September 28, 2006
Peak Oil
From the Energy Bulletin:
What is Peak Oil?
Peak Oil is the simplest label for the problem of energy resource depletion, or more specifically, the peak in global oil production. Oil is a finite, non-renewable resource, one that has powered phenomenal economic and population growth over the last century and a half. The rate of oil 'production,' meaning extraction and refining (currently about 84 million barrels/day), has grown in most years over the last century, but once we go through the halfway point of all reserves, production becomes ever more likely to decline, hence 'peak'. Peak Oil means not 'running out of oil', but 'running out of cheap oil'. For societies leveraged on ever increasing amounts of cheap oil, the consequences may be dire. Without significant successful cultural reform, economic and social decline seems inevitable.
Why does oil peak? Why doesn't it suddenly run out?
Oil companies have, naturally enough, extracted the easier-to-reach, cheap oil first. The oil pumped first was on land, near the surface, under pressure, light and 'sweet' (meaning low sulfur content) and therefore easy to refine into gasoline. The remaining oil, sometimes off shore, far from markets, in smaller fields, or of lesser quality, takes ever more money and energy to extract and refine. Under these conditions, the rate of extraction inevitably drops. Furthermore, all oil fields eventually reach a point where they become economically, and energetically, no longer viable. If it takes the energy of a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil, then further extraction is pointless.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 02:02 AM | Permalink
Comments
About 100 years ago when the first automobile was invented, there were three different engines to power it: gasoline, electric and steam. It should be remembered that in the early days, even gasoline was not readily available on every corner. In fact, it often had to be made on board. Steam engines had been in use for many years and used in ships and railroad engines. The early history of the automobile shows that while steam power was viable for that purpose, it required a large steam boiler, which could be dangerous, and required much time and effort in the morning to fire, usually with common wood, like the steam engines of locomotives. Since early batteries were not good either, and even the early gasoline engines had to be crank started, the invention of the electric starter by Charles Kettering (GM) won the race for the internal combustion engine, which, today has had about a century of technological development. And it is amazing how refined and reliable this very complex engine is for common transportation. But it relies exclusively on petrochemical fuels (oil).
Suppose, instead, we had had a century of development of the steam engine as applied to the automobile? We would likely be energy independent today, since steam can be produced with any crude fuel and does not rely on highly refined gasoline.
There are many other advanatages of steam over the internal combustion engine. For example, a steam engine is much simpler than the 4 cycle (Otto) internal combustion engine or the Diesel engine. There is no internal combustion. The superheated steam provides a constant pressure on the piston which means very high torque at low RPM; hence no transmission is required. An internal combustion engine requires a fancy transmission because adequate power is only produced at high RPM. Steam is cheap and quiet too. The modern steam engine does not require the old and dangerous large boiler, but uses a "flash steam generator" like a coffee maker or a steam turbine. Steam has enormous amounts of torque and power. A steam car even set a world land speed record in the early days. Even the nuclear submarine runs on a steam engine, converting the nuclear energy to heat and then producing steam to run the steam engine. If the nuclear energy were used directly, as gasoline and oxygen are used, it would simply melt the engine and no mechanical power would be produced.
The engineering genius, the late Bill Lear, who, with little formal education, invented such things as the Lear Jet and the car radio, proved that steam was a viable means of propulsion for automobiles about 40 years ago. He spent over $100 million of his own money proving it.(See articles in Los Angeles Times about 1969 and California Steam Bus Project U.S. DOT about 1969). But he could not overcome the hegemony of the automobile orthodoxy of the U.S., who have demonstrated very little ingenuity and imagination in this business. If we had had a century of development of the steam engine as applied to the automobile, many of our problems of the environment, global warming and reliance on petrochemical fuels would likely not exist. An accident of history; the choice of gasoline over steam a century ago is responsible for many of our problems today.
Winfield J. Abbe, Ph.D., Physics
150 Raintree Ct.
Athens, GA. 30607
706-543-3356
P.S. While it is true that the steam cycle is thermodynamically less efficient than the Otto or Diesel cycles, this is largely irrelevant since one never operates a real engine near their limits anyway; most automobiles never convert more than about 20% of the chemical potential energy of the oxygen gasoline mixture into mechanical energy anyway. Most of the losses are in heat out the exhaust or "breathing inefficiencies". Superchargers and turbochargers help recover some of these losses and inefficiencies.
Posted by: Winfield J. Abbe | Sep 28, 2006 6:29:03 AM
What is the EROEI (Energy Invested on Energy Returned) of a steam engine, compared to a gasoline engine?
Posted by: EROEIguy | Sep 28, 2006 11:29:08 AM
The hydrogen fuel cell seems like a rube-goldberg device. Like the fussion of my youth, a dream which will never happen. Wont it always be a net energy loss? It seems to a layman such as myself that we could figure out non-oil solutions to our electricity needs. Our transportation needs are different. If we switched to bio-diesel, everyone would starve. Steam seems like the best choice. I wonder if some sort of 'man on the moon before 1970' for new transport solutions would help. Private sector? Aren't there any maverick inventors left? The Bill Lear plans sound promising. I wonder what Tesla would do about the energy crisis.
Posted by: Steven | Sep 29, 2006 12:07:05 AM
Liked the website, please add me to your distribution list.
Thanks,
dcschroeder@comcast.net
Posted by: Del C Schroeder | Nov 29, 2006 2:15:20 PM
I REMEMBER SEEING MR. LEAR ON THE ART LINKLETTER SHOW WHERE HE HAD WORKED OUT ALL PROBLEMS OF HIS STEAM ENGINE AND THAT IT WAS BEING TESTED ON CITY BUSES IN L.A. AND HAD BEEN TESTED IN CARS AND HE HAD INVENTED A LIQUID FOR THE ENGINE THAT WOULD HEAT AND COOL FAST...IT BURNED A SINGLE FLAME OF KEROSENE FOR HEAT AND THE TURBINE WAS ABOUT 10 INCH IN DIAMATER...WHAT HAPPEN TO THIS INVENTION?
Posted by: bruce hackney | Mar 4, 2007 5:09:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.