russia because they invaded poland who were our allies. Finland is funny because Britain went to war with them too which makes us the only democracies to go to war although both of us never shot at each other. Complex things these world wars.

But at any rate contry to American school teaching, America did not win the war solo. Hence what I said. Infact the only war I can recall that America won without any help was the civil war...

---

I guess they don't teach the American revolutionary war in Britian nor the war of 1812. That's ok. It's understandable. I wasn't talking about WWII when I said US 2 'vs' UK 0.

EDIT: In before the jokes about america's education and wrong information in their history books.

---

Is that the war we 'BURNED' your capital and then you called it a draw?

Posted - 2010.04.19 00:02:00 - [107]

 

Originally by: SkyLordUK

---

well hows that for american arrogance

it was the RAF that stop us from speaking german by destroying the landing craft the he who shall not be named was going to use for his invasion force, we would have beat germany in the end you guys just jumped in and stole the fanfair

---

Let's count how many wars Britain has won since the beginning of the 20th century without American involvement:

Posted - 2010.04.19 00:36:00 - [109]

 

Edited by: Motaka on 19/04/2010 02:00:19

Originally by: Viper ShizzIe

---

Originally by: SkyLordUK

---

well hows that for american arrogance

it was the RAF that stop us from speaking german by destroying the landing craft the he who shall not be named was going to use for his invasion force, we would have beat germany in the end you guys just jumped in and stole the fanfair

---

Let's count how many wars Britain has won since the beginning of the 20th century without American involvement:

---

Burma,falklands,Sierra Leone----{same land mass were you got your arse kicked AKA Black Hawk Down).

In short....were just better than you.

Posted - 2010.04.19 03:47:00 - [111]

 

Oil is as precious as a form of energy as it is an energy source (amidst its other uses), for energy sources are abundant but ways of moving the energy off-grid are not. Batteries are good for small devices but not feasible for cars as cars are presently used, and such is the pattern for all such technologies. There is some very funky tech out there, lithium, hydrogen cells, carbon nanotubes, but it cannot serve a large population under carboniferous capitalism, and paradoxically such tech cannot exist without a large population supporting the substantial research into it, it's is a red herring when suggested as a panacea. I can't see anything to help us avoid the crunch, when it comes.

like alice said, we give ourselves so much very good advice but seldom do we follow it. Sustainable living is crap, nothing about us as humans is sustainable, we all die and at every turn mother nature is there trying to make that turn our last. but humans have beat all natural ways of keeping us in check and we will thrive until the planet has been stripped bare.

ultimately, our entire civilisation is fragile and utterly dependant on growth and massive energy usage. it's totally natural, and couldn't be any other way when you come to think about it.

it is as it is.

enjoy the good times o/

Posted - 2010.04.19 04:56:00 - [113]

 

Originally by: Viper ShizzIe

---

Burma is in the wrong century, Sierra Leone was basically a genocide (bet you're really proud of that, plus a ~movie~ reference nice job there, except that was across the country no big deal).

---

we should have used ~a-bombs~ tbh (oh look i used tildes). it wasn't a genocide either, thanks to our involvement.

also yanks did help on the sidelines with the falklands, tyvm ;P

Posted - 2010.04.19 07:14:00 - [115]

 

Edited by: Asuka Smith on 19/04/2010 07:14:26
I for one look forward to eating catfood and killing people to get da juice.

Posted - 2010.04.19 08:48:00 - [117]

 

Originally by: Viper ShizzIe

---

Originally by: SkyLordUK

---

well hows that for american arrogance

it was the RAF that stop us from speaking german by destroying the landing craft the he who shall not be named was going to use for his invasion force, we would have beat germany in the end you guys just jumped in and stole the fanfair

---

Let's count how many wars Britain has won since the beginning of the 20th century without American involvement:

---

One that I can think of. America refused to help when when a crazy dictator rounded up a bunch of British subjects in the Falklands, and stole their land/homes.

As to the World wars though, it would have been pretty much impossible for USA to win the first without Britain as an ally. The second world war would have been impossible for either Britain or USA to win alone. Within a couple of years Stalin would have conquered the whole of Europe, and he'd already be bombing west coast USA with German tech. That crazy ****er Stalin would suck up as many Nukes as the USA could make while he moved in on the USA, and of course he would have British nuclear tech.

Posted - 2010.04.19 09:05:00 - [119]

 

Originally by: Viper ShizzIe

---

Falklands is the only legitimate claim. Good job, you've done one thing in the last 110 years without direct or indirect American involvement.

---

We won a long and protracted (albeit small scale) civil war in Northern Ireland. The deployment lasted 38 years but it's finally over and the forces there have been drawn down to a peacetime garrison.

The US has no experience in this type of urban combat - that's why they got their asses handed to them on a plate when they first went into the Iraqi cities.