Karl on Cars

Give the engineers time to figure things out. A lot of time/money is being spent right now on research into alternatives to oil at universities and research labs all over the world (including the one I work at). I think that, while many people are viewing the timelines for the techno-solutions of tomorrow with rose coloured spectacles, the other side is being entirely too pessimistic about our ability to come up with a technological solution.
 
I see no problem with Karl pointing to an op-ed written by an oil exec. The disclaimer is right at the bottom - we can all make our own value judgements based upon it.

Saying we can’t stop greenhouse gas emissions isn’t pessimism it’s reality. A global population that’s over doubling every 50 years makes it an impossible situation. 6.5 billion Humans today and an estimated 15 billion humans in 2050. 2008 is going to be a slow growth year. They are only expecting the earth to add 78,000,000 humans this year. Human growth is going to keep out running any kind of technology gains we make. Year after year we keep proving that.
The amount of Carbon Dioxide we produce just to make the cement for the roads and buildings we use is astronomical. I’m not ready to start living in a mud hut and pushing my cart down a dirt road to the next village.
An environmentalist would cry if he knew how much green house gas was given off by a passenger jet flying from New York to LA.
That’s just two examples of the thousand different ways we keep pouring bad stuff into the air. Picking on cars isn’t even a start to preventing pollution. There is no real possibility of people cutting global emissions by 50%. With the planet continuing to gain people the best we can hope for is limited increases.

why is C02 considered bad again?
 
I missed that in my bio class. Where the c02 we put out, goes into the planets, they use that give us 02, etc etc.
 
The hot air we need to stop, is the al gore crowd spreading flat out lies

"Who *NEEDS* nuclear weapons? "
 
No one. But that is totally different debate.
 
"What? A Ford Model T had a 2.9 Liter engine that produced 30 horsepower. Modern engines of that size now produce over 300 horsepower. Yeah, doesn't seem like an improvement at all..."
 
Sure, that's an improvement, but is it a MacII-to-iPhone-caliber improvement? Is it even a Wright Flyer to SR-71 caliber improvement?

"why is C02 considered bad again? "
 
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, absorbing infrared radiation and thus heating the atmosphere.

sabastian
 
on a whole co2 being a greenhouse gas is a myth. Sorry it just is, just because al gore says its so, does not mean its true.
 
So far study's have shown that CO2 levels in the atmosphere.. rise AFTER. once again AFTER tempratures rise. <- please read that over and over again until you get it. A different way to put it... As temperature goes UP... Then CO2 goes up. Or If Temprature increased. THEN CO2 increases. ------ And the impact of CO2 on earth temprature as a 'greenhouse' gas is less then 1%. much less. Finally, without C02, life on earth would not exsit. so sabastian , you like most global warming belivers/followers are wrong.

Sabastian,
 
Please do some research into the absorbtivity of carbon dioxide versus the absorbtivity of water. Then look at the amount of CO2 versus H2O in the atmosphere.
 
Now, tell me how much of an effect CO2 has again.

"And the impact of CO2 on earth temprature as a 'greenhouse' gas is less then 1%. much less. Finally, without C02, life on earth would not exsit. so sabastian , you like most global warming belivers/followers are wrong."
 
"Please do some research into the absorbtivity of carbon dioxide versus the absorbtivity of water. Then look at the amount of CO2 versus H2O in the atmosphere."
 
Relax, folks. I didn't pretend to comment on exactly how much effect carbon dioxide has on global warming, or even whether or not global warming is real. I just answered opfreak's question. Don't peg me as a tree-hugger just yet. The fact is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. (By the way, the greenhouse effect is real. Without it the temperature of the earth would vary wildly.) It does not contribute to temperature change nearly as much as water vapor, but it does absorb infafed radiation. Whether or not you think that is a bad thing is your choice.

Interesting article - bottom line it assumes oil prices will stay around $100 a barrel to stimulate better technology and open up previously econimically unviable developments (Canadian shale oil for example). So get used to $3-4 a gallon.

guy, I would say long term, even without taxes, look for 4-5 dollar a gallon gas

Man I leave the office for ONE day and you guys go and have this debate without me. Damn, I missed it.
 
I smile everytime the temperature drops. We are in the mindst of the coldest winter in over a 100 years in some parts of the world. (I know, I know this is just more PROOF of global warming! Right)
 
I laugh when I see studies showing sun spots decreasing and thus decreasing the amount of radiation that reaches us. I laugh because the fools amoung us that have the world ALL figured out, are the those captivated most by the shadows on the wall.

Back to Karl's post, the article is basically a sales job by this consultant/former Aramco manager. His claim of doubling recovery efficiencies to 66% is nonsense, the rare minority of fields get over 50% with all the technology thrown at them. I do this stuff for a living.

How efficient is mechanical to electrical conversion and vice versa? I/E Electrical Torque Motors.
 
In the same way that one hundred years isn't a long enough period to observe temperatures and make any accurate predictions, one year is not enough of a time period.
 
Global Warming could indeed be happening. However, I doubt it's man-made.

Brett8210,
To carry your point further, I think the global-warming alarmists have already started to hint that EXTREMES in weather are the result. I think they realized that most people were not upset with average North American temperatures warming a bit, so the new mantra is that humans are causing the weather to be "crappy". It may not be warmer everwhere, but it will be different, and it will suck. So any deviation from the "average" becomes a positive indicator for human-led destruction.
 
I find just a few contributors here have very negative views of wealth, industry, and money. That surprises me, because these are overwhelmingly good things. Heck, money itself is great! Easier to carry around than animal hides, and more versatile than viking armbands or a commission on the starship Enterprise. It's a great incentive to conserve personal resources, and to learn to serve others effectively. If you can tool up with education, skills, or an innovative way to help others, you will attract money. You advance the world by serving people and giving them choices. I don't know how all the Marxist/Engles pessimism contaminated our education system. The world will not be saved by a few geniuses choosing technologies and lifestyles for everyone!

"- When will peak oil arrive? This widely accepted tipping point -- 50% of ultimately recoverable resources consumed -- is largely a tribute to King Hubbert, a distinguished Shell geologist who predicted the peak oil point for the U.S. lower 48 states. While his timing was very good (he forecast 1968 versus 1970 in fact), he underestimated peak daily production (9.5 million barrels actual versus eight million estimated).
  
But modern extraction methods will undoubtedly stretch Hubbert's "50% assumption," which was based on Sputnik-era technologies. Even a modest shift -- to 55% of recoverable resources consumed -- will delay the onset by 20-25 years. WSJ"
  
There is no disputing Hubbert's accuracy in predicting peak oil in the lower 48 states. Lucky or a sage, his model accurately predicted oil production in the US. That is fact and hence the US imports most of its oil from Canada, Chavez and Saudi Arabi.
  
Is Hubberts model accurate for the world today, who knows as he died in 1989 and given technology at the time predicted global peak oil in 1995. However his model was spot on accurate for the US.
  
As far as Saudi Arabi and the great Ghawar oil field. Take a look for yourself:
  
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2470
  
Yes new technology such as non-conventional drilling and water/gas innjection can keep the great field alive for some time. However that will come at a cost. Today, oil wells need oil - water sparation process to extract the usable oil. By some estimate (Matt Simmons) only 30-50% of what is pumped is actual oil - the rest water. That is not the great Ghawar that pumped straight oil and was dirt cheap. Ghawar is going through a mid-life crisis.
  
So yes the WSJ article is accurate in stating new technology will help increase recoverable oil from fields but if current global demand increase as it has been - the larger affects of peak oil will be here a lot sooner than later. Also there are many, many, many years of lead time to implement the new technologies and infrastructure improvements.
  
WSJ's missing something - There is no question oil will be used and recovered for a very long time. But at current demand the system is already at the tipping point and that is reflected in the price of oil.
  
Demand at this moment is greater than production.
  
Why was the recent energy bill signed by the President called a National Security bill and not an Environment bill or Efficiency Bill?
  
Because they DO know what is happening!

There seems to be some confusion between the problem of getting oil out ot the ground fast enough to meet demand and running out of oil. It's both possible and likely to have really nasty oil price spikes long before it's "used up". The no shortage of stones end-game may occur after some painfully high prices.
 
There is latency between when prices justify attempting to increase production and actual production increases occur. Think 70s energy crisis to 80s oil price collapse. However, if energy companies can figure out how to bring more oil to market, they will at current prices. $100 barrel is more than enough incentive!
 
If petroleum becomes a less profitable way of meeting energy demand than some other fuel, Energy companies will adapt. They've been very, very successful at staying in business for generations. If alternative fuels start to make economic sense, you couldn't stop Exxon, etc. from getting into the business.

Karl, I wonder you not getting into trouble yet with expressing opinions like that. IIRC last year CA passed the law making public expression on doubts in Global Warming and promoting opinions that go against statements expressed in Hollywood movies illegal in state of California. Because: the solution for Global Warming is the next big thing, or bubble if you want to put it this way, in CA economy; and well, Hollywood is Holy:)
 
I hope, just hope, you did not make mistake by voting for Bush instead of Al Gore not aggravate things further...

Better fill up now - just 91 years, and 361 days of oil left.

I'll just buy a used septic tank, bury it in the back yard, and fill 'er up!
 
Still trying to figure out what will smell worse, gasoline -- or a used septic tank...
 
Maybe they'll cancel each other out.