The Last Drops: How to Bridge the Gap Between Oil and Green Energy

This is by far the best assessment of the world's energy situation I've ever seen. My subscription to PSCI was a good investment and I really appreciate the effort and research put into the energy articles. It's obvious that the writers are knowledgeable and truly concerned --not just typing words to fill in the pages between ads. If only our elected representatives would spend less time taking phone calls from lobbyists and more time reading PSCI.

I could not have said it better myself @hustienflo. PSCI holds up a high standard for others to aspire to. Too bad more magazines would not follow suit. But at least this is one of the good 'uns.

I killed kenny.

hat and boots, please keep it relevant to the article, also you shouldn't describe your most recent murder on a public site, somebody could get self righteous and call the police or something.

when it comes down to it, and we run out of oil, it won't matter if we have replaced the fleet of gas guzzlers, those cars just won't work. period. the people stupid enough to hold onto those gas guzzlers when it comes to this are going to be dead in the water with no one to blame but themselves.

as long as there are different methods of transportation, electric, sailing, horse drawn carriage, solar, we will adapt. gas might be 4 dollars a gallon where i live but that's still not enough for me to get an electric car. i'd more likely make one myself than go and buy one. maybe if they make lithium ion capacitors accessible to the general public then it'll be easier.

to mars or bust!

As one who is working on a SAGD project in the Alberta Oil Sands, your information concerning water use is incorrect in relation to a modern SAGD operation.

FWIW, the steam-to-oil ratio (SOR) for in-situ bitumen extraction is around 3.0 cold water equivalent (CWE) and the reservoir water retention (RWR) ranges anywhere from 5-25%, depending on the conditions in the reservoir. The normal Design Case RWR I've seen is around 10%.

What this means is for every barrel of bitumen extracted from the ground, three barrels of water is used, BUT only 10% is actually lost in the ground. The rest is pumped to the central processing facility (CPF) where it is separated from the emulsion, cleaned, and reused as boiler feed water (BFW) to begin the process anew.

IOW, the actual water lost for every barrel of bitumen is around .3 barrels, 1/15th the 4.5 barrels cited in your article.

I like the approach here, logically and rationally the best bet is to extract all remaining oil from fields previously drilled and abandoned. Next, begin to convert the trucking and mass transport fleets into compressed natural gas or CNG. Then we can begin to economically extract shale oil while simultaneously increasing offshore ultra-deep exploration incentive. Lastly, we shall be running off tar oil and JP-8 diesel (what military uses for its universal generators, vehicles, etc.) before the next synthetic arises from the ashes to lead us into a new era.

What the world really needs is a true alternative to oil.

I hate being the one who mentions alternative energy in an analysis of oil production, but the biggest problem in our dependence on oil is the huge amount of infrastructure dedicated to running on oil. If there is some new miracle fluid that could get something liken the current efficiencies we get with oil that I could pour straight into my car's gas tank, the future of oil would be shattered in an instant.

Unfortunately, such a super-material doesn't (or quite possibly will never) exist, so we will be forced to cling onto oil until the infrastructure can change.

We can always hope that such a super-material could be made, or the infrastructure suddenly undergoes a cataclysmic shift (Armageddon, anyone?)

I think people are forgetting about fuel economy as part of a potential solution. A car that can go twice as far on a gallon of gas effectively multiplies the EROEI of gas by 2. This proves that people like Mr. Cheney were very wrong (or perhaps had conflicting motives) when he claimed it was not a "basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy".

One other question. Did I miss it or was an EROEI not quoted for fracking? Also, it talked about corn ethanol, but then dropped additional discussion of biofuels, such as those produced by genetically modified bacteria. Processes like these may well allow end runs around the traditionally low returns on biofuels.

I realize that one cannot talk about all possible resources, but there are also methane hydrates which would be accessible if one were doing deep sea type extraction operations anyway. For that matter, the huge salt dome that the brazilians ran into raises the possibility of energy systems based upon salinity gradients, which have been explored for some time.

Good analysis about oil and gas, PopSci; however I don't think "we" face any complex choices at all.

If "we" means "consumers", the only choice we face is the price at the pump. That's not complex. The price goes up as resources become limited or more expensive to extract. The reasons could be government imposing additional costs (taxes, like "cap-and-trade"), limiting access to resources (more regulations, restricting drilling locations) or because extracting it is more difficult.

If "we" means "government" again the choice isn't complex. The U.S. government doesn't drill. Oil and gas companies do. In fact the U.S. doesn't have an "energy policy" (and probably shouldn't given the penchant for politicians to mess up just about everything that should be left to private industry). The only policy it has is to store a reserve of petroleum for emergency use, and negotiate trade agreements with other nations.

The article assumes the viewpoint of a fictional benevolent dictatorship ("we") as though there were some single group or individual that should or could manage "energy policy". In reality, human ingenuity (not government) will produce solutions to future energy demands and production. It always has, as long as it is left reasonably unfettered by the hairbrained schemes imposed by politicians or "intellectuals" who suppose they know better.

Lastly, as of today there is no evidence that the CO2 humans generate has any negative impact on the environment. In fact there is abundant evidence that it is either benign or even beneficial, despite the fantasies proposed by James Hansen, Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et. al. So no, we don't need a "carbon tax" or some other "climate regulation" imposed by the benevolent "we" on the oil and gas market to "take into account" the "true costs" of energy production.

AMEN, laurenra7!

Take the central planners out of the equation and let the markets determine our future energy sources. When (and if) oil truly becomes scarce, prices will rise and oil's replacement will become obvious. This will not happen overnight, therefore, no bridge is necessary to fill the gap.

David Victor is dead wrong to think we will go on for 20 more years and not see depletion.

We hit peak crude in 2005 and hope to keep on the bumpy plateau for a few more years using unconventional (read: expensive) resources.

The main problem is we have too many people wanting to use too many resources. Exponential growth in a finite system cannot be maintained forever. That is the situation we are now in.

Our entire Ponzi-based global economy requires exponential growth to survive and as we can see clearly now, especially in Europe, the house of Ponzi is falling apart, from the bottom rung on up.

Sorry folks, we were tiny and the earth was huge but we grew up and must ween from Mother Earth's breast.

As we hit the not-so-fun down slope of the fossil fuel era the world's population will have to eventually reduce to a sustainable level. That population level was less than 1 billion before industrialization fueled by that beautiful black gold.

Hey, it was fun. Right? The next 20 years are going to be very interesting. Same ol' same ol'? No, not possible. David should know better (maybe he does but likes his job).

No, the world does not need a "true" alternative to oil nor is scraping out the insides of old wells going to save us.

The world runs on energy and resources. You need both, not one or the other.

We are currently well past the carrying capacity of planet earth and can only hold this insane level of activity for a short time using extremely cheap fossil fuels to strip resources past their breaking points.

The ocean's large fish species are 90 percent fished out - Japan, with it's very small population, eats a massive percentage of that. Guess what? China is learning to love sushi. Do the math.

Fresh water? Sure, we can use the ocean if we get even cheaper energy but that is not going to happen. Solar does have the capacity but the EROEI is much smaller than for that free black gold.

Arable land? Do I even need to talk about how fast that is going away? Yes, we can plant indoors but again that requires many resources and cheap energy to make it work.

The list just goes on. Not just energy.

The only way things work out well for everyone (not just kings) is when the population goes down to less than 1 billion people and we then learn to plan on a global scale.

Otherwise we are just yeast in a petri dish, eating until we run out of food or die from the resulting waste.

Ironically, nothing else really needs to be said. This is the way it will go down, no ifs ands or butts. The only question is when will we reach the lowest point and what will the resulting population of the world be, before we start to do it all over again. Will we learn to plan by then or just rinse and repeat? Either way, fossil fuel will not be around in such large amounts to repeat our current folly.

If a US was brave and the leader is claims to be, we'd assign a few trillion dollars into a solution. While some may say that is crazy, thing about it. An energy independent nation could be burning algae produced fuels at 85 cents a gallon.

If one takes the entire nations Federal, State and local fuel bill it would easily offset that trillion dollars.

If we factor in the reduction in trade deficit we would then turn this into a free venture. Money well spent.

Furthermore the conversion of algae to fuel consumes CO2 so at least that would be a net zero gain instead of the whopping 3 times ever recorded number we put ourselves into.

The entire area of the southwest is a great choice for sun harvesting but clever use of best choice areas to maximum costs would be fine.

Remember to vote Jefro in the next election. He makes sense of it.

wc.16 and laurena7 need an education in public policy. Public policy is not the same as central planning. The government might not drill, but it does handle drilling leases, among other things. It has many departments that manage policy, and there are many legal regulations and statutory powers that already exist. This is not socialism, communism, etc. Therefore, individuals like this are simply expressing ignorance on a profound level of civics, the way that modern societies work and what is going on in the world in general. This is why it is no longer possible to have an adult discussion like Roberts is urging.

BTW, to all the other unpatriotic government haters out there, in a democratic, you are the government, so when you hate the government, you hate yourself. You get the government you deserve, because it is the one you elected. If it is incompetent then so are the individuals who voted for these incompetents.

This is a logically-written article in general, but it fails to account for mankind's trump card, the very force that's always allowed us to overcome challenges in the past: technological innovation.

The author appears to assume that no major breakthroughs in technology will occur in the next twenty years, which is a patently absurd position to take. Just look at fracking, for example. Fracking is not a new technology, but it only became clear recently that it could be used to extract vast natural gas reserves, not just to get more oil out of existing wells. Sure, there still needs to be more research done to ensure that it can be used without polluting groundwater supplies, but that doesn't change the fact that this is an example of technological innovation dramatically shifting our perspective on future energy supplies. And that doesn't even take into account technologies that haven't been invented yet. What about possible sources like the blue algae oil experiment in Spain? We may soon be able to produce fuels of various sorts without drilling for them at all.

The author also inexplicably omits the technological innovation that may occur in the near future on the demand end, not just on the supply end. The more efficient our vehicles get and the more we come up with alternative fuels for vehicles, the less the demand for oil will be. The less the demand, the longer our current oil supplies will last. Twenty years is a hell of a lot of time in which science can make yet another leap forward. Let's wait and see where that leap leads us before we go worrying too much about alternatives like the ones listed in this article.

That really does make a LOT of sense dude. Wow.

www.total-privacy.ua.tc

We won't use up the "last drops" of oil, as the title of the article misleadingly suggests. When the era of oil started there was still plenty of coal and there remains plenty, even today. It's not so much that we are running out of ALL oil. It's that we are running out of CHEAP oil. That is what will be devastating to our economies due to lack of planning and insufficient preparation. Sure we will transition, but that takes time, and massive financial dislocations are certain in that interval.

@frong. Many technological workarounds may indeed save us or at least ease the misery. However, for the purposes of planning, it is hard to quantify how some unknown technological marvels will help save us. We have to prepare for a scenario that is less optimistic than that, even though we hope that the worst will not occur.

I also should add that, if we want technology to save our bacon then we better stop cutting funding to research and dismissively under-prioritizing science in policy and popular culture. The media loves to bash scientists and morbidly obsess about the dangers of science, without a due recognition of the true cost-benefit trade-off. Most young people want to be rap stars and super-models, not scientists, yet it will be scientists, not rappers, who will be needed to get us out of this crisis and others.

"Oil Economy Oil threatens the environment, destabilizes nation, and is in dwindling supply. It also provides 35 percent of the power we use on Earth. Oil won't run our world forever, but as we make the transition to a greener economy, it will need to run it for at least another few decades." Daniel Schumpert and Jason Briney

This statement is the sophistical basis for unproven environmental threats resulting from anthropogenic global warming supposedly caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that there is a total lack of empirical data and traditional experiments that establishes any proof for this hypothesis.

General climate models that yield only hypothetical scenarios prove nothing. It is impossible to model aspects of our climate that are either known unknowns and unknown unknowns that best describe our understanding of weather and climate.

It is best to leave the solutions for energy replacements for fossil fuels to market forces. When the need becomes obvious, creativity and innovation will produce new forms of energy and new technology for transportation and production of electricity.

aarontco, what's the difference between "public policy" and "central planning"? None. The effect is exactly the same. The decisions and policies are made largely by unelected, unaccountable officials in all those departments you mention. Even if it's not communism or socialism, it certainly isn't consistent with the ideals of a representative republic either.

The point is that it isn't government that drives or produces the technological innovations that result in new forms of energy production or more efficient use of current resources. It's us. Not the benevolent central planner "us" of the article but the individual and collective consumer "us", living our lives, using and paying for energy in its many forms and creating the market pressures that naturally lead to less expensive, more efficient energy production. Government can't do that. What government generally does well is distort the natural market forces that would otherwise lead to greater innovation. Look at the corn-ethanol subsidy as a case in point. There are far more efficient and productive feedstocks for biofuels but they can't penetrate the market because of the massive market distortion of the multi-billon-dollar corn-ethanol subsidy.

Energy companies already have all the incentive they need to do research and development into future technologies. If they don't fund R&D, they'll stop making money as they lag behind the innovators. Same for car companies. Toyota didn't develop a hybrid because the government demanded it; they did it because they discovered a market for it. Others have followed suit to stay competitive.

I don't see any need for government involvement in energy research, nor do I see a need for CAFE economy standards for automobiles. The 55mpg VW Rabbit diesel of the 1980's wasn't a response to CAFE standards, it was a response to the rising cost of fuel. Government funding of research and arbitrary economy standards have the same market distorting effects as subsidies. Get the government out of the way and let human ingenuity solve the problems.

laurenra7 is hitting the nail on the head once again. Free markets work because individuals will always innovate when given the opportunity to take a cut from the profits. If oil supplies drop to the point we can't afford to power our lifestyle with it, there will be incredible opportunity to make money from a new energy source. This motivation to provide a service or product for profit is why we have always and will continue to innovate.

Government didn't build the extensive oil infrastructure that drives our economy, in fact, it is often the biggest hurdle. Green energy subsidies and tax credits for electric vehicles will not ultimately drive the innovation that delivers our next energy source... it may even prevent legitimate alternatives from making it to market.

Lastly, government research is funded by the profits of successful companies. This research tells us more about college sex habits, how a shrimp runs on a treadmill, and the personal relationships built by FarmVille, whereas private sector research tells us what will fuel our cars next century.

@ laurenra7 and wc.16. Go get a degree in public policy and then get back to me. There is absolutely no comparison between public policy and central planning. You are not qualified to speak on the subject (at all) as you continually demonstrate. Furthermore, many of the people making public policy either are elected, or under the authority of an elected official.

As a second point, and I will type this slow, so it's easy to read, the so-called free market has never existed in the history of the world and never will. Corporate hegemonies would not allow it. Our far-from-free, oligopolistic market is not your friend. It is not trying to figure out how to give consumers the lowest prices, as recent run-ups in oil prices demonstrated. It is trying to do the exact opposite. It is trying to figure out how to gouge as many consumers for as much as possible. These are individuals who make their money on speculation. These are people who buy up oil storage facilities larger than the US strategic petroleum reserve and horde oil to drive up the price. These are people to tell their tankers to stay out at sea to create artificial scarcity so they can can make consumers more desperate to pay any price they demand. You are living in a hermetically sealed fantasy land when you imagine that big business is your best friend and that government is the evil one. The government is not in the way and is not the problem. Monopolistic, international mega corporations are buying and selling politicians and writing laws for their own benefit, to the detriment of the public interest and you are still cheerleadering for these organizations against your own government. As I said before, show some patriotism and stop hating your government. Your government is of the people, by the people, for the people. Stop hating the people that make up this country and serve honorably in the government. That disgusts me. That is what you're doing, without a doubt.

I found the article interesting but just skimmed it. One thing caught my eye which I disagree with. The title has the word OIL in it but the author uses only converted volumes to BOE (barrels of oil equivalent)when talking about oil. What this does is convert natural gasses to an equivalent volume of oil based on a conversion. It has to do with equivalent BTUs of one bbl of oil to an amount of gas of equal BTU. It is not an exact conversion. Not all bbls of oil have the same BTU content nor do different natural gas compositions have the same BTU content. In general the conversion is about 5,800 scf of gas to 1 bbl of oil. Since the title talks about oil running out the article should have strictly discussed oil and not mix natural gas into the article. It is misleading.

Typically oils are used for things that gas is not used for such as making asphalt, lubricants and liquid fuels. Fuel oil is almost never used to generate electricity unless it is absolutely necessary because of the expense. Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner. Homes in the NE US are heated with oil though. Natural gas is only marginally used as a transportation fuel but could be done so with a bit of effort. In the US we have plenty of it and it is now cheap. It is used widely to generate electricity and many of the lighter components like Methane and Ethane are used as feedstocks for petrochemicals, plastics, etc.

We have lots of natural gas in the US and currently the price is depressed because of the great success the shale developers have had. It is low enough to have created a price differential between West Texas Intermediate and North Sea Brent by about 10$/bbl. The abundant supply of natural gas has brought the price of US crude down. Actually, in BOE terms, natural gas is about 1/3 the price of 1 bbl of oil so it is a good deal. The enviros are trying to do anything to stop development of the shale gas reserve because of the fracking hysteria. It is hysteria and hype blown way out of proportion. However, the issue of enough water to supply a large scale fracking campaign is not hype. In water poor areas it is a real issue.

I think the author should have employed petroleum geologists or reservoir engineers like myself to improve the content of his article. Most engineers are like Joe Friday,"just the facts ma'am just the facts". Mixing everything as BOE is very misleading.

There is no such thing as peak oil. Oil is produced naturally by the earth. Oil wells that are 200 years old refill naturally in texas and saudi arabia. Russia is the #1 producer of crude oil...lol bet most people don't know that..they know there is no such thing as crude oil. WAKE UP SHEEP!!

This problem is so serious that there is no room for politics and emotion to be involved. Cold hard logic and math is needed.

If you can calculate that lowering the population growth can help then do it regardless of religion.

If you can calculate that the benefits of nuclear power (reducing greenhouse gas emission and extending fossil fuel supplies from electricity production and generating hydrogen for cars) outweigh the dangers, then use it to help bridge the gap regardless of the misinformed public's unfounded fears

@ laurenra7 and wc.16 if you had a degree in public policy you'd realize that oil companies wouldn't exist without public policy because then no one would be able to approve the permit. However, with our Elected Legislative Interns that are Totally Excellent Servants (ELITES for short) we have nothing to worry about regarding the future. In their selfless, and perfect judgement, we will be guided through the complex near future disasters to the promised land of free green energy for all.

Now I know that half of you are ignorant but the other 2/3rds are starting to come around. So, for their benefit I'll type this real slow. Stop believing that companies are just out to make a profit. What they really want is to make you buy their products and out compete their competition, which is evil, ogopolistic and other big words (you'd know that if you had that degree).

Without question we should turn our daily, vote with our money, free market decisions over to the ELITES because they have Public Policy degrees (some of them do right?) or law degrees which make them better at business, science, medicine, etc.. than us. And they're great at humility too.

Since I'm out of "facts" lets just pretend I've filled up the next several paragraphs with ad hominem attacks and baseless information thus completing my obvious conclusions. Ughh, why can't you just be as smart as me!?

@aarontco and DerivePi, you have a serious misunderstanding about how the world and economics really works. Which is why--as long as you're casting ad hominem stones--people like you are ill-qualified to be making public policy. If you don't understand how economic transactions occur then you are as likely as not--as hordes of politicians and government bureaucrats have demonstrated--to produce policy that is counter-productive with numerous unintended consequences that then have to "corrected" by further ill-conceived public policy.

Since you were so kind to type slowly for my benefit, I'll do likewise. A free market refers to the ability to buy and sell without interference from the GOVERNMENT, or "public policy makers" if you will. The Internet in the United States is an example of a free market, almost completely unregulated by the federal government. Most would agree that it has been wildly successful at opening up access to more ideas, more art, more news, and more information than any other technology in history. It has also facilitated an incredible amount of wealth generation. That's an example of a free market.

Along with the good comes the bad: I'm sure you can identify plenty that you find bad about the Internet: spam, viruses and malware for example. But that's how a free market works.

Here's where you might interject "public policy" to stop the bad. My response is, perhaps the natural pressures of the free market are enough to manage the problems. Lots of private companies have created ways to filter spam, viruses and malware...and made a lot of money and hired lots of employees along the way.

As for the oligopoly you describe. It's perfectly natural for wealthy, powerful people to protect their wealth generators. They are no more benevolent than the government bureaucrats who try to regulate them. They find ways to influence the regulators and regulations. Good for them. The way to keep their power in check is not to limit them so much as ENCOURAGE others to compete in the same market. A competitive, free market is by far the best self-regulator there is. It continually produces better, more efficient, less expensive goods and services by virtue of having to compete with others for customers. That's true in the realm of ideas too. Unchecked, monopolistic power corrupts in both the private and public sector. Freedom and competition serves as a natural deterrent.

The internet is not even close to a free market at present, and there are continual attempts to make it less and less free every day, both in the US and around the world. If this is the best example that free-marketeers can come up with then they should certainly quit now. I suppose you think that oil is going to trickle down your internet cable and into your house. You must think the internet is a bunch of tubes or some such.

In any event, show me how you think the internet is going to help us manage the increasingly scarce oil resources that are locked up mega-corporations and hostile governments.

Here is a bit if free education on the subject of ad hominem. What I did just now is not ad hominem. Being snarky is not ad hominem. Questioning your credentials is not ad hominem. Even questioning your patriotism, by itself, is not ad hominem. Being mean is not ad hominem. Telling people that they don't even understand what ad hominem means (which the previous poster does not) is not ad hominem. It is only ad hominem when one uses it in place of other logical arguments to dismiss an opponents points, which I did not do. Ad hominem is one of the most frequently accused and mismistakenly leveled charges, and this discussion is no exception.

Unfortunately, the so called "free-market" of which the internet is not an example, and for which no other example has yet been provided, has not fixed and cannot fix this problem. There is no reason to believe that even something simulating the free market is interested in preserving competition, or in delivering low prices to customers. It is is interesting in making as much money as possible, and absent constant monitoring, it has proven time and again (see our latest banking collapse) that it break any law that stands in the way of maximizing profit. That is real real economics, not the theoretical mush you get from Milton Friedman.

As far as the poster who wants us to believe that oil wells are continuously replenishing, as though we haven't heard such mumbo jumbo before, good luck with that. How about coal mines and gold mines that continually regenerate too? I've got one I'd like to sell you. At least the majority of people here are capable of addressing the issue of fossil fuels in a serious, adult manner, but a big part of the problem is the rest of the fringe cranks out there who believe comforting lies sold them by the propaganda firms of big oil companies.

Go ahead and keep blathering about free-market this and gub'ment regulation that, as the price of you pay at the pump goes up and up. We can come back to this discussion in a year or two and see whether the "free market" solved the problem. I can tell you that in the UK, where the price of petroleum is already much higher, that the religion of the free market hasn't magically saved them from anything, even with a conservative government.

So keep up the nonsense about how all we need to do is turn everything over to business profiteers and we will achieve utopia. That kind of extremism is the cracked mirror image of the communist utopias that failed. It too is an abysmal failure though the true believers can't bring themselves to admit it.

@Laurenra7 - Not even a haha that's funny?

I do believe it is the U.S. government fault on our energy problems. I also feel we ought to use every source or method of developing many potentials with Oil and Natural gas There is another potential not mentioned in this Story methane gas It does have potential usage. It can used to power an electric generator to provide electricity. It is the most cheapest form of gas It is also natural made from garbage dumps or landfills Many landfills are capturing this type fuel to help maintain other nonprofit or governmental organizations. Yes there some who burn their trash, yet the residue to leaves some for the landfill. The largest one that I know of Is Up in Northern New Jersey It is going provide heat and air conditioning for estimated 1.4 million people who reside up in North New Jersey it may also help New York Metro area. Also I agree with Mr J.D. PICKENS I believe that nearly 60 to 75 % of our Tractor trailer fleet can be converted in Natural gas the Rest of this fleet can be converted to Bio-diesel or what the fleet is working now Converting Electric & diesel. I just hope they take bio- diesel.

with all the hooplah about water on the moon and water on Mars so man can go to the stars with hydrogen fuel and oxygen to breath! Wow! has no one noticed we are practically floating with 70% water on good ole mother Earth? Duhhhhh! We right now, today could/can convert any engine running on any fuel to run on hydrogen. It can be produced with power from the sun and water! And there are many many other ways to accomplish the same feat. If a tenth of the money spent on weird fuels from algae to grass clippings were spent on hydrogen, with-in a year we would never, ever have to worry about clean energy again. I think everyone in the world should be given a copy of "The Solar Hydrogen Civilization" by Roy McAlister.The only man on this planet with a plan for limitless, clean energy now. But the USA is in a tailspin and is out of the game. Watch Germany. They are on a roll and that roll will be fueled with hydrogen. Poor old broke Uncle Sam may also limp along... way back in the pack.
Sad- sad- sad.

Believe you will love it.
We have good reputation, fashion products,
come here quickly== http://www.jordanforworld.com
Opportunity knocks but once

All this talk about how the companies are enemies makes me sick. If you think that the large corporations are the money suckers that they are. Then it should be a simple solution. They are very simple creatures they want money and lots of it. If you feel that there needs to be a change, say in energy use, then we as consumers make that point to the companies ( whether it is just not buying said good or protesting) and once they wake up to the fact that there is a new lucrative "free-market" because it is new and unregulated they will follow. They just want money and if we want change don't go crying to the government to force a change. They will forget the free market factors and just slow the process. yes as anything new will be slow but the private organisation has a much larger motivation to get the job done...done fast and well.
Well the government i live in the people still have the power..they just need to wake up and realize what they can do with it..hopefully sooner rather than later...

NOTE: i am only 16 and my seem rather ignorant to a lot of you....that's fine by me ..call me out on it and ill read up on said issue :P

What an excellent article. I really enjoy the possibilities of alternate energy sources. I facilitate many corporate functions in the improv comedy business. However, there are always hot button topics such as this that arise during a corporate team building or comedy event. I have actually referenced several PopSci articles while facilitating these events. Its accurate, current, and makes people think I really know what I'm talking about!!

Ryan www.saywhatcomedy.com

This article was extremely interesting and informative. I've been a long time popular science reader (about 20 years) and this was the first article that I've recommended as must read to my friends. And in fact, this whole issue was the first that I literally read cover to cover. I typically skim the entire issue and return to articles that catch my attention beyond the first few sentences/ paragraphs. This issue did that throughout, and especially this article. It completely energized my interest in energy consumption and discussed our energy future in the most simple and realistic terms. Every detail, down to the energy costs per barrel, was helpful in forming my outlook on the topic. I felt that it did not demonize oil/oil companies nor did it dictate an opinion/solution, but rather stated the realities that peak oil will happen, that salves are developing, and that only through further development in these fields will we be able to bridge the gap between peak oil and an energy efficient future.

We could be using the Yellowstone Caldera for geothermally generated electicity as well as for oil shale and bitumen sand separation. If we had a geothermal plant design that was robust enough, it could power the entire planet. While I don't think that Yellowstone will be powering the world, I point it out because it's doing nothing right now but building pressure and heat as it prepares to destroy this part of the world and blanket the planet in ash and acid rain for a couple hundred years. The geologists don't think it's ready to pop just yet, so why not try to slow that day's coming a bit more? Peak oil only matters if we can't come up with other sources, like this, that are inherently so massive a source that they make questions of efficiency irrelevant. And I know. I actually just said that.

@aarontco: Instead of studying government as you suggest, I spent my time in college earning a degree in engineering. Therefore, instead of daily thinking of new ways to distort markets and regulate business, I contribute my expertise in applying technology to solve challenges similar to those described in the article.

@DerivePi: Excellent comment.

Believe it or not, there was a time in our country's history when every activity wasn't permitted and competition motivated individuals to pursue whatever activity they thought could garner a buck. The gold rush wasn't caused by government research revealing the usefulness and rarity of gold, and Henry Ford's mass production of the automobile which eventually, in part, led to this discussion wasn't started on a government grant.

The bottom line is that government doesn't actually solve society's challenges. Despite what you political scientists may think, if it weren't for business and markets, there would be no government (its sole source of funding). I will, however, acknowledge that the government plays a role in preserving the free market because without the rule of law, no market could exist. However, the government has no business in researching our next energy source, and I am confident the markets will present our next big energy source when one becomes more affordable than oil.

This is pathetic. Decades?

When we decided to send people to the moon, it was less than a decade.

When countries around the world had to reassemble their armies and head into WWII, some took mere months.

If we really wanted to, if everyone stopped dragging their feet and whining about convenience, whining about all the money in oil, we could do it in under 10 years, easily.

If half the money in oil prospecting and drilling was diverted to battery research, we would have no problem finding batteries that would far outstrip the power and range of modern day combustion engines.

If car manufacturers, governments, and citizens all got on the same damned page, all of the now aging oil infrastructure could be replaced, along with the gradual (5 years tops?) phasing out of fossil fuel burning cars.

Just a longer tailpipe? Get your heads out of the damned coil mines and tap the nigh-infinite power of the earth and sun dammit.

Remember that oil is a non-renewable resource, and takes a LONG time to produce more, naturally anyways. Its bound to run out sometime and i appears that our last supplies of oil are disappearing. Unless we find another source of energy to power things like vehicles and homes the world will plunge into chaos. I do not see why some people doubt this, but they I see it, the supporters of oil are greedy, short minded, arrogant and just plain stupid.

This article seems to be talking about only one use for energy - powering cars and airplanes. Not all uses of energy require something as compact as gasoline.

Home heating can be provided by electricity instead of fossil fuels. And electricity can be provided today by hydroelectric dams or windmills instead of by fossil fuels.

We can't build enough new windmills or enough new dams to shut down every fossil-fuel powered electrical power plant. But we can build enough nuclear power plants to do that.

Well, I have to say that was a well written article. I love popular science and have been a fan for many years. I have noticed that they do tend to follow the crowd when it comes to 'social and popular movements' such as their enthusiastic support of the global warming crowd. I think it's a bit discouraging to actually believe that it will take decades for our society to find an attractive economic alternative to oil. At the risk of being labeled a conspiracy nut (which I really don't give a damn what you think), I will say that there have been alternatives that have surfaced and disappeared many times in the past. I believe that once the support for an alternative gets strong enough, I don't believe vested interests will be able to stop it. If you haven't looked into it yet, do some digging on alcohol as a fuel alternative. So much of what we believe or are aware of is unfortunately controlled by the wishes and interests of a small minority. Check out this site: want to know. info (removing all gaps) IF you would like to become aware of a great number of other possible alternatives that have unfortunately been suppressed or controlled.

What people need to realize is that 60-70% of our petroleum use goes to transportation. Yes, our cars. The other 30-40% goes to heating and electricity generation. Gas gas related liquids go to make feedstocks for making plastics, fertilizers and synthetics. We will always need petroleum, if not for transportation, certainly plastics as nothing else has been found to replace it. Petroleum represents the single most rich source of energy we have ever discovered. A gallon of gasoline represents 138,500 BTUs a kitchen match represents 1 BTU. Heating costs using fuel oil are routhly $1900 a year, $1800 for natural gas, $3200 for Heat pump, $5500 for electricity and $1888 for wood. Air pollutants for wood are 10 times greater than for fuel oil with the others in between. The truth is we will always need petroleum and all the wishful thinking about sustainable green energy sources is just that, wishful thinking. We cannot power our cars with windmills and storage batteries and their manufacture are extremely pollution heavy. In time technology may make some of these things workable and economic, but we are a long way from it today, a long way.

in the end, were still left with the same problem. Ya, all electric cars whose only emission is ozone gas is a great idea, but unless we have a way to produce the electricity needed to run all of those vehicles ALONG with the other electronic demands that this or any country has, you're back to horse and buggy. if only people weren't so afraid of nuclear fission and fusion processes of producing energy... of course, i guess if wishes were fishes, we'd all be fishermen...

im at work adn dont really haev the time to read every post put in here, also pardon my spelling, im not here for english lessons or how to type jsut expressing sum things i know....

sweden plans to be totally green, zero emissions by 2050, thats a pretty big goal, they already have hydrogen powered cars on teh road that get the hydrogen gas already produced from stations throughout the county that splits the water first into its respective parts (o2 adn h2) so tehress less chance of cataclismic failure, plus the byproduct is water.... not self sustaining, but definetly more eff.

we've made a bacteria that as a byproduct produces gasoline, last time i heard at about 30-40$ a barrel.... imo thats dirt cheap, even if they did sell it at 1$-litre that would still be huge profit which would cover any initial start up costs to get it rolling, and i dunno about you, but i miss the days when gas was 1$ and not 1.30$/litre

its up to every one, consumers, goverment and whoever else to start making the concious movement towards a gas free world, i agree that if any country put even half the moeny towards researching greener energies and teh like that they spend on military, we could see vast and amazing jumps in ecofriendly-ness. even reading the articles on here i see were on the brink of so many HUGE advances in all technologies, oil will always be important, but it doesnt have to be crucial to transport and such. please no haters, civilized responses sure, but if your jsut gunna hate, do it elsewhere. if im wrong tho, please feel free to comment ^.^

musings of me

ps. call it wishful thinking but how many people would buy hybrid (electric/gas) cars if parsay, the goverment scrapped your current car and payed say 10,000$ towards buying a hybrid car that runs on both? it may not be a huge impact, but every littel bit counts.

I didn't read much of this article since I know all the green energy available today cannot possibly replace the world's energy needs for that [dark energy] oil. Since the Reagan administration, environmentalist and regulators have ramped up America's dependency on oil from 30 percent to 70 percent. It took Reagan a mere six years to bring our Arab oil imports down from 80 percent to 30 percent. Green energy has had all the help it should get form the taxpayers of America. Green energy must grow on its own merits and marketing, and I do hope it progresses rapidly. We need to tap our own natural oil and coal reserves and bring jobs back to the USA so we can restore a strong tax base in which to protect this country. I believe the experts who say that climate warming is a localized problem in the metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles basin and Phoenix Dallas etc.. The best we can do there is to plant more trees and foliage in these areas. I also have a plausible theory of my own, that by placing mist and moisture emitters along the freeways in the tornado belts can help the threat of tornados. Fundamentally, tornados are fed by hot air raising form the ground into cold air masses. So it makes sense that if we cool the air at the source in those heat emitting highways, that this should reduce the intensity and frequency of tornados, particularly in heavily populated areas.

on my previous note, technically, because there is no carbon in a hydrogen cars combustion not only would complete combuistion occur 2(h2)+ o2 - 2(h20) + heat
but because whater vapor is a bi product, the water could be filtered, stored and tehn reused at any hyrdogen production station, essentiually a self sustaining process..... car comes in, takes hydrogen, empties water tank, and unloads the water stored in a tank on the car, station breaks down water, next car comes in, so on so forth... and @tenyearsafter, obviously we cannot replace all the oil today with green energy... hence why we need to put serious funding towards making green energy more plausible or we would already be using green eneergy solely instead of oil.

Musings of Me