Admiral Beez
Superstar
Now you've got. Everyone, don your foil beanies....the oil tap is slowing.
|
|
|
Peak Oil Planning
- Thread starter RKudlac
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Now you're talking. This is exactly what I'm trying to get at...as we reach peak oil, and the price of oil skyrockets, people will simply adjust their ways' of life accordingly. Now, that doesn't mean that some folks won't suffer really badly, such as those tools still buying detached houses on non-dense, transit-free ex-farm land in Milton, Brampton, etc...but perhaps even those spots will intensify. When the cost of transporting veggies from California also skyrockets, the economic feasibility of growing food in Ontario will increase, perhaps transforming the now wasteland ghost towns in the GTA's suburbs back to farmland. Only time will tell, but we'll get through it.
And you're right, I could never live in the suburbs again, having had my fill from 1976 to 1988 in Mississauga. Now, I do work from home almost 4 days a week now, so I could in theory work from anywhere, and may one day want a farm house in the distant Goderich or Owen Sound area, but that'll be because I'll want space to store and ride my collection of vintage British motorcycles (you always need a few, since a few are broken down).
TKTKTK
Senior Member
I think we'll probably find that oil is just replaced by a similarly-priced fuel alternative and 50 years from now we'll be living with very similar, though probably even more complicated and far-reaching, supply-chain-management techniques.
We may not like suburbs, but many millions do. They'll probably continue to do so in the future.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Predicting what things will be like 50 years down the road is more than a little difficult. If oil is partly or completely replaced by that time, its replacement will probably be suited to the transportation structure that already exists today. While there will be pressure to expand and improve public transit, personal transportation like automobiles will still exist in great numbers. It's the technology inside that will likely be different.
With respect to suburbs, they, too, will be a little different; but they will still be there.
With respect to suburbs, they, too, will be a little different; but they will still be there.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
^Well, if the trends in Toronto prove anything, it's that the popularity of suburban tract housing is being quickly eroded by multi-unit residential. Not too long ago, condos made up maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of all new housing starts in the GTA and most development occurred in the 905. Today, condos account for 1/2 of all new houses and about half of all the residential units that are built in the GTA are built in Toronto.
Although people still prefer suburbia on the whole, fewer and fewer people are buying into the notion that a suburban lifestyle represents an American or Canadian dream. What you gain in space and material wealth, you lose in so many other ways: you are forced by necessity to throw away a good chunk of your income on a car - the largest purchase the average person generally makes that devalues over time. Teenagers as old as 16 or 17 lose their sense of sovereignty because they need to be ferried around in cars by parental guardians and they lack de facto meeting places in their own community; they therefore try to assert themselves by rebelling in dangerous ways. Places with hundreds of thousands of people lack any sort of activity beyond chain store shopping...no independent bookstores, theatres, community groups, decent restaurants...people become bored and sheltered and disengaged from civic participation. Depressing commuting times separate parents from children, wives from husbands, atomizing the family unit even further. A stressful life and a lack of physical activity manifests itself in increased obesity rates, incidences of heart disease and other health costs that are spiraling out of control.
Even if we all drove around in Hydrogen-powered hypercars and our houses were passively heated and cooled, we would still have to face these casualties of a suburban lifestyle.
I believe in letting people make their own life and consumer choices, but suburbia is a socially detrimental, resource-wasteful form of development that is only viable because it is so heavily subsidized in so many ways. Whatever can be done to discourage this phenomenon, not just from an environmental standpoint, but from a sociological and fiscal standpoint, is not only welcome but applauded.
Although people still prefer suburbia on the whole, fewer and fewer people are buying into the notion that a suburban lifestyle represents an American or Canadian dream. What you gain in space and material wealth, you lose in so many other ways: you are forced by necessity to throw away a good chunk of your income on a car - the largest purchase the average person generally makes that devalues over time. Teenagers as old as 16 or 17 lose their sense of sovereignty because they need to be ferried around in cars by parental guardians and they lack de facto meeting places in their own community; they therefore try to assert themselves by rebelling in dangerous ways. Places with hundreds of thousands of people lack any sort of activity beyond chain store shopping...no independent bookstores, theatres, community groups, decent restaurants...people become bored and sheltered and disengaged from civic participation. Depressing commuting times separate parents from children, wives from husbands, atomizing the family unit even further. A stressful life and a lack of physical activity manifests itself in increased obesity rates, incidences of heart disease and other health costs that are spiraling out of control.
Even if we all drove around in Hydrogen-powered hypercars and our houses were passively heated and cooled, we would still have to face these casualties of a suburban lifestyle.
I believe in letting people make their own life and consumer choices, but suburbia is a socially detrimental, resource-wasteful form of development that is only viable because it is so heavily subsidized in so many ways. Whatever can be done to discourage this phenomenon, not just from an environmental standpoint, but from a sociological and fiscal standpoint, is not only welcome but applauded.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
^I agree that suburban tract development is not what it used to be (or should ever have been) - and hopefully will never be again. What is interesting (as you have noted) is how many people today have little or no interest in living in the suburbs. It's a real change from twenty or thirty years ago. Unfortunately too many people still face the problem of finding appropriate or affordable housing closer to downtown when they start to have families. Even now, we see huge numbers of one or two bedroom condos, but very little that suits the needs of families with children. It would be helpful if this would change. I'm sure there are many urban dwellers who would love to access a larger home without having to trek way out of town to find it for a reasonable price.
Over the longer term, main streets in suburbia (where there are main streets) can be intensified, but it will produce considerable kicking and screaming. Those main streets can then serve as major transit routes.
As for contemporary suburb-building being detrimental and resource-wasting, I agree. The sad irony is that many new suburban tracts are being built on prime agricultural land - in some cases some of the best agricultural land in the country. The presumption that we all live in a giant farm blinds us to the fact that really good agricultural land is not in huge supply in this country - regardless of how big the place is.
Over the longer term, main streets in suburbia (where there are main streets) can be intensified, but it will produce considerable kicking and screaming. Those main streets can then serve as major transit routes.
As for contemporary suburb-building being detrimental and resource-wasting, I agree. The sad irony is that many new suburban tracts are being built on prime agricultural land - in some cases some of the best agricultural land in the country. The presumption that we all live in a giant farm blinds us to the fact that really good agricultural land is not in huge supply in this country - regardless of how big the place is.
rh-7
New Member
Much like economic recessions or boom times, we won't actually know we've peaked until a while after we have peaked. Year-to-year fluctuations do not guarantee that a peak has been reached, but an extended multi-year downturn in production does indicate this. It appears as though we may be plateauing (word?), but this period of slow growth / slow decline in production could last many years.
The Peak Oil doomsdayers, however, are only fueling the panic that big oil companies are hoping for. Panic = higher prices.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- a strange reality, bizarro toronto
hydrogen fartin' E.coli is here......
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129170709.htm
that was fast.
E.coli Bacteria: A Future Source Of Energy?
ScienceDaily (Jan. 29, 2008) — For most people, the name "E. coli" is synonymous with food poisoning and product recalls, but a professor in Texas A&M University's chemical engineering department envisions the bacteria as a future source of energy, helping to power our cars, homes and more.
By genetically modifying the bacteria, Thomas Wood, a professor in the Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, has "tweaked" a strain of E. coli so that it produces substantial amounts of hydrogen. Specifically, Wood's strain produces 140 times more hydrogen than is created in a naturally occurring process, according to an article in "Microbial Biotechnology," detailing his research.
Though Wood acknowledges that there is still much work to be done before his research translates into any kind of commercial application, his initial success could prove to be a significant stepping stone on the path to the hydrogen-based economy that many believe is in this country's future.
Renewable, clean and efficient, hydrogen is the key ingredient in fuel-cell technology, which has the potential to power everything from portable electronics to automobiles and even entire power plants. Today, most of the hydrogen produced globally is created by a process known as "cracking water" through which hydrogen is separated from the oxygen. But the process is expensive and requires vast amounts of energy -- one of the chief reasons why the technology has yet to catch on.
Wood's work with E. coli could change that.
While the public may be used to hearing about the very specific strain that can cause food poisoning in humans, most strains are common and harmless, even helping their hosts by preventing other harmful bacteria from taking root in the human intestinal tract.
And the use of E. coli in science is nothing new, having been used in the production of human insulin and in the development of vaccines.
But as a potential energy source?
That's new territory, and it's being pioneered by Wood and his colleagues.
By selectively deleting six specific genes in E. coli's DNA, Wood has basically transformed the bacterium into a mini hydrogen-producing factory that's powered by sugar. Scientifically speaking, Wood has enhanced the bacteria's naturally occurring glucose-conversion process on a massive scale.
"These bacteria have 5,000 genes that enable them to survive environmental changes," Wood explained. "When we knock things out, the bacteria become less competitive. We haven't given them an ability to do something. They don't gain anything here; they lose. The bacteria that we're making are less competitive and less harmful because of what's been removed."
With sugar as its main power source, this strain of E. coli can now take advantage of existing and ever-expanding scientific processes aimed at producing sugar from certain crops, such as corn, Wood said.
"A lot of people are working on converting something that you grow into some kind of sugar," Wood explained. "We want to take that sugar and make it into hydrogen. We're going to get sugar from some crop somewhere. We're going to get some form of sugar-like molecule and use the bacteria to convert that into hydrogen."
Biological methods such as this (E. coli produce hydrogen through a fermentative process) are likely to reduce energy costs since these processes don't require extensive heating or electricity," Wood said.
"One of the most difficult things about chemical engineering is how you get the product," Wood explained. "In this case, it's very easy because the hydrogen is a gas, and it just bubbles out of the solution. You just catch the gas as it comes out of the glass. That's it. You have pure hydrogen."
There also are other benefits.
As might be expected, the cost of building an entirely new pipeline to transport hydrogen is a significant deterrent in the utilization of hydrogen-based fuel cell technology. In addition, there is also increased risk when transporting hydrogen.
The solution, Wood believes, is converting hydrogen on site.
"The main thing we think is you can transport things like sugar, and if you spill the sugar there is not a huge catastrophe," Wood said. "The idea is to make the hydrogen where you need it."
Of course, all of this is down the road. Right now, Wood remains busy in the lab, working on refining a process that's already hinted at its incredible potential. The goal, he said, is to continue to get more out of less.
"Take your house, for example," Wood said. "The size of the reactor that we'd need today if we implemented this technology would be less than the size of a 250-gallon fuel tank found in the typical east-coast home. I'm not finished with this yet, but at this point if we implemented the technology right now, you or a machine would have to shovel in about the weight of a man every day so that the reactor could provide enough hydrogen to take care of the average American home for a 24-hour period.
"We're trying to make bacteria so it's doesn't require 80 kilograms; it will be closer to 8 kilograms."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129170709.htm
that was fast.
E.coli Bacteria: A Future Source Of Energy?
ScienceDaily (Jan. 29, 2008) — For most people, the name "E. coli" is synonymous with food poisoning and product recalls, but a professor in Texas A&M University's chemical engineering department envisions the bacteria as a future source of energy, helping to power our cars, homes and more.
By genetically modifying the bacteria, Thomas Wood, a professor in the Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, has "tweaked" a strain of E. coli so that it produces substantial amounts of hydrogen. Specifically, Wood's strain produces 140 times more hydrogen than is created in a naturally occurring process, according to an article in "Microbial Biotechnology," detailing his research.
Though Wood acknowledges that there is still much work to be done before his research translates into any kind of commercial application, his initial success could prove to be a significant stepping stone on the path to the hydrogen-based economy that many believe is in this country's future.
Renewable, clean and efficient, hydrogen is the key ingredient in fuel-cell technology, which has the potential to power everything from portable electronics to automobiles and even entire power plants. Today, most of the hydrogen produced globally is created by a process known as "cracking water" through which hydrogen is separated from the oxygen. But the process is expensive and requires vast amounts of energy -- one of the chief reasons why the technology has yet to catch on.
Wood's work with E. coli could change that.
While the public may be used to hearing about the very specific strain that can cause food poisoning in humans, most strains are common and harmless, even helping their hosts by preventing other harmful bacteria from taking root in the human intestinal tract.
And the use of E. coli in science is nothing new, having been used in the production of human insulin and in the development of vaccines.
But as a potential energy source?
That's new territory, and it's being pioneered by Wood and his colleagues.
By selectively deleting six specific genes in E. coli's DNA, Wood has basically transformed the bacterium into a mini hydrogen-producing factory that's powered by sugar. Scientifically speaking, Wood has enhanced the bacteria's naturally occurring glucose-conversion process on a massive scale.
"These bacteria have 5,000 genes that enable them to survive environmental changes," Wood explained. "When we knock things out, the bacteria become less competitive. We haven't given them an ability to do something. They don't gain anything here; they lose. The bacteria that we're making are less competitive and less harmful because of what's been removed."
With sugar as its main power source, this strain of E. coli can now take advantage of existing and ever-expanding scientific processes aimed at producing sugar from certain crops, such as corn, Wood said.
"A lot of people are working on converting something that you grow into some kind of sugar," Wood explained. "We want to take that sugar and make it into hydrogen. We're going to get sugar from some crop somewhere. We're going to get some form of sugar-like molecule and use the bacteria to convert that into hydrogen."
Biological methods such as this (E. coli produce hydrogen through a fermentative process) are likely to reduce energy costs since these processes don't require extensive heating or electricity," Wood said.
"One of the most difficult things about chemical engineering is how you get the product," Wood explained. "In this case, it's very easy because the hydrogen is a gas, and it just bubbles out of the solution. You just catch the gas as it comes out of the glass. That's it. You have pure hydrogen."
There also are other benefits.
As might be expected, the cost of building an entirely new pipeline to transport hydrogen is a significant deterrent in the utilization of hydrogen-based fuel cell technology. In addition, there is also increased risk when transporting hydrogen.
The solution, Wood believes, is converting hydrogen on site.
"The main thing we think is you can transport things like sugar, and if you spill the sugar there is not a huge catastrophe," Wood said. "The idea is to make the hydrogen where you need it."
Of course, all of this is down the road. Right now, Wood remains busy in the lab, working on refining a process that's already hinted at its incredible potential. The goal, he said, is to continue to get more out of less.
"Take your house, for example," Wood said. "The size of the reactor that we'd need today if we implemented this technology would be less than the size of a 250-gallon fuel tank found in the typical east-coast home. I'm not finished with this yet, but at this point if we implemented the technology right now, you or a machine would have to shovel in about the weight of a man every day so that the reactor could provide enough hydrogen to take care of the average American home for a 24-hour period.
"We're trying to make bacteria so it's doesn't require 80 kilograms; it will be closer to 8 kilograms."
H
Hydrogen
Guest
As the article notes, there always have been hydrogen-producing bacteria. But you will need lots of hydrogen to replace gasoline (and lots of bacteria to do this). A kilogram of hydrogen possesses about the same amount of energy as 3.7 litres of gasoline. But to get the hydrogen required to replace fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, one would need to produce hydrogen at a volume equivalent to replacing 100 billion barrels of oil - 120 billion by 2030 - annually.
That's a lot of hydrogen. So a truly massive hydrogen-producing infrastructure must first be built to built to produce the stuff in those volumes, and a new transport infrastructure must be built to get the stuff around. And all those bacteria have to be fed something to give something up for us. That's plenty of sugar required. It must be sourced in the necessary volume as well.
As for hydrogen being a practical means to generating electricity for cars, etc., that is still a long way off. A number of very significant problems remain. In order to be useful, hydrogen has to be either compressed or liquified, and liquifying hydrogen would require a very significant energy demand (to liquify hydrogen, it has to be refrigerated down to -253C, or 20C degrees above absolute zero).
Compressing it would be less costly, but to move it around in a pipeline, a new infrastructure would have to be built to put up with the necessary compression demands. That infrastructure would have to be built with extreme precision as hydrogen will escape from the slightest flaws in valves or seals. Also, hydrogen can even diffuse through solid steel. As it diffuses into metals, it causes them to become brittle. A hydrogen pipeline would require new materials that could withstand such effects over a very long period of time. Unfortunately, no such practical materials exist yet.
Storing compressed hydrogen in the necessary volumes to make it useful as a constant fuel source also pose many problems. Living near a gasoline station bothers some people; living next to a compressed hydrogen storage station may bother even more. There would be no such thing as a small hydrogen station.
And we have not even gotten to the problems of storing adequate quantities of compressed hydrogen on a car - like storing large volumes of compressed hydrogen that would equal a typical contemporary gasoline tank.
So yes, it is interesting that bacteria can be engineered to produce more hydrogen, but there are still are considerable (huge) problems to overcome before hydrogen can ever be considered as a possible replacement to fossil fuels.
That's a lot of hydrogen. So a truly massive hydrogen-producing infrastructure must first be built to built to produce the stuff in those volumes, and a new transport infrastructure must be built to get the stuff around. And all those bacteria have to be fed something to give something up for us. That's plenty of sugar required. It must be sourced in the necessary volume as well.
As for hydrogen being a practical means to generating electricity for cars, etc., that is still a long way off. A number of very significant problems remain. In order to be useful, hydrogen has to be either compressed or liquified, and liquifying hydrogen would require a very significant energy demand (to liquify hydrogen, it has to be refrigerated down to -253C, or 20C degrees above absolute zero).
Compressing it would be less costly, but to move it around in a pipeline, a new infrastructure would have to be built to put up with the necessary compression demands. That infrastructure would have to be built with extreme precision as hydrogen will escape from the slightest flaws in valves or seals. Also, hydrogen can even diffuse through solid steel. As it diffuses into metals, it causes them to become brittle. A hydrogen pipeline would require new materials that could withstand such effects over a very long period of time. Unfortunately, no such practical materials exist yet.
Storing compressed hydrogen in the necessary volumes to make it useful as a constant fuel source also pose many problems. Living near a gasoline station bothers some people; living next to a compressed hydrogen storage station may bother even more. There would be no such thing as a small hydrogen station.
And we have not even gotten to the problems of storing adequate quantities of compressed hydrogen on a car - like storing large volumes of compressed hydrogen that would equal a typical contemporary gasoline tank.
So yes, it is interesting that bacteria can be engineered to produce more hydrogen, but there are still are considerable (huge) problems to overcome before hydrogen can ever be considered as a possible replacement to fossil fuels.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- a strange reality, bizarro toronto
hydrogen doesn't need to replace all fossil fuels all at once. the technology has to start somewhere and hopefully the technological hurdles will be overcome along the way. hopefully car engines will evolve and become more efficient and vehicles will be made from materials that don't weigh as much as the materials we use now. there is still room for improvement in our current technologies and when those improvements are realized, we will use less petroleum. the improvements will come into being as a means to offset high costs. so hopefully in the future, our devices will have become so efficient that proposing to replace or complement petroleum with fuel producing bacteria won't seem so far fetched.
JasonParis
Moderator
I'm moving this to General Issues as the discussion isn't about the future event, but about the issue itself.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
I think we are far better off starting with existing technologies. Yes, automobile engines can be improved considerably, and cars can be made much lighter - bringing greater efficiency it terms of fuel consumption (and no reason why they can't be 100% recyclable). There are also alternative fuel possibilities that are easier to access than hydrogen.
I understand why hydrogen is attractive to many people, but it poses considerable technical problems. I would not want to bet the oil tank farm on hydrogen. In terms of solutions for personal vehicles, there is still considerable opportunity for improving on battery technology as a viable source for fleets of electric cars that can replace gasoline-powered vehicles.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- a strange reality, bizarro toronto
i think the starting has already commenced. there are electric cars that will put gas powered cars to shame, this year, the darkest material ever has been produced which should make solar panels more efficient, etc.
in addition to current technologies that are evolving i'm saying that the addition of hydrogen producing bacteria is a welcome player to the game.
Dilla
Senior Member
The supply of oil is probably not as low as it seems right now. Oil was going for about $15 a barrel in 1998,
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
rather than the $100 it fetches today. As such, oil companies at the time had far less money than usual to go around drilling. So they didn't. As a result, there have been far fewer new oil wells dug than usual over the past decade. Add to this the Gazprom fiasco in Russia (the state took it from its oligarch owner, and arrested him (they now use oil as a weapon to squeeze their enemies), oil nationalization in other states such as Venezuela (which had the effect of lowering output) and the new deals drawn up with oil companies in Bolivia, unrest in Nigeria, and the problem has been exacerbated.
Ya heard?
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
rather than the $100 it fetches today. As such, oil companies at the time had far less money than usual to go around drilling. So they didn't. As a result, there have been far fewer new oil wells dug than usual over the past decade. Add to this the Gazprom fiasco in Russia (the state took it from its oligarch owner, and arrested him (they now use oil as a weapon to squeeze their enemies), oil nationalization in other states such as Venezuela (which had the effect of lowering output) and the new deals drawn up with oil companies in Bolivia, unrest in Nigeria, and the problem has been exacerbated.
Ya heard?
unimaginative2
Senior Member
The state didn't seize Gazprom, Russia's 51% state-owned gas monopoly. They seized Yukos, at the time Russia's number two oil company.