Anyone still believe peak oil will not happen?

[corra]

no.. the answer is most likely in late 2005, we haven't produced more then we did then and the amount of production capacity projected to come online in the next few years does not make up for depletion in other wells since 2005 until now.

also. the demand for oil has risen markedly and supply is strained to the limit.

 

[Andre]

My own installation has the additional advantage of having the stand pipe rising through 12 additional feet of living space. The smoke is cool by the time it leaves the stack; this causes it to sink immediately, right over our front door.

The complication with that might be, that the water, produced by the oxidation process, condenses on the inside of the stand pipe. That might give a corrosion problem but also; condensation adds additional -latent- heat.

Actually, the energy equation for burning fuels only accounts for the capacity of heating. it does not account for the latent heat contained by the water vapor, produced by the oxidation. This energy returns when the water vapor condenses. This is bonus, which leads to paradoxal high efficiencies. But actually the energy produced by oxidation is higher than the direct heat alone.

Anyway, given the inevitable 60-70% loss of converting fossil fuel burning heat to electricity for electric heating, which is not happening in direct fuel heating, I think it is paramount to do some feasibility studies for efficient alternatives for electrical heating on a nation wide scale, not only for the happy rural few. There may be some nice examples in west Europe.

 

[Chi Meson]

Of course there is peak oil if you only count liquid petro. There is only so much oil in the World. The question is where is the peak? The answer is who knows?

The cost of oil indicates a clear inverted-peak at 1998. THe actuall, down to the barrel peak of oil production can only be vaguely determined, and only in retrospect, but we are clearly on the upslope of oil (and therefore all fossil-fuel) prices. I (personally) believe that this is the more significant indicator both economically and politically.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the rosiest predicitions, the MOST opimistic, hopeful, working-for-the-oil-industry-here's-good-news-for-you (from CERA), puts peak oil at 2040.

So, you are right. Who knows? Sometime between 10 years ago and 30 years from now. What's the difference? Start modifying your lifestyle now, because prices are going up, right now.

 

[corra]

this should get your interest.
former chairman of shell oil is holding a press confrence on peak oil.
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=40

 

[Chi Meson]

this should get your interest.
former chairman of shell oil is holding a press confrence on peak oil.
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=40

I should have been an Oil CEO:

Q: Are you referring to peak oil, are you basically saying the global oil production is going to peak within the next 20 years?

A: It may or may not. In a way it scarcely matters; what really matters is the gap between gap in production and demand. I don’t know whether there is going to be a peak in world oil production, whether it’s going to plateau and then slowly come down. It could well plateau within next 20 years and I guess I would be surprised if it hadn’t. The thing is that demand is almost certainly going to outstrip availability, for whatever reason, and that is what is going to cause us difficulties. We’re never going to run out of oil, it’s simply going to become too expensive to use as we traditionally have. And that may happen much sooner than we expect.

I think I just said that. :smug smiley:

 

[corra]

yeah, you're right.
first there will not be enough oil for everyone and poor countries will suffer.
that is happening already due to the high oil price.
poor countries can't afford to buy oil for their powerplants and blackouts are occurring all over africa.

then shipping and transport will be hit. increasing food prices all over the world.
"wave goodbye to the 10000 mile ceasar salad"

where it goes from there is rather grim.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Back to the wood stoves: I must admit that the new stoves are claiming surprisingly high efficiencies. But there is still the issue of wet or green wood, the amount of energy that went into retrieval, cutting, and distribution of the wood, along with the reduced benefits of having one less tree that will take thirty to fifty years or more to replace.

If you are like turbo with 30 acres of private trees right outside, it might make more sense to burn wood than I thought, but for most people, I suspect that a close look at the energy supply chain and the practical aspects of this - like people burning garbage and green wood - changes the picture greatly.

And there is another issue. In southern Oregon, woodstoves are banned in some areas because of the intense pollution that they cause.

... People think that because wood smoke is all natural, it can't be bad for them," says Philip M. Fine, a research associate in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Southern California. "Tobacco is all natural, too," he says. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates the cancer risk from wood smoke to be 12 times greater than from an equal amount of tobacco smoke.

"Residential fireplaces and stoves, like fires, release wood smoke pollution," says Fine, who has been involved with several wood smoke emissions studies. "In some areas, car and wood smoke pollution can be of the same order of magnitude," he says. "Even in Los Angeles, fireplace wood smoke is often a significant source of pollution."[continued]

http://burningissues.org/car-www/latest_news/archives/emagazine-article.html

And I never did mention another really good reason to avoid using wood heat: Wood stoves are dangerous. One innocent slip like forgetting to close the damper can cost you your house. Stove pipe fires are a common problem here in the winter.

And there was the time that Tsu and I nearly died in our sleep because the wood stove in a rental cabin had a leaky stove pipe... We both woke up sick and with terrible headaches. It was a close call that nearly cost us our lives.

 

[russ_watters]

Back to the wood stoves: I must admit that the new stoves are claiming surprisingly high efficiencies.

You probably already know this, but efficiency and cleanliness aren't the same thing. It is relatively easy to make any type of furnace 90+% efficient, but wood is an extrordinarily dirty thing to burn.

 

[turbo]

You probably already know this, but efficiency and cleanliness aren't the same thing. It is relatively easy to make any type of furnace 90+% efficient, but wood is an extrordinarily dirty thing to burn.

Modern wood stoves must meet the EPA standard of no more than 7.5g of particulates per hour, and most stoves are far cleaner than that. When my wood stove is fired up, you cannot see any smoke coming out the chimney - just a refractive shimmer. I did not have to clean my flue even once last season. Dry hardwood burns very cleanly if you know how to control the burn temperature, draft, etc.

If I ordered fuel oil, that diesel delivery truck would pump more particulates into the air in its 15-minute trip to my house than my wood stove would produce all day long. Cleanliness is a relative thing. The only reason that fuel oil seems clean it that it has been refined elsewhere, and all the pollution and energy waste associated with its extraction, transport, refining, etc, happened someplace else.

 

[Chi Meson]

Who the heck is burning wood in LA?
Stop it stop it!

I think Turbo hit the key points, I just want to add:

No one is saying that burning wood is "clean." And in fact burning wood in an open fireplace in LA (where it requires that you ruck in the wood from far away) is about as bad as burning a tire in your yard. But when I use my wood stove, I am burning local wood (mostly gathered within a 1 mile radius, but this year I got a large maple tree that took four 10-mile trips in a large pick-up, but hte alternative was that the tree-removal company would cart it a further distance to chop it into logs to deliver to customers elsewhere...) what was I saying?

right...when I am burning wood, I am doing so instead of burnign oil or using electricity (my other forms of heat). In both cases, the wood is less costly for both environment and wallet. In Connecticut, our coal-fired electricity makes my wood smoke positively inhalable by comparison. And even though the oil is cleaner coming out of my stack, as Turbo mentioned, the filth had already come out some time ago during the retrieval, transportation and refinement, and transportation and transportation and transportation of the oil.

And efficiency is related to the clenliness, since it is the re-burning of the particulate and gaseous pollutants that have raised the efficiency so dramatically in recent years.

I don't think everyone should burn wood, just as I'm sure most will agree that we should not depend on any single source of energy. We need to find a balance of as many sources as possible, using te one that makes the most sense for where ever you are.

And Ivan needs a CO and O2 depletion detector.