I reckon as Peak Oil keeps driving fuel prices higher and higher in years to come there'll be massive demand for electric bikes, just on the basis of cost, never mind the environmental benefits.

 

Off topic but Peak Oil is a myth, world oil reserves are huge, there is more oil in the earth than we could ever reasonably use during this period where technology dictates oil is our first choice for energy.

 

It's just the case that we've taken a lot of the easy to access stuff out of the ground, have a look at the Oil Sands in Canada and Venezuela to get an idea of how much untapped oil is out there, it's just difficult to get out.

 

Look at how energy was used from the start of the Industrial Revolution and how changes in technology brought about new energy sources.

 

Animal, Water, Coal/Biomass, Steam, Oil, Nuclear.......Solar, Cold Fusion (in time), Fuel Cells and so on.

 

In 50 years we'll look back at oil romantically, thirty years ago the Saudi oil minister put it very plainly in what is one of the best energy quotes I've heard.

 

“The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.”

My father rode a camel;

I drive a car;

My son rides in a jet;

His son will ride a camel.

 

The returns on extracting oil from tar sands is approximately 3 barrels of oil for every 2 consumed. This is an EROEI of about 1.5. There are also extreme environmental costs in water pollution and land destruction. And that is only taking current production into account, where the easiest resources are the first mined. This suggests that the Alberta tar sands can fuel the world for less than 5 years, even if you are prepared to pay the vast environmental costs.

I think that the only reason we'll extract from tar sands long term is to get oil for the chemicals and plastics industries where value added can justify it.

 

For industrial power, transport and heating purposes, I'm certain we'll go the nuclear generation for electricity and hydrogen route.

.

Solar power

 

This article is interesting, looks like solar power could become more cost effective

BBC NEWS | Technology | Solar dyes give a guiding light

Off topic but Peak Oil is a myth, world oil reserves are huge …. It's just the case that we've taken a lot of the easy to access stuff out of the ground …. it's just difficult to get out.

 

I can’t help but wonder, this must surely be similar to the debate that haunted the ancient mariners, long ago.

 

‘The Earth is flat’.

‘No it’s not, the Earth it’s round’.

 

Unfortunately, everyone had to wait until it was proved ‘beyond doubt’ that the Earth was a globe. How many lives could have been saved by going the wrong (shorter) way?

 

No doubt the purists of this argument (on both sides), who base their arguments on the masses of easily manipulated data, will continue to defend their standing to the bitter end.

 

Personally, I think this is shamefully counter productive, because all it does is confuse the issue and argument, resulting in a world failure to address research into alternative energy sources – what’s the point there’s lots of oil left … blah …. blah.

 

This confusion perpetuates the world’s dependence on a fuel source that is killing the planet and everything on it – makes sense to someone, somewhere I guess. Probably makes most sense to those lining their pockets from it all - (not to me).

 

I have a strong interest in space exploration. Not only because of the big rockets but because in this field energy usage and consumption is finite and calls for mind stretching and imaginative solutions (solar, nuclear, etc).

 

In the end it boils down to survival. Whatever data you support, fossil fuels are bad for all. We can't really continue sitting around arguing about “what ifs” – If not now then when do we get off our asses and set about finding sensible alternatives.

.

Edited August 1, 200817 yr by Footie

...there is more oil in the earth than we could ever reasonably use during this period where technology dictates oil is our first choice for energy.

But the problem is that we've used half of what's there in 150 years, and the rate of use is at its highest ever. Remember, Peak Oil is not about oil running out - it's about when the daily production rate reaches a plateau, and then declines irreversibly - that's the peak. The outcome is that energy prices soar.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, oil production has been largely flat since 2005, despite prices going up by almost 200% - economists have been telling us that high prices will encourage production, but they haven't, because there is not enough new capacity coming on line to make up for declines in existing fields.

 

It's just the case that we've taken a lot of the easy to access stuff out of the ground

This is exactly the case for Peak Oil - the easy stuff was cheap, and yielded a good energy return, i.e. you didn't have to expend much energy (and materials) to get a lot of energy back in the form ofoil or gas, or coal or uranium for that matter! What's left now is harder to get at, so is more expensive and yields a lower energy return, and is also dirtier, leading us to the tar sands...

 

have a look at the Oil Sands in Canada and Venezuela to get an idea of how much untapped oil is out there, it's just difficult to get out.

First, they are not "oil sands", there's no oil in them. They are tar sands. The sand has to be washed in hot water and mixed with naptha to produce what the industry calls Syncrude. The amount of fresh water and natural gas used to do this is phenomenal, not to mention the fuel and materials used in the 400 tonne trucks that move the stuff around. Oh, and the water that comes out of the process is heavily contaminated with nasty chemicals, and is just being stored in huge lakes.

 

I won't go into any more detail, as it is somewhat off-topic, although it is the reason I've just ordered an electric bike... If you want to read more, I'd suggest the following sites:

PowerSwitch - Peak Oil news, Peak Oil forum, Peak Oil DVDs for the UK

The Oil Drum | Discussions about Energy and Our Future

Energy Bulletin

 

And a Google News search if you want to see it in the media.

Edited August 2, 200817 yr by mikepepler

Oil - ??

 

I suspect that profit is the driving force for oil and gas - when it's no longer generating enough profit then alternatives will be realised.

The recent high costs are due to supply and demand.

 

On a historical note though - Before and during WW2 Germany started to manufacture synthetic oil and gas (from coal) - low grade at first but gradually improved. It created deisel,gas and low octane petroleum at first but before long powered very high performance engines (from fighters to jets).

 

South Africa has been producing synthetic oil since the 80's and Germany has now been constucting production plants in the Ruhr.

 

The USA,Russia,Europe even the UK still has coal reserves - just not yet profitable as yet to use.

 

In the coming years when cheap oil is no longer available and there is a choice of alternatives in various quantities the choice will be made by what the consumer can most afford and/or enviromental concerns.

 

Interesting times!

You're right jontee - the problem is indeed supply and demand. Demand is increasing and supply isn't. And yes, production will stop if it is not profitable, but the fact is that oil is so useful that people are prepared to pay a high price for it - there's no other way to power planes, and no transport alternative where you can "recharge" in a minute to give hundreds of miles of range for a large vehicle.

 

We'll only see prices fall if (or when) the world enters a recession, and the moment it recovers prices will shoot up again.

 

Doing "coal to liquids", as it's called, is certainly a practical way to produce oil, but it is very dirty (especially in terms of CO2), and at the same time is more expensive and yields a lower energy return than conventional oil. This is why it's biggest historical uses, as you point out, were only when the countries had no alternative, i.e. Germany during WW2, and South Africa during sanctions. It could certainly help supply liquid fuels in the face of declining oil supply, but due to the infrastructure needed it's unlikely it could be ramped up fast enough to offset declining production from areas such as the North Sea and Cantarell in Mexico, where annual decline rates have been in the 10-20% range.

 

The biggest concern is that China and the US have a huge amount of coal - if they decide that the way to deal with peak oil is to convert that coal to transport fuel, then we might as well forget trying to tackle climate change.

 

Electric bikes with renewable electricity are part of the answer - as long as there's enough lithium to go round in future!

 

Mike

 

Electric bikes with renewable electricity are part of the answer - as long as there's enough lithium to go round in future!

 

Mike

 

Fortunately lithium is abundant and there's little prospect of being able to run out of it. It's quite possible that fuel cells will replace traction batteries anyway, and with hydrogen from nuclear generation or nuclear based chemical conversion, it's unlikely lithium supplies could ever be a problem.

.

Fortunately lithium is abundant and there's little prospect of being able to run out of it. It's quite possible that fuel cells will replace traction batteries anyway, and with hydrogen from nuclear generation or nuclear based chemical conversion, it's unlikely lithium supplies could ever be a problem.

.

 

Flecc

 

If that's the case, why are lithium batteries so expensive? Could we expect to see them become cheaper as demand rises?

 

Jon

no transport alternative where you can "recharge" in a minute to give hundreds of miles of range for a large vehicle.

Mike

 

Not if batteries are universal - a quick swap and you're away.

 

Needs government lead. I think the UK could be ideally placed to develop new electric/fuel cell transport systems, having let go of nearly all conventional manufacturing capabilities. ie the capital investment's already gone, the technological expertise still (probably) around, a need to re-diversify our increasingly services based economy.

 

Just a thought

a quick swap at the battery station, that is

Flecc

 

If that's the case, why are lithium batteries so expensive? Could we expect to see them become cheaper as demand rises?

 

Jon

 

It's not the constituents but a combination of their complexity, production setup costs and for e-bikes, the relatively small scale of production with assembly all by hand that makes them expensive. It's widely expected that they will reduce in price in a couple of years time.

 

To see how complex their circuitry is compared with most battery types, have a look at this page on one of my sites.

.

There's plenty of lithium for phones, computers and bikes. The problem comes if it starts getting used in cars. This 2-part article in EV World explains:

EVWORLD FEATURE: Peak Lithium?

EVWORLD FEATURE: Peak Lithium? - Part 2

 

The point is illustrated by this quote:

"If you took all the lithium carbonate that we are producing today and put it into small plug-in hybrid battery, an 8 kWh battery (HEV20), you could produce about six million cars, which is one-third of United States sales each year, and ten percent of annual global sales," Tahil said, noting that all current lithium production is currently allocated to other applications.

So our global annual lithium production could only make batteries for 10% of the cars we currently build a year, and only then if we stopped using it in everything else. The article gives some info on the current state of supplies - it's not declining, but as with oil, and in fact any mineral resource, the cheap stuff is extracted first, and then you hit a peak.

 

Of course the answer is to get everyone out of cars and onto bikes or public transport, then there should be plenty of lithium to go round, but the fact is people love their cars and will only be forced out of them by price. So we can expect to see oil prices climbing a lot higher in future, and probably lithium prices too, if they start getting used in cars in a big way.

 

Which is why I've just ordered pedelecs for myself and my wife, even though we still have a car and two other bikes - I believe the prices of them are going to get higher and the waiting lists longer, as people start choosing them over cars based on price. I'd rather be ahead of the game, and start weaning myself off dependence on oil before the masses join in in a big rugby scrum!

 

Mike

No denying that the easiest is extracted first Mike, but lithium is not hard to access in the way that many fossil fuels are and it's abundant.

 

I don't think it matters how much cars will use since we already have direct hydrogen power and fuel cell power as proven technologies, the latter already working down to very small battery sizes. Therefore lithium doesn't need to last long as it's already scheduled for replacement.

 

In fact the constant annual putting back of the launch of lithium powered cars has enabled hydrogen vehicles not only to catch up but pass battery types, with hydrogen powered buses in service at various points in the world including some in London. There have already been at least three viable hydrogen powered e-bikes, one of those even being privately built, showing how accessible this technology is. That privateer's 30 mph and over 50 mile range is better than lithium batteries do.

 

All we need is the nuclear power stations to generate the necessary electricity and we can see direct and indirect hydrogen use and lithium batteries in place side by side, with hydrogen able to take over at will. Since we are at long last starting to move on nuclear power and other parts of the world are more willing than us, I don't think we should have too gloomy a view of prospects, for ourselves at least.

 

Whether others like China sleepwalk the world into global climate change meltdown is in the lap of the gods, whatever will be, will be. I know no absolute reason why the human race or even biological life itself should necessarily persist.

.

As any fule no, the free market model has soo much altruism built in to it the question 'wats posterity ever goin to do for me ?' could never be meaningful...

I'm quite pessimistic about this and I believe the internal combustion engine is going to be the last mass market vehicle we will see. There were 590 million cars on the road globally in 2002; I don't see how we will have the money, energy and raw materials to replace these with electric or hydrogen cars let alone dispose of them.

 

I'm with Mike that we are already at peak oil and are currently on a plateau, we may see a few more 'peaks' in the next decade but the underlying trend will be down. We will have to face the fact that we will have to live with less energy and that means less driving, flying, products from China and so forth.

 

To finally add salt to the wounds, we have an economic system that is based on cheap energy inputs and taking on debt. Debt is usually required to be repaid with interest which again means each year we have to make and earn more to repay what we borrowed the year before. We are faced with a breakdown of the entire economic system.

 

Personally I don't see an orderly transition to a lower energy lifestyle, there is too much imbalance in the haves and have nots. I see resource wars and the key players are already squaring up.

 

I think I need to get out more ;-)

Edited August 4, 200817 yr by andysmee

 

There were 590 million cars on the road globally in 2002; I don't see how we will have the money, energy and raw materials to replace these with electric or hydrogen cars let alone dispose of them.

 

We will have to face the fact that we will have to live with less energy and that means less driving, flying.

 

I see resource wars and the key players are already squaring up.

 

I think I need to get out more ;-)

 

The money is only a product of the other things, so we print that, the energy can be nuclear for a very long time, and the raw materials can come 80% from what we already use, by recycling. Much of what we receive from China already is made from our recycled waste.

 

I do agree that we wil have to do less driving, flying etc, if only because we are so wasteful in the way we so unnecessarily do it at present.

 

And I agree on resource wars if the population continues to grow, water being the next one looming.

 

But please don't get out more Andy, remember we have to do less travelling!

.

Right now, over here, new off shore drilling is suddenly seeming like a good idea.

 

Personally, I'm reminded of the advice of not to go shopping when you're are hungry.

 

The public wants a solution, so, in a sense, they are willing to buy any snake oil solution. That is, in a sense, no real solution.

 

But the politicians will get votes for it.

.... We will have to face the fact that we will have to live with less energy and that means less driving, flying, products from China and so forth.

 

The exception being electric bikes, of course

 

I seem to remember (as a child) when oil extraction started in the North Sea (I can’t remember the exact date) - how everyone laughed at the idea. I seem to remember everyone gasping at the expense (Panorama investigations, etc) and how it would have a very low return (probably around the 1970’s). 30 years on and now with those same North Sea fields seemingly close to being played out - “oil peak” or “no oil peak” perhaps the oil / tar sands may yet prove a viable option at sometime in the future.

 

Wonder what fuel will be when that happens? £20, £50 or even £100 a litre

 

Just think how nice it will be to wave to those wealthy folk as they pass you by, you on your ebike, them in their shinny Eco cars, with it's 100 mpg engine and £2000 a year road tax - won't it be grand

.

To finally add salt to the wounds, we have an economic system that is based on cheap energy inputs and taking on debt. Debt is usually required to be repaid with interest which again means each year we have to make and earn more to repay what we borrowed the year before. We are faced with a breakdown of the entire economic system.

For an easy to watch and informative cartoon on this, see here:

Money As Debt

 

Mike

Although there may be plenty of oil left in oil tar sands there are a couple of problems:

1. Its going to be really expensive (and energy intensive) to extract and process.
   
2. The levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere are already way too high; just because theres still plenty of oil around doesn't make burning it a good idea.
   

On the subject of Nuclear, there are also problems:

1. We have no idea how to deal with waste thats toxic for 1000's of years. Don't believe anyone who says it can be buried in geologically stable holes in the ground. Its a lie. Theres nowhere on the planet that can be guaranteed geologically stable over that sort of timescale.
   
2. Nuclear fuel is extracted from uranium ores which have to be mined and processed, a very energy intensive process which uses lots of oil fueled excavation equipment.
   
3. Theres not that much uranium ore around anyway, only enough to last a few decades if the whole world starts using nuclear as their main means of power generation.
   

Rant, rant, rant.

 

Regards,

 

Elephants

 

On the subject of Nuclear, there are also problems:

1. We have no idea how to deal with waste thats toxic for 1000's of years. Don't believe anyone who says it can be buried in geologically stable holes in the ground. Its a lie. Theres nowhere on the planet that can be guaranteed geologically stable over that sort of timescale.
   
2. Nuclear fuel is extracted from uranium ores which have to be mined and processed, a very energy intensive process which uses lots of oil fueled excavation equipment.
   
3. Theres not that much uranium ore around anyway, only enough to last a few decades if the whole world starts using nuclear as their main means of power generation.

Rant, rant, rant.

 

Regards,

 

Elephants

 

1) Australia for example has been, is, and will be stable for many thousands of years, and quite probably to when this planet ends. In any case, this objection contains the myth of danger and longevity. Long lived wastes are not highly toxic, highly toxic wastes are short lived, the higher the toxicity, the shorter the life. That's why we happily store our waste above ground in this small island at no danger to anyone. The quantities involved even with the whole world on nuclear are tiny relative to this planet's size, and easily dealt with. They could just stay above ground in the many useless remote deserts we have and will always have.

 

2) At present yes. But plenty of nuclear power will see such equipment, like all transport, running on hydrogen, it's waste product water.

 

3) But then the valuable huge stockpiles of waste, especially the cold war stuff and the vast spoil from uranium mining will carry on for many decades more by using fast breeder reactors. Not quite as economic now, but it will then. By then in a couple of hundred years we may well have cracked nuclear fusion which could take over, but what happens then is for the people of that time to deal with. Past generations have never planned far ahead for future ones, and neither should we, and I think we have become somewhat arrogant in this respect.

 

In summary the objections are not a problem.

 

However, in parallel I believe that the real most urgent problem the world faces must be dealt with as well, containing and then reducing the world population to more nearly match the resources.

.

1) Australia for example has been, is, and will be stable for many thousands of years, and quite probably to when this planet ends. In any case, this objection contains the myth of danger and longevity. Long lived wastes are not highly toxic, highly toxic wastes are short lived, the higher the toxicity, the shorter the life. That's why we happily store our waste above ground in this small island at no danger to anyone. The quantities involved even with the whole world on nuclear are tiny relative to this planet's size, and easily dealt with. They could just stay above ground in the many useless remote deserts we have and will always have.

 

Flecc, I can certainly see your argument here, and it is very practical, but where this falls down is when you consider terrorism. All you would need is a group of terrorists to intercept a transport and ....

 

The waste is still a problem.

 

I am not happy at all that we store our waste as we do. All we need is a 9/11 attack on one of these stores and we could have a major disaster on our small island. I dont think that we should use technologies that we cannot use cleanly anymore, it simply doesnt do us any good at all and give us a headache 'down the road'. It has to be a part of any long term plan to move away from these.

 

John

Terrorist attacks on PWR nuclear stations have already been shown to be not a problem, and I don't consider attacks on stored waste could possibly be a problem. What remains of the higher level waste after five years under water is vitrified in a manner that would take vast quantities of explosive to split open a few cylinders, the waste being distributed throughout the solid glass means the parts are no more dangerous than the whole. The tiny amount of the aftermath would be cleared with ease and couldn't possibly present any danger to anyone not actually pressing up against it.

 

Again an imaginary problem I'm afraid, having no possible attraction to a terrorist group.

 

Sorry John, but all the anti nuclear arguments commonly heard are based on fallacies or the earliest nuclear technology which is no longer used as it was originally.

 

Academic anyway of course, we are at last going to get it I'm pleased to say, and with time the antis will be pleased to use the resulting electricity. I'm just annoyed that we didn't go ahead in the 1970s and '80s thanks to the anti movement.

.