Fossil Fuels and a bleak outlook

Cleef

Bronze
Feb 24, 2002
1,797
6
0
Is the DR already feeling the crunch?

Probably more related to other factors on the island, but this is an interesting read?with many supporting facts/research.
 

Keith R

"Believe it!"
Jan 1, 2002
2,984
36
48
www.temasactuales.com
CyaBye3015 said:
Is the sky also falling?
Cya, if you disagree, why not say why? Offer a real critique, criticism, or counterargument. This is issue is wide open to multiple interpretation and debate. But this type of response is childish.

The Moderator :glasses:
 

CyaBye3015

Bronze
Jan 8, 2003
1,462
23
0
Keith R said:
Cya, if you disagree, why not say why? Offer a real critique, criticism, or counterargument. This is issue is wide open to multiple interpretation and debate. But this type of response is childish.

The Moderator :glasses:

Keith, I resent the "childish" comment! Perhaps it was sarcastic, but I made that comment as I felt that the post was made from a 'doomsayer' perspective.

I do not for one moment believe that article was balanced or objective! I do however believe that some there are serious issues relative to the depletion of fossil fuels. I also believe that as pressure rises, we as a society will find appropriate solutions.

Joe
 

Keith R

"Believe it!"
Jan 1, 2002
2,984
36
48
www.temasactuales.com
CyaBye3015 said:
Keith, I resent the "childish" comment! Perhaps it was sarcastic, but I made that comment as I felt that the post was made from a 'doomsayer' perspective.

I do not for one moment believe that article was balanced or objective! I do however believe that some there are serious issues relative to the depletion of fossil fuels. I also believe that as pressure rises, we as a society will find appropriate solutions.

Joe
Joe, you can characterize it as "sarcastic" if you wish. Point is, your first post offerred little to the thread's discussion/debate, your second adds at least something.

What parts of the article do you find misleading or wrong? [I'm not defending the article by any means -- I'll leave that to Cleef, who is quite able to handle himself.] What sort of "appropriate solutions" do you see? Or are you simply hoping "technology" and the "market" will figure something out eventually?

Last, but not least, does a country so totally dependent on imported oil like the DR have the luxury of waiting for such solutions to show up? And at what cost to the Dominican economy [both the wait and the price of switching to the solution(s)]?

Regards,
Keith
 

CyaBye3015

Bronze
Jan 8, 2003
1,462
23
0
Keith R said:
Joe, you can characterize it as "sarcastic" if you wish. Point is, your first post offerred little to the thread's discussion/debate, your second adds at least something.

What parts of the article do you find misleading or wrong? [I'm not defending the article by any means -- I'll leave that to Cleef, who is quite able to handle himself.] What sort of "appropriate solutions" do you see? Or are you simply hoping "technology" and the "market" will figure something out eventually?

Last, but not least, does a country so totally dependent on imported oil like the DR have the luxury of waiting for such solutions to show up? And at what cost to the Dominican economy [both the wait and the price of switching to the solution(s)]?

Regards,
Keith

Keith, I also disagree with your comment that my "first post offered little to the thread's discussion/debate." When I made the reference to "Chicken Little," it was meant to paint a picture in the readers minds! And as we all know, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

As for what parts of the article I find misleading or wrong, I'd be happy to elaborate on that too, I can't do it now as I have other plans, but be assured I'll share my perspective with all.
 

Chris

Gold
Oct 21, 2002
7,951
28
0
www.caribbetech.com
Well, if anyone read all the material thoroughly, this quote will be familiar. "I would rather discover a single fact, even a small one, than debate the great issues at length without discovering anything at all." -- Galileo Galilei, c. 1640

I think the single fact is that we all know we're running out of oil. Personally, I don't think we're in for a 'post-industrial stone age'. What has fascinated me in the past number of years, is the level of rank fear and doomsday predicitions in the ranks of scientists in the field, and then the level of suppression of governments, of the real facts.

So, yes, I think as mankind, we could find solutions if we seek out the facts. That is if we stop shooting one another and focus on alternative energy solutions for the future. If we keep shooting one another for the little oil that is left, we won't find solutions. For ourselves personally, we're slowly building up our personal solar capacity. I think we should also buy a horse farm ;)

I should add that for the DR with their dependency on imported fuels, it really could be a catalyst into a different world if they decided to embrace this issue. Imagine, a country starting to change over from fossils fuels to non-fossil means of providing energy.. One can but dream.
 

Mirador

On Permanent Vacation!
Apr 15, 2004
3,563
0
0
I think we should also buy a horse farm

Actually, this is not as farfetched as it sounds, and may I suggest also donkeys and mules. Up in the foothills of Azua, most campesinos are having a very difficult time fueling their 'motores'. I bet in the near future I'll be seeing many of them returning to their previous means of transportation.
 

NotLurking

Bronze
Jul 21, 2003
2,447
1,235
113
Sto Dgo Este
Overall the article is one sided. It is far from being objective and I doubt that the author is not playing on people's fears to sell books. In a few occasions the facts are misrepresented. When predicting the fall of the world economy, the author neglects obvious pertinent information.

Fossil fuel will absolutely be depleted (it's a finite resource) but world 'experts' have not reached a consensus of exactly how many years of fossil fuel are left. Certainly there is no agreement that world reserves have reached their peak. For petroleum, (crude oil) '40 years' seem to be the most accepted estimate before reserve are depleted at current rate of consumption (plus about 2% growth in demand??).

The doomsday outlook of the article fails to address other viable fossil alternatives. When crude oil reaches US$100 a barrel, coal liquefaction becomes quite attractive. The coal liquefaction process (pryolisis) will cost about US$75 per barrel to produce and would substitute crude on the existing infrastructure.

In fact today as I type this response, China is not sitting around waiting for the inevitable oil market debacle! The Chinese government will soon have in operation a Coal liquefying plant. The technology is quite robust and is the product of about 20 years of research from the Chinese. The US and other countries have also developed similar coal liquefaction processes but have not yet been implemented.

Why harp on coal so much? Coal is the world's most abundant fossil fuel and most of the world reserves are in USA, Russian and China. Coal will be here after oil reserves have been exhausted and in the places that most use energy.

The article underestimates resources such as Natural Gas but by far the power of the sun has been down played by that website. It is true that harvesting the power of the sun has been nothing more than a curiosity for many but that is really a byproduct of economics. When crude hits US$100 per barrel, 'mining' the sun wont be an oddity but a necessity.

The Dominican Republic is well situated geographically to take full advantage of the sun's power. The DR has about 290-310 sunny days per year. At an average of about 5.5 hours per day of full sun radiation and ~48,000 Km square, the DR receives about 264000 MW per day (5.5h). Using just 1% of that is more than our install electrical capacity. Gearing up to use, say, 5% of that capacity will isolate us from the petroleum downfall.

Many countries are actively searching for a new and cheap ways to take advantage of nature's forces. In Australia, for example, a 200MW Solar chimney (using solar thermal property) might be operational by 2008. In California (USA ) Parabolic Trough solar technology has proven reliable and efficient. I'm sure more capacity will be installed in the USA if oil continues to raise.

New discoveries in solar-electric, solar-thermal and wind power is ongoing. Companies such as Pyron Solar with its new solar cell capable of producing 800 times more power than regular solar cells and Sky WindPower Corp. with their 'flying' wind generators are just two innovative alternatives to fossil fuel.

Why the focus on electricity production from the sun? Well, it surely isn't 'free' as in a free lunch but it sure is free of CO2 emissions! The only cost incurred both in dollars and environment wise is minimal compared to fossil fuel. The zero environmental cost and almost negligible operating cost of solar or wind power generation makes those technologies highly desirable. The 'clean' electricity produced can by used for hydrogen production via electrolysis of water a resource in abundance in DR.

Many advancements have been made in fuel cell technology. There even is a fuel cell that can use hydrogen to supply electricity or separate water into hydrogen and oxygen if operated in reverse - you supply it with electricity. Hydrogen technology still has a way to go but it is getting there an will eventually replace fossil fuel in combustion engines. The only real setback of using hydrogen today is lack of infrastructure and liquefaction of it for transport and storage but these problems should be resolved 'if'/when oil becomes scarce.

The DR is in a very good position to start tackling its fossil fuel dependency today! The current fossil fuel infrastructure is not so entrenched as it is in other more developed nations. The DR sure has an edge it just needs to get with the program and start abandoning/replacing its electricity generation infrastructure for a more environment friendly, less crude oil dependant infrastructure.

NotLurking
 

Keith R

"Believe it!"
Jan 1, 2002
2,984
36
48
www.temasactuales.com
Good post, NL.

I'm by no means citing the article; Cleef did. I'm not saying I'm impressed either. Of course it's alarmist -- the domain name makes that clear. But let's discuss the issues, as Not Lurking has.

I find the analysis of ex-oil industry geologist C.J. Campbell -- the article borrows (and misuses) a graph of his -- a bit more persuasive. I was not totally persuaded by Campbell when I first read his "Coming Oil Crisis" in 1997, but his discussion of how oil firms and governments play with reserve and production figures was eye-opening. Given some of your very insightful analyses of the Central Bank's games with numbers, Mondongo, you might relate! LOL

There's a better argued analysis in this US Energy Dept.-sponsored report recently posted on the internet:
http://www.oilcrisis.com/us/NETL/OilPeaking.pdf

It's long, but check out the conclusions (pp. 64-67). In essence, they argue that a peak will happen before long, timing can be debated, but we should be actively seeking alternatives. I think this goes doubly for a country like the DR, whose transport, tourism and logistical infrastructure, household cooking, and much of its electricity production depends on imported oil.

Regards,
Keith
 
Last edited:

Chris

Gold
Oct 21, 2002
7,951
28
0
www.caribbetech.com
mondongo said:
If any of you actually read that article and came away impressed by its factual/technical claims....tsk,tsk,tsk.
Impressed? No. Of course it is left-leaning, conspiracy theoretical, tree-hugging 'bunk'. I must confess, these days my reading preferences seem to have changed. For amusement, I'd rather read some of my favorite 'left-leaning' news sites, than the right leaning ones. At the risk of making a quasi-political comment, I'd rather read about the 'Asses of Evil' than the 'Axis of Evil'. Personally, that is... ;)

mondongo said:
By the way, I DO belive that we will run out of oil sooner that later.
This is the single fact that somehow, instinctively, we all know. The debate can then be centered around the alarmist view of "WHEN" this calamity will occur, or the debate can be centered around and focused on finding and changing to sustainable, reliable, affordable technologies. Once new technologies are proven, the change-over to these deserve serious attention and serious money. I believe we all agree on that.

For me, this issue has two faces or focusses (or is it foci?). Firstly, new technologies and the changeover and application of those. And the second focus is the social changes required to adapt and thrive with new technologies. This is exactly the issue that governments today are not giving attention to, and in many cases, hiding away from their voting population. This is also a universal problem, and would need teamwork across nations to solve. Huh? will this happen? Well, it is quite a fascinating problem, and I would happily be debating the issues, if not for the seriousness of the situation. I believe as mankind we should go directly to the heart of this problem, and go there quite quickly.

In the report that Keith R linked, two of the conclusions state.. Government intervention will be required.. and .. Economic upheaval is not inevitable - but only if mankind should start acting and mitigating the situation. "Heads in the sand" will not resolve the problem - imo, the biggest threat mankind faces at the moment. In my thinking, I cannot divorce the issue of shortage and peaking of oil and fossil fuels, from the social issues. Even the issue of poverty is quite deeply linked to the provision of energy. Environmentally, the whole situation would be improved in one fell swoop if we can just get our collective minds around generation of clean, renewable and affordable energy.

In my thinking what should happen, is that some of the real clever folks should start already and work out more definitively how much time we have, and the rest of mankind,including their Governments, should start involving themselves in working out alternatives, mitigators and getting into an implementation phase.

Here in the DR, can we start with finding alternative and sustainable single person (up to four persons, two being little ones) transportation methods and replace the motoconchos already please? ;) Suddenly I have a funny vision on a corner of Puerto Plata of a mass of motoconchos replaced by those little battery operated cars that you see used for the elderly.. Just think of the social implications of all this loss of machisimo. :laugh:

Will mankind miraculously find and adapt to new solutions? I don't think so. The vision of a new 'stone age' becomes quite real, if we put the problem of increasing energy costs in a third world, specifically DR context. Here, we cannot even afford the existing energy generation solutions. The price hike on the other side of the oil peaking curve is unthinkable for this country. Is it not time to think of new solutions anyway, whether doomsday sayers say we have 5 years and other scientists arguing that we have 40? Is the period really that important?
 

Chris

Gold
Oct 21, 2002
7,951
28
0
www.caribbetech.com
Readytogo said:
Recall the first law of thermodynamics where it is said that energy can be converted from one system to another (Power plants charge battery vehicles) but the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, it can not be created or destroyed,

Good point.. to set it in perspective, I was simply having a chuckle at the scope of the changes that we need to make... And we do need to make them...

But your comment about the first law of thermodynamics made all kinds of lights sparkle in my mind. (OK, now, I've read too much Asimov in my life, I must admit that the first law of Robotics come to mind first... ;)

If we have a constant provision of energy, I imagine an energy bucket with lots of energy inside of it, it remains that we use this stuff responsibly and make it work to the benefit of the people, and the environment around us. All this stuff is really not my field of expertise. I am just a hobbyist. Does anyone know if studies have been done to figure whether solar, wind and wave and other sources of renewable energy can supply what we are consuming?

Now my head hurts? I need that beer with Keith. ;)
 

Cleef

Bronze
Feb 24, 2002
1,797
6
0
Thanks Keith R and NL

I'm shocked at the reaction this information has received - never shocked at the idiotic responses - but moreso the informative ones. I'm not knowledgeable enough to defend this article's approach, or as some (not the morons peeing in the breeze) can defend their beliefs or understandings of other alternatives, but only of the basic concept of our dependence on something that is finite; doing the math, timetables,etc. But, considering some of you have some thoughts on this, let me ask some questions.
NotLurking said:
The doomsday outlook of the article fails to address other viable fossil alternatives. When crude oil reaches US$100 a barrel, coal liquefaction becomes quite attractive. The coal liquefaction process (pryolisis) will cost about US$75 per barrel to produce and would substitute crude on the existing infrastructure.
I think one important point that we mustn't disregard in this report is that so much of our other efforts (coal liquification for instance) would require vast amounts of oil?in various forms?to produce the alternative fuel source; transportation, mining, processing, etc.

I think THE major point in the report is that our window to develop and expedite alternative fuel sources is - agreeably - closing quick. I thought the "facts" ("points" perhaps would been more appropriate)?as I read them to be?were from myriad sources across many interests.

I read it with open eyes and ears. Until something?or someone, perhaps one of you?can factually refute its premise, I'm going to accept the bid. I can wring this belief out of the mind-sponge at any time, but it all seems rather logical to me?as does the relentless and inexplicable US interest in the Middle East.

NotLurking said:
In fact today as I type this response, China is not sitting around waiting for the inevitable oil market debacle! The Chinese government will soon have in operation a Coal liquefying plant. The technology is quite robust and is the product of about 20 years of research from the Chinese. The US and other countries have also developed similar coal liquefaction processes but have not yet been implemented.
Why not?

NotLurking said:
Why harp on coal so much? Coal is the world's most abundant fossil fuel and most of the world reserves are in USA, Russian and China. Coal will be here after oil reserves have been exhausted and in the places that most use energy.
This is really dirty stuff no? I'm not humping trees, but I'd like to have the sunsets stay the color they are and I'd like to be able to live outdoors a few hours a day.

I'll be back, I just got huge new tires on my H4 so we're going to go blast around the beach.
 
Last edited:

NotLurking

Bronze
Jul 21, 2003
2,447
1,235
113
Sto Dgo Este
Readytogo said:
Many are still ?confused? about the use of electric vehicles in thinking they are a solution to fossil fuels; they are not.
I assume you have included yourself in the 'confused' category.

Readytogo said:
Recall the first law of thermodynamics where it is said that energy can be converted from one system to another (Power plants charge battery vehicles) but the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, it can not be created or destroyed
Why bring the first law of thermodynamic into this discussion? It is as relevant as Einstein's theory of relativity or Planck's constant for the purpose of this discussion.
Readytogo said:
Simple electric vehicle use the same amount of energy as an internal combustion one, they (Electric) depend on the power created by a fossil fueled power plant
That is not true! In fact all else being equal an electric vehicles would use MORE energy than a conventional fossil fuel (combustion engine) vehicle. The only benefit of using an electric or hydrogen based vehicle is the lack of CO2 emissions; both from the vehicle and from the system that produced the electricity to charge the batteries or produced the hydrogen.

Readytogo said:
Hybrid vehicles make more sense; they depend somewhat on usage of energy created by their own momentum to charge batteries that would otherwise be dissipated into the environment as heat

No they do not! ..not in regards to green energy.

Here are a few links of very basic information to help the confused.

http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/Fuel_Cells/fuel_cells.htm
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/electrolysis/electrolysis.htm
http://www.ecoworld.org/Articles/Hydrogen_fuel_cars_EW.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/news-item10.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/30/news/fortune500/gm_fuelcell.reut/

This guy is outstanding! He has a 30.5kWh PV array system to charge his 3 electric cars and power his house!!! No fossil fuse!! have a look.
http://www.solarwarrior.com/

NotLurking
 

Cleef

Bronze
Feb 24, 2002
1,797
6
0
Debate, please don't argue

I'm sure you both have some "fact" to support your beliefs.

Why is there such a divergence in fundamental facts?

I don't pretend to know much, but I'd like to learn. Stick with the premise, accept or deny the bid, and debate the/your sticking points.

Thanks.
 

NotLurking

Bronze
Jul 21, 2003
2,447
1,235
113
Sto Dgo Este
Cleef, most of the world's coal reserves have already been identified and most of the 'leg work' requiring conventional fuel has been done already. The mining and transportation of coal can be done using a combination of technologies. i.e. hydrogen, LNG (NG), hydro-electric, photovoltaic, solar-thermal and wind.

The sun is a natural fusion reactor and the most reliable form of usable energy available to us. The sun has been shining for several billion (that's with a B) years and it is estimated to be around for several billion years more. Taking advantage of the sun's power should be a high priority to all of us.

The sun produces ~1-1.5kWh per meter square in most sunny places. In places close to the equator it generator 2-3kWh per meter square. Surely you can appreciate the vast amount of power available from the sun. Renewable forms of energy haven't replaced fossil fuel because there are to many interest at stake. Solar cells have been in production since the late 1970s. The solar-thermal concept and its commercial viability was tested in Manzanares Spain early in 1983. Finally wind power had been in use since the early 1800s. (and BTW is a by product of the sun :))

I have one question for those that say we need oil to discover new forms of renewable energy: How do you think oil was found and produced in the first place? Coal was highly used back in the old days in steam engines not crude oil - that came AFTER. If push comes to shove, coal could be use again in a similar manner to manufacture PV, wind generator or any other task that would eventually get us on the right track - green energy.

Incidentally, 57% of all electricity produced in the USA is produced by coal!

NotLurking
 

Keith R

"Believe it!"
Jan 1, 2002
2,984
36
48
www.temasactuales.com
Mondongo, Cleef and anyone else -- if you're going to engage in personal attacks, take it to PM. I know how to edit, delete and hand out points. Understood?

The Moderator :glasses:
 

Keith R

"Believe it!"
Jan 1, 2002
2,984
36
48
www.temasactuales.com
Believe it or not (pun not intended), the DR committed itself to greater use of alternative and renewable energy sources during an international meeting held in Bonn in 2004.

Check out the DR entry in the following document resulting from the Conference:
http://www.temasactuales.com/assets/pdf/gratis/LACrenewablesCommitments.pdf

The National Energy Commission (CNE) [did anyone on this board even realize the DR has one?! LOL] pledged to have (1) 500 MW wind energy installed by 2015; (2) 10% ethanol blend in petrol sold by 2010; (3) greater production and use of biodeisel. CNE also claimed that 5% of the revenue collected from the hydrocarbon tax since 2001 has been devoted to developing such energy sources. I find that frankly hard to believe!

Wonder if the Fernandez Administration plans on honoring this commitment made by their predecessor?

The document lists contacts for this. Wonder if they're still around? Someone want to check it out?

Mr. Doroteo Rodr?guez
Gerente, Fuentes Alternas y Uso Racional de Energia
CNE
Santo Domingo, DR
Tel: 809-732-2000
Fax: 809-547-2073
drodriguez@cne.gov.do

Mr. Milton Morrison
Director, Depto. Energias No Convencionales
Secretaria de Estado Industria y Comercio (SEIC)
Tel: 809-227-4006
Fax: 809-548-6510
miltonmorrison@hotmail.com

Regards,
Keith
 
Last edited: