We've got a thread on firewood, so........ truck came today 80 gallons, 3.09 per gallon! He hadn't been here in months, won't be back for many more - I get this smiley_roller smiley_blue_bounce everytime I look at the woodpile. There's going to be a lot of very poor or very cold people come spring. smiley_crying
Back in 1973, before the turn of the century ;D , when fuel oil hit 50¢ a gallon, I unhooked my space heater and bought a two plate woodstove. Me and the boys fed that thing for a little over 4 years. We saved enough money on fuel to buy and install an electric, water to air heat pump, duct and all.
This might get some of those folks who never leave their house to talking with their neighbors again. :D
When I built this house I am in, the 1968 fuel oil price was 15.9 cents a gallon. In 73, I put in a wood stove (Ashley stove) and in a few years, put in a wood boiler. Wouldn't want to trade back to not burnin wood for winter heat. That 6 cords I burn in the winter is worth a lot of money to me. That is how I justify the tractor, the splitter, and the MS361 saw.. ;D and a new logrite or two along the way.
I broke my logging tong tip off week afore last, and it cost me $20 to have it welded back on..just didn't mind one bit. For backup, I have propane, but that is $1.60 a gallon this year (contract).
Wood is good, if ya have it available. ;D
High fuel oil means high diesel prices at the pump. Off road was $3.209 a couple days ago and premium on road was $3.739. Regular diesel was $3.699. The premium's worth four cents
My parents had a fuel oil furnace installed in the late 60s. At that time it costs a dollar a day for oil to heat the house but Dad was only making a couple bucks an hour too. He put in a woodstove in 74 :) :)
My house has a combination wood - oil furnace & an oil fired hot water heater,
greenhouse & garage have a small oil furnace, got 400 gal. last week $2.99.
Should last till March.
arj
Fuel oil hit $1.39 a liter here. Cost my neighbor $1200 a month to heat his house last year. He installed a wood stove and bought 10 cords of firewood from me. He says "it's money in the bank"
They are projecting oil to hit $1.99 a liter here this winter. For Our American friends that's about $8.30 US a gallon. They claim it's the cost of living in the great white north.
I'll heat with wood. Cost's me about $45 a month to heat my house and shop. ;D
And we only have 6 more months of winter left. whiteflag_smiley
I have two free standing wood stoves in my house, one in the front-middle and one in the back. They keep it toasty in here. Of course, my climate is milder than many of you, even so, the wood heat saves a bundle on energy cost. Plus, I have plenty of wood to utilize. I generally harvest that which has died of natural causes within the last year on my place.
It is real nice and warm in here tonight :). I sympathize with the folks who are having to buy fuel oil.
I wonder what these high oil prices for home heating will do to the momentum the environmentalists have built up over the years. Do you think a bunch of them will see trees in a different light after this year?
I sincerely hope so. Idealism meets realism.
Just a week ago, last Friday, a woman at work had to buy fuel oil and she found a dealer selling oil for $2.91 a gallon. By Monday oil prices had gone up to over $3.00 a gallon.
Oil dealers around here, southwestern New Hampshire will not deliever last than 100 gallons per trip. A friend of ours had a little extra cash and wanted to buy $150.00 gallons of oil. Their oil dealer told them of the 100 gallon minimum, that's over $300.00 now.
I feel sorry for those people who are just getting by and they are facing these high prices to stay warm. We heat solely with wood we don't have any other heating system, it feels good to have two years supply of firewood sitting at home.
Randy
Just about the same prices here,$3 a gallon.That is stupid.I just put in a outdoor furnace.Wife cannot have the wood in the house.Just the smell of some wood would hurt her lungs due to a bad cold or whatever it was 2 years ago.Even being behind a diesel truck just starting out will hurt her lungs.Wife was kinda wondering if it was a good idea.We was going to burn oil.She's happy we put it in now.My paycheck is still set up on gas around $1.30.It makes it hard.I use to work for the low income and would see alot of hard times.It's too bad.
Quote from: Tom on November 15, 2007, 11:22:22 PM
I wonder what these high oil prices for home heating will do to the momentum the environmentalists have built up over the years. Do you think a bunch of them will see trees in a different light after this year?
Yes, they will. It's already starting around here. In fact, some very far left people I know just bought a house that has a wood stove in it. I gave them a bit of seasoned firewood, just so they could try it out. Within a week, they'd gone down to a local mill and purchased a cord of split wood. I take partial credit for their conversion. ;D
I use oil for hot water and heat. But, my thermostat is set at about 62° or less. The balance of the heat comes from my soapstone stove. It will heat the whole house as long as it isn't too windy and as long as someone throws wood into it.
The local oil dealer said our fuel consumption was the least in the county. I'm still thinking about putting some sort of solar heater in.
I've been heating two houses since October 2006. The house we live in NOW (and will for a couple more weeks) has oil-fired hot water baseboard heat. I don't usually run the fireplace, so we depend on the oil. I have only been able to afford 100 gallons at a time for quite a while, and we just ran out a couple days ago. My brother is buying the house from us and he's converting to propane, I told him he better put a woodburning insert in the fireplace if he wants to stay warm this winter. Bro don't make a lot of $$. Heck, nobody can afford oil right now. We thought it was bad a few years ago when it was over $2 a gallon.
The new house, is heated with a Central Boiler Dual-Fuel model, wood boiler with propane backup. I don't expect to be filling the propane tank until at least this time next year. 500 gallons oughta go a long way toward just running my kitchen stove. I burned 4 cords last winter heating 4300 square feet, heat AND hot water, but we weren't living there yet so the hot water was just for cleaning, painting and other washing-type chores. This year I figure 6-7 cords, and it's all cut and ready. Sure does justify the cost of a new chain saw and other firewood tools. I'n gonna treat myself to a new splitting maul this winter. :D
I feel yer pain, Engineer. They are projecting $4/gal by the end of the year here. Last winter, for the months of Dec, Jan, Feb & Mar, we averaged 225 gal/mo. That'd be $3,600. :(
I've got the boiler turned way down but it's the only thing that heats the crawl space and the shop. Since the water softener is out in the shop, we have to keep it above freezing. We've started looking into selling the Blaze King wood stove and buying a wood forced air furnace that I could put in the shop, then heat the house with the forced air.
All kinds of things to consider doing that, tho... not sure if it is okay to have a forced air unit in a shop with vehicles (due to CO worries) that blows air into the house. Pretty sure I could hook up a fresh air intake on the unit but I don't know if there are codes for this sort of thing.
I'm really concerned about people all over the country freezing. It'll be interesting to see how the market handles it.
Would it be possible/easier/cheaper to move the water softener into the house somehow?
Quote from: Furby on November 16, 2007, 10:40:33 PM
Would it be possible/easier/cheaper to move the water softener into the house somehow?
Well, it's a 2 stage system and takes up a lot of floor space. Plus, if at all possible, I want to keep the shop above freezing for the vehicles.
This ought to make all of you sick. It always bothers me to see it go up in smoke. I watched enough Natural gas flare off last night to heat all our homes for the winter. We just finished drilling and completing a well and one of the last steps is to "test the well" to see what the reserves are and how much of a flow rate the gas can be extracted.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10046/P1D2_flaring%2C_K_M__003.jpg)
These fuel prices are insidious; they creep up on people, and before long, they bite your head off. A lot of folks do not own land or have ready access to wood, so they bear the brunt of the high fuel oil prices. Borrowing money to stay warm will be a sad reality for some.
I do not want to step across the line into the political arena, but a well thought energy policy and strategy for this country would be a blessing if there is a leader out there with the gumption to make it happen. In the meantime, people will suffer this winter. Those of Us With Wood (TOUWW) are in better shape than most. (We know that there is at least OneWithWood, OWW). ;D
Yup. I used to work in the oil business. My first degree is in Petroleum Science Technology. Problem is, they won't let us drill in ANWR and the natural gas pipeline is on hold. Do you have any idea how much oil is in ANWR??
Nope, no idea. How much, ya got us curious. Amount vs amount we use annually.
I know if I had to heat with propane I would be hurting.. I'm lucky that I have a deal lined up for firewood that should cover me for a several years to come.
I really do feel sorry for the folks that are on limited/fixed/low incomes.
All the wood we burn, saves that much fuel for someone else who needs it.
I went to a city council meeting this last week and listened to a couple of the regional clean air people complain about wood stoves. They want them all traded out for propane or electric heat. Hinting that eventually they are going to be banned. This in a community where most of the folks have used wood for heat for years. Going to be tough.
Anybody speak up at that meeting to mention the supply of such resources?? Or sit quietly and let 'em ramble..?
Like the next forest fire in that area won't dump gazillion more smoke particles out in the atmosphere..or the next Mt St Helens type eruption. ::) ::)
Quote from: WH_Conley on November 17, 2007, 05:41:10 AM
Nope, no idea. How much, ya got us curious. Amount vs amount we use annually.
Taken from: http://www.anwr.org/archives/1002_is_where_the_oils_at.php (http://www.anwr.org/archives/1002_is_where_the_oils_at.php)
Quote
"The USGS used a very conservative 37% recovery factor in their ANWR assessment. If the recovery factor in ANWR fields can match Prudhoe Bay then the technically recoverable average increases to about 18 billion barrels. At today's oil price, and assuming a reasonable recovery factor, the amount of oil economically recoverable (the amount that can be profitably extracted), will be very close to the technically recoverable amount."
And:
Quote
"It is also true that existing data show that ANWR is the best onshore oil prospect in the United States. Some believe that the ANWR coastal plain is a kind of oil 'bank' where oil can be withdrawn when needed. This is simply wrong. Although ANWR has enormous potential, that potential will remain unrealized until drilling is allowed.
You may hear that developing ANWR is not necessary since it 'only provides a six month supply of oil.' Some say this is misleading; I think it's dishonest. ANWR, in the average case of 10 billion barrels of reserves, will produce a million barrels of oil a day for over twenty-five years. It will help offset our current 57% oil import rate. It will keep the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) running for many more years thus encouraging additional investment in exploration and production in Alaska. TAPS is currently flowing at less than half of its 2.2 million barrels per day capacity and can easily accommodate production from ANWR."
There is a ton of good info at that site. The basics of it are that we don't know exactly how much oil is there until we are allowed to drill it. From the many old time oil field folks I've spoken to about ANWR, the opinion is that the field actually contains a lot more oil than Prudhoe. They can't prove it until they can drill it, though.
What I do know is that having ANWR producing would help stabilize and maybe even lower fuel prices in the US.
with the profits of big oil nearly doubling from year to year i doubt that any oil discovery will lower prices at home..oil fuels us...greed fuels them :(
And what happens when the US, or what's left of it at the time holds the largest oil field left on earth ???
Turningfool, do you sell any of your turnings? If you do, do you sell them for cost or less? I doubt it. Oil companies, like all other companies, are a buisiness and the goal of a buisiness is to make money. Wells cost huge dollars to drill. The one we just completed drilling has a $28MM price tag so far and that doesn't include any of the cost to get it to the end user.
Blaming the oil companies for all the high prices is a little off base. Most of the worlds supply is owned by countries, not companies. Most of the oil under the U.S. is owned by the government including oil locked up in the ANWR and off limit coastal areas.
These high prices should eventually lead to alternate fuel sources and conservation. Oil prices are market driven and when people can't buy it any more prices will drop. Hopefully we won't all go bankrupt before that happens. (Just because I work in the industry doesn't mean the prices don't affect me too.) We will most likely never see cheap oil again, there are too many growing economies around the world competeing for those same barrels and a dwindling supply.
Enough rambling from me. I'm sure I will have ticked a few off with this and hope no one takes it personal. Just stating my veiw.
LeeB, yer right in that we shouldn't blame just the oil companies for the high prices. There are many factors. However, there is definitely profiteering going on and the oil companies (who have made record profits during these supply lulls) are, IMO, turning the screws.
We need more alternative fuels and need to depend far less on the world's petroleum reserves - because they will eventually be gone.
80-100 years ago - wood crates, glass bottles and paper bags. No plastics, no oil products to speak of, everybody kept warm with wood or coal heat. We can develop new hydro sources, new solar and wind farms, even put nuclear plants to good use. Unfortunately, there's always someone who opposes innovation - the "greenies" who preach the loudest also scream the loudest when their "view" is tarnished by windmills and wood smoke.
I'll stop burning wood as soon as the government bans fire.
You mention heating with coal. There are still enormous reserves of coal around the world and technology has improved enough to make it eficient and clean but i doubt we'll ever see it in favor again.
To quote the former ceo of one of our largest corporations, "you better hope the oil companies continue to make record profits, and invest those profits in new energy sources"
As for those who are just agin it, whatever it is, "let'um freeze in the dark.
Hey turning fool, greed fuels us all. Would you show up for work on time if you were to receive no check on payday?
Quote from: Handy Andy on November 17, 2007, 09:23:25 PM
greed fuels us all.
I don't agree that greed fuels us all. It is only one of the 7 deadly sins. I do not believe it is reasonable to be controlled by large corporations whose actions in making exorbitant profits can be rationalized by greed. It is never good business when one party takes advantage of another in a business transaction.
Ah, where to begin. I used to post frequently but took a couple of years off due to time constraints. But I have been reading most of the posts. [https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?action=recent].
I have been building a house, by myself mostly. But to keep from going over the edge I have as a hobby the study of "peak oil". I read articles on the subject every day.
Warbird posted a site I had not seen. I visited it and got a feel for the biases expressed.
First a comment on the info and then a few of my biases:
Quote by the author:
QuoteYou may hear that developing ANWR is not necessary since it 'only provides a six month supply of oil.' Some say this is misleading; I think it's dishonest. ANWR, in the average case of 10 billion barrels of reserves, will produce a million barrels of oil a day for over twenty-five years.
Do the math. At our current consumption that is 106 days worth of crude.
People just don't "get it" yet. Our current automobile life style can not continue. No alternative fuels are going to replace the energy we get from gasoline. A combination of all of them will probably at best replace about 15% of our current usage.
The thing about ANWR that really get to me is this:
Where did we get the idea that we have the right to find and use every last barrel of oil? How self-centered can we be!
I wonder what kind of world we are leaving for our children. By saying, "Let's open up ANWAR, because we need the oil", we are saying we don't care how resource-poor this country is for future generations.
Let me say it again: Where did we get the idea that we have the right to find and use every last barrel of oil? It is so selfish and inconsiderate. Do you think technology is going to provide a replacement for crude so that your children will live as good of life you and I are living? Not very likely!
I maintain that a hundred years from now we will be severely despised for our squandering of this irreplaceable resource.
Please don't tell people that we have to drill in ANWR. Not yet. Let's let our great-grandchildren do the drilling when they really need the oil.
I pretty much agree with LeeB, (not his coal post) except when he says, "...when people can't buy it any more prices will drop." There are enough people in the world who will pay whatever it takes so that as crude becomes more scarce the price will continue to rise.
And Furby's question is a really good one. I think it will sort of be like the end of a Monopoly game. He who has the resource (money/crude) wins.
I can't end this without stating my dismay with one of the worst energy-related government decision ever made--subsidizing corn ethanol production. Not only is it reprehensible for turning food into fuel, and increasing inflation, it only marginally provides more energy than it consumes in producing it. [EROEI]
Just to make it worse, natural gas production peaked in 2003. I envy you guys who are heating with wood, but that will soon be problematic when wood is a replacement for natural gas.
How is your gasoline-powered sawmill operation going to be affected by $6.00 a gallon gasoline?
lee b heres the deal with my turnings..usually give them away...all but the hats ;D
Weren't trying to pick on ya, just using an example. :)
Quote from: DouginUtah on November 17, 2007, 09:42:56 PM
Quote by the author:
QuoteYou may hear that developing ANWR is not necessary since it 'only provides a six month supply of oil.' Some say this is misleading; I think it's dishonest. ANWR, in the average case of 10 billion barrels of reserves, will produce a million barrels of oil a day for over twenty-five years.
Do the math. At our current consumption that is 106 days worth of crude.
If ANWR was the only place we were getting oil from. Doesn't mean we shouldn't drill it.
Quote from: DouginUtah on November 17, 2007, 09:42:56 PM
People just don't "get it" yet. Our current automobile life style can not continue. No alternative fuels are going to replace the energy we get from gasoline. A combination of all of them will probably at best replace about 15% of our current usage.
Cite? That statement is preposterous and fallacious.
Quote from: DouginUtah on November 17, 2007, 09:42:56 PM
Where did we get the idea that we have the right to find and use every last barrel of oil? How self-centered can we be!
Ummm.. we are paying for the oil. And every nation looks after their own interests.
Quote from: DouginUtah on November 17, 2007, 09:42:56 PMI wonder what kind of world we are leaving for our children. By saying, "Let's open up ANWAR, because we need the oil", we are saying we don't care how resource-poor this country is for future generations.
It's "ANWR" - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Anwar is an old Arabic word and means something else entirely. Ironic, no? :)
You've been reading too many leftist sites and have bought into their diatribe. There is a *lot* of oil under the ground yet. Places like Alaska, Siberia, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Middle East. There is no danger that the oil is going to dry up tomorrow. Or in 6 months.
Quote from: DouginUtah on November 17, 2007, 09:42:56 PMNot only is it reprehensible for turning food into fuel, and increasing inflation, it only marginally provides more energy than it consumes in producing it. [EROEI]
And BTW... what you describe above is a form of the perpetual motion myth. Currently, there is no existing process that provides more energy than is consumed. Cold fusion, last time I checked, hadn't been invented yet. ;)
Warbird,
QuoteCite? That statement is preposterous and fallacious.
You can say it is preposterous and fallacious but I don't believe it is. How can we use 86 million barrels a day, day after day, and not run out. Perhaps you believe in abiotic oil?
I don't see much value in citing my sources as you would probably just dismiss them as being "leftist" sites. I suppose they are but that doesn't make the message wrong.
Nevertheless I invite you to read www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net , especially the second page (link at the bottom of the first page).
Also Google Kunstler peak oil for the name of a site which has a bad word which I can't post here.
Also www.energybulletin.net and http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=1
And don't forget Matthew Simmons who wrote "Twilight in the Desert" (which I have read). I don't believe you could get away with calling him a leftist. Very respected and he says the supply is not capable of meeting the demand.
QuoteUmmm.. we are paying for the oil. And every nation looks after their own interests.
And future generation be damned? Or are you one of those who thinks "technology will save us".
QuoteIt's "ANWR" - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
That's getting pretty desperate--to criticize a typo on the forestry forum. :D
QuoteThere is a *lot* of oil under the ground yet.
Yes, and probably it is going to stay there. Most of the light, sweet crude has been used and heavy, sour is what is left.
Cantarel in the Gulf of Mexico is depleting at about 10% per year, This is where the Mexican government gets most of its money. When Cantarel stops producing sufficient quantities for export to the U.S. we will be hurting but not as much as Mexico. And we think we have a border problem now. Just wait! :( Also, the North Sea fields are declining rapidly, as are many others. It's time for us to get our heads out of the sand--and I don't mean oil sands--which I just read are costing 50% more than expected to process.
QuoteCurrently, there is no existing process that provides more energy than is consumed.
Hello. :D The mining of crude oil does not take more energy than it produces. That's why crude oil is so important. The EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is way above whatever is in second place. Ethanol has approximately a 1.3:1 ratio. Hardly worth it.
As for cold fusion, that's probably the only thing that can save us--but as you say, it hasn't been invented yet.
I'll give you one thing though. Drilling in ANWR would be good for Alaskans. :)
So what's the solution to all of this Doug?
Doug,
I don't know when you get your natural gas data, "Just to make it worse, natural gas production peaked in 2003." But all the documentation I have been reading talks about there is plenty of natural gas. The biggest problem is moving it. NIYBY is killing a lot of natural gas pipeline projects. Example: Long Island has some of the highest cost for gas, I think Maine is the only one higher, but Connecticut is keeping one of the pipeline companies from running a line under the sound, thus getting more gas onto the island.
The Power River Basin in Wyoming is one of the best sources of natural gas we have in the country, but we can't get it out of the area. So, it almost always sales for a much lower price than the rest of the country. The new Rocky Mountain Express pipeline runs eastward from Cheyenne to Missouri right now – should commence operation late this month or early next. And LOTS of the other pipeline companies are working on tapping into it when it gets into Ohio.
As to the quantity of (proven dry) reserves, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) just released their latest reserves report and the numbers are up AGAIN for the 8th straight year. Proven reserve set a new record at 211 Trillion cubic feet. I need to update my briefing charts because the last natural gas briefing I give (Dover AFB) the total was only 198 Trillion CF.
The number of natural gas drilling rigs is at an all time high. Last time I checked, there were about 1250 rigs drilling for natural gas. When I first got into the business, 7 years ago, there were only around 500-600 rigs. Because of this and if I remember the numbers correctly, natural gas production is up by 3.9% from CY2006 to CY2007 or was it 2005 to 2006 – I forget. The difference between production and reserves; production is actual gas flowing out of the ground and reserves is we know it's there, but how and when do we get it out.
IMHO, the supply of natural gas is looking very good.
Bruce
Boy howdy, I got the bees a buzzing now.
In addition to there still being plenty of oil, there is a *lot* of natural gas available. They inject the DanG stuff back into the ground in Prudhoe.
Anyway, I'm going to bow outta this one now. Cold hard facts are just going to start arguments and I've come to greatly detest forum drama.
Norm,
I know we are not on the same page here, Norm, but the gist of your question is pretty transparent. Big oil, governments, and the world's scientists don't have the solution but I do. :D
Actually, they know what is coming but they don't want the public to panic. Carry on for as long as possible. 8)
My mission is not to change your mind. My mission is just to let people know what is coming—in case they haven't heard or figured it out for themselves.
The truth is there is no solution, other than changing the way we live, i.e., back to the 1850s. Except society is so much "cruder" today than it was back then, that it ain't going to play out tomorrow like it did back then. What do you think starving people are going to do?
Speaking of tomorrow, there are some who believe it is going to hit the fan suddenly—a quick decline. I'm not in that camp. I see this playing out for many more years—a gradual decline. But starting next year. (I believe I made my prediction of 2008 two years ago here.)
This is not like global warming where there can be disagreement as to the cause, etc. Peak oil is real and there are facts which are undeniable. Unfortunately, there are a few deniers who use tactics similar to those used to discredit the anti-smoking campaigns of years ago.
I'd like to hear your beliefs in regard to peak oil and declining resources.
I have been following this thread with interest.
I have come to beleive that our energy policy of this country is to burn everyone else's oil. Sure we could pump alot out of our soil but if we burn the foreign oil while it is cheap then we will have our oil for later. I see this for economic and military reasons. We are taking the hit now but will be in better shape later, we hope. Our military is very dependent on oil as is everyone else's. If we have the only major source of oil then we will rule or maybe be fighting a war for it. ::)Do not worry when oil is hard to find they will drill where they want to.
Of course this maybe be a mute point if someone invents a better fuel source before then but then we will have a better looking counrty too.
Farmerdoug
Twice now I have posted a message and looked for it and it is nowhere to be found.
I replied to Bruce, hit post, and of course did not save it, so I will have to start over again. I hate doing that!
Bruce,
Re EIA: They are almost always optimistically wrong. http://www.energybulletin.net/33661.html (http://www.energybulletin.net/33661.html)
I don't think this was my source but it says the same thing--2003 peak: http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1462 (http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1462)
QuoteProven reserve set a new record at 211 Trillion cubic feet.
8)
From http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/nat_gas.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/nat_gas.html) : "27.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas consumed in North America in 2004." Whoopee! Enough reserves for 7.6 more years, without any increase in consumption. :( How any new power plants are going to be using NG instead of coal?
IMNSHO, the supply of natural gas is
not looking very good. :)
Quote from: DouginUtah on November 18, 2007, 09:55:42 PM
Twice now I have posted a message and looked for it and it is nowhere to be found.
...........................
Maybe that is the early stages of the ... shortage... 8)
Quote from: beenthere on November 18, 2007, 10:19:58 PM
Quote from: DouginUtah on November 18, 2007, 09:55:42 PM
Twice now I have posted a message and looked for it and it is nowhere to be found.
...........................
Maybe that is the early stages of the ... shortage... 8)
:D :D :D
Quote from: DouginUtah on November 18, 2007, 09:17:08 PM
Actually, they know what is coming but they don't want the public to panic. Carry on for as long as possible. 8)
So Doug, I guess your message is "the sky is falling" and we should do nothing but wait for it to hit the ground. Well I am sorry to inform you that it is too late for that solution. There is also an old saying that "a journey of a thousand miles starts with just one step" and the first steps have already been taken.
It would have been irresponsible for our government to do nothing about this energy problem and like it or not, producing ethanol, which is a renewable fuel, was one of the first steps. Just like our cars are much more efficient than the first cars made, the production of ethanol will become more efficient as the technology improves and new enzymes are found. But even now just energy efficiency does not tell the whole story because if you counted all the energy used to find, transport, and refine crude oil, the numbers might look different. Plus corn is primarily used as an animal feed and after the ethanol is produced, the leftovers called "DDG's" or dried distillers grains are still used as animal feeds. In fact I just read about one large feed lot that is building an ethanol plant on their site to produce ethanol from the corn they grow, use the leftovers from ethanol production to feed their steers, capture the methane produced from the manure for energy to produce the ethanol, and then use the manure to fertilize their crop land to produce more corn. How could you be any more energy efficient.
Second, there are wind farms springing up in the cornfields all around here. Just about 15 miles northeast of me, a local business owner that owned a large tract of land put up windmills to harvest the wind blowing over his cornfields. When you drive south on I35 into Iowa you can see the very large windmills generating electricity on the west side of the road. Plus in western MN there are many more windmill generators operation along what is called the Buffalo Ridge. Between conservation and the windmill generators, we may not need any more coal-fired power plants. Plus many of the existing coal fired plants are incorporating biomass into their feeds replacing coal.
Minnesota has also mandated the use of 2 % biodiesel in all diesel fuel and may go to 5 % if the cold flow winter problems can be worked out. Regardless of that, most fuel suppliers are offering B100 biodiesel and like most farmers, I usually mix at least 50 % biodiesel in all the diesel used on the farm and when working in the woods in the summer.
And beyond all that, energy conservation may be more important than all other efforts. We now have hybrid cars that are far more efficient in city driving and sooner or later there will be new fuel efficiency standards for all cars and trucks. Unfortunately right now, the new low sulfur fuel is blocking some more efficient diesel engine cars from being sold in the US.
So you are right , you are too late to change our minds nor adopt your solution. 8)
QuoteMaybe that is the early stages of the ... shortage...
No, it's a conspiracy I tell you! TPTB don't want me letting the cat out of the bag. :D
Necessity is the Mother of invention. That is the way the Economy works too. Pain causes change. Someday, and maybe in our lifetime, oil will be like a buggy whip. It won't be needed anymore.
Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention. These hated high prices for fuel that we are now seeing are going to be a good thing, eventually. For they are now an incentive to develop those hydrogen fuel cells or cold fusion that, together with the other measures already mentioned, that will make crude oil just as obsolete as the old dead dinosaurs it came from. 8)
Quote from: WDH on November 19, 2007, 12:12:42 AM
Necessity is the Mother of invention. That is the way the Economy works too. Pain causes change. Someday, and maybe in our lifetime, oil will be like a buggy whip. It won't be needed anymore.
Kinda like using wood for heat...?
Gary_C, great minds think alike. Looks like we were on the same track. I posted just before you did :).
Warbird, yes, for some people, but not me in my lifetime. After that, it won't mean a whole lot to me. But, you make a good point. Some people still use buggy whips.............
Not really to change the subject, but I've been wanting to ask for some time if anyone knew why the movie Chain Reaction has not been aired in many years now?
I see all kinds of movies of much poor subjects/filming than that, but they never air that one.
Because of the subject matter maybe ???
Gary,
I appreciate your comments, but I don't think you have me pegged properly. You sound like you want to shoot the messenger. :( Nevertheless, I can't agree that a bad first step (ethanol) is better than doing nothing. I have read of groups of farmers who are beginning to oppose ethanol because they realize that it is not a good solution. Why are wheat and soybeans over $10.00 a bushel? Why, if ethanol is so great, does the government have to subsidize it to the tune of over 50¢ a gallon?
But let's get past the ethanol disagreement.
You list several of the efforts being undertaken to meet the challenge. I say more power to them and you. It all helps. I am all for doing everything possible and reasonable to minimize the depletion of crude oil, and the resulting effects which will have to be dealt with.
I don't wish to demean what you say but the fact is these efforts are trivial in comparison to the energy required to make the U.S. economy flourish. It is a problem of scale. All of our well-meaning efforts cannot equal the benefits derived from crude oil.
==
Oh, no. While typing this, there have been five new replies. I can't keep up. I'm going to have to bow out.
WDH: "Technology will save us" argument. Not likely, but not out of the realm of possibility.
Gary: Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is a battery. And will never be anything but a way for R&D to get federal dollars. Fusion in a soup can--if only. Back to the "Technology will save us" argument.
Furby: I'll have to check out Chain Reaction. Haven't heard of it.
Warbird: Ya!
Quote from: Furby on November 19, 2007, 12:41:16 AM
Not really to change the subject, but I've been wanting to ask for some time if anyone knew why the movie Chain Reaction has not been aired in many years now?
I see all kinds of movies of much poor subjects/filming than that, but they never air that one.
Because of the subject matter maybe ???
My response to that (it's a bit more logical and is possible with modern day tech) :
https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=26621.msg387211#msg387211 (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=26621.msg387211#msg387211)
FarmerDoug:
Sources of US crude oil supply:
- United States .. 40%
- Canada ........... 9%
- Saudi Arabia .... 8%
- Venezuela ........ 8%
- Mexico ............ 7%
- Nigeria ............ 4%
- Iraq ................ 4%
The remaining 20% comes from several other countries, all contributing less than 2% each. The data is a couple of years out of date and the various sources never seem to agree exactly. However, these are reasonably close.
Proven reserves (billions of barrels):
1. Saudi Arabia 264
2. Canada 179
3. Iran 132
4. Iraq 115
5. Kuwait 102
6. UA Emirates 98
7. Venezuela 80
8. Russia 60
9. Libya 39
10. Nigeria 36
11. United States 21
This is from the US department of energy, 2006.
The US consumes about 20 million barrels a day, or 7.3 billion barrels per year. You'd expect the US to consume all its own oil in about 7 years, but so far it has been discovering new domestic oil at about the same rate it consumes it.
The real issue, however, is not how much there is, but how quickly we can get it to the market. We've got all the easy oil. Now it's going to take more work to get it AND it's going to consume more petroleum to develop and deliver it. The world's overall production rate hasn't risen since March, 2005 -- in spite of current oil prices.
An example -- Canada looks to have enormous reserves, and hey, thanks to NAFTA, we have to give you over half our production. But the vast majority of those reserves are in the Alberta tar sands, and we've only begun (after 40 years of development) to produce it in commercial quantities. Worse yet, it takes a lot of petroleum to extract and synthesize the oil and we've been using conventional sources to do that.
Warbird:
In about 10 to 15 years, we can expect the alternative liquid fuels (biodiesel, ethanol, shale oil, synthetic oil from coal) to supply about 10% of our present crude consumption. But in that same time period, world demand will have risen by about 35%.
Bottom line -- learn to get by with less energy (before everyone else catches on).
Brucer,
I have to disagree with your #s. Here in Canada we have 150 billion barrels coming out of the Alberta Sand pits alone. Problem is getting it. Here in the Yukon we have a vast supply of oil and natural gas. Problem here is it is laying in areas that are EXTREMELY REMOTE. We have only 4 highways here in the Yukon. There is NO infrastructure here. In an area larger than California we have a population of only 35,000. Yes that's 35 thousand. And of that 30,000 live in the capitol city of Whitehorse.
It is estimated that when the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline goes through it will have enough natural gas and oil to run for 20 years min. The estimated reserve in the Arctic north. is around 400 billion barrels. But it is under 3 miles of ice that is melting fast. By the time they could drill for it New York City would be under water.Last winter over 300 truckloads of oil platform equipment headed up to Inuvik NWT. In the spring only 5 loads came back out. It used to be "if" the pipeline went through, now it's when. But they still face a logistics nightmare. The ONLY highway is closed 4 months a year. The ferry system for the 2 rivers that must be crossed is inatiquate and we have a mojor shortage of workers here in the north as it is.
Wages will be another deciding factor. Here in the Gold mines equipment operators make $15,000 to $20,000 a month, plus bonus with the rising price of gold. So how will the oil companies pay for remote work.....Just the Slashing contract's for the pipeline are worth $6000 a mile. Certified Welders are looking at $500 a day, $1500 with their own equipment. Cat Skinners...well lets just say I could work for 90 days and take the rest of the year off.
It is BIG money. The oil companies are starting to take MAJOR gambles, because they have no choice.
Don't be fooled by the media. We are running out of oil fast. The Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada along with Alaska ARE the last frontier left on Earth. And the oil companies are in a race to claim what is here... because as one company engineer told me....."it's the only place left"
As far as solutions....I can't offer you any. But as I sit here with my wood stove and solar/wind/river power , all I can say is YES you can still survive when the oil is gone. It's not an easy lifestyle...but one I and others can live. The real question you have to ask yourselves is " Can I ?".
You have to be a little suspect about reserve estimates. Russia overstated theirs to make them look better. Oil companies have overstated theirs to look better to investors. Remember when Shell downgraded their reserves just a couple of years ago? Opec members overstate theirs since production is contingent on the amount of reserves. Also included in reserves are those that are considered unproven reserves.
We've been talking alternative fuels since the '60s. Government and lobbyists have done a really good job keeping it away from the general public. Oil prices get too high, people scream, and they drop it back a few cents. But, we get used to it and brace ourselves for the next increase. Government puts a few dollars into alternatives so they can get re-elected.
Ethanol won't replace oil. It may extend it a little, but tranpsortation is a big problem. You can't just put it in a pipeline in Iowa and expect it to come out in New York. It has to be regionalized. The problem is that where the population is located is not where the ethanol production is located.
Same goes for wind. Where its windy, there isn't as much demand for electricity. Resistance in the lines will kill you, and there isn't sufficient lines to transport all the electrical needs from low population centers to high population centers.
Part of our problems lie in the way we allow development in this country. We spread out, which demands that we use more energy. It is not unusual that people commute several hours to work, one way. We have no mass transit, since they lost their lobbying power decades ago. When the price of oil gets too high, then the McMansions will no longer be built, and the suburbs will stop expanding.
Actually Doug I don't think my question was transparent, it was an honest one. I'm still waiting to hear your solutions.
Norm,
I don't think he has a solution.
Ron
Norm,
Okay. No one wants to hear it, but the solution is to learn how to survive without crude oil and natural gas. How do you do that?
I don't know. There are so many things we take for granted that come from crude oil and NG. No more store-bought fertilizer, plastics, food from 1500 miles away, etc.
I'm not saying YOU, more likely your kids. We've got a few years of winding down yet.
I'll ask again, What's your take on all this?
Just got though calling local co-op in Hillsboro Or., No. 2 diesel is $2.94 a gallon for 400 gallons. The guys selling fire wood are asking in the range of $200 -250 a cord for dry seasoned wood.
Was wondering if any of the members are using the thermal type of heat pumps that have pipe buried in ditches below the frost line? They claim a range of 5-7 increase BTU's over resistance heating cost.
There are at least 3 TRILLION barrels of oil not counted in the published oil reserves. All are profitable to produce at todays prices.
Plus there is a lot of recoverable oil that is not counted in the reserves.
It is always profitable for a producer to allow others to claim shortages.
We have an outside boiler, but wanted electric heat for backup. I know (and trust) the contractor that installed our heating and AC system and did what he suggested. We put in an electric heating and AC system that also has an air to air heat pump. He said he wouldn't reccomend electric heat without one. He claims they are very efficient down to about the freezing point. I notice that when it's 30 to 50 degrees and we don't have a fire in the boiler, the heat pump runs a lot and doesn't provide a quick heat up like the electric furnace does when it kicks in.
I know this isn't what you asked about, but I thought it might be of interest.
I'm thinking of adding a 2nd wood stove. Putting it in the kitchen area. The geothermal sounds like a good idea or heat pump. Outdoor wood boilers are close to being banned in my area. Neighboring town has a hold on new installs were watching to see how that plays out.
Oil reserves. Last I read we had 65 years minimum at current world consumption rates. How many trillions of gallons that is I don't know. Thinking about solutions good time to start. Our dependence on others for fuel is more of an issue than the supply reserve.
I expect many home owners heating with oil this winter will have at times empty tanks not because supply is down but more so cost of living increases across the board.
FuzzyBear:
Not my numbers. They come from industry sources and the US government. One problem is the definition of "proven reserves". Everyone has a different definition.
Your description of the issues with recovery are a perfect illustration of the problem. The oil is there, but we can't get it out fast enough -- and it'll cost a bundle to get it out at all.
GHRoberts:
I'd be curious to know where that unpublished oil is located. Also, where'd you find out about it (I collect as much information as I can, whether it's from an official source or not).
I know there is about 1 trillion barrels of oil under Colorado, Wyoming, and adjacent states. It's in the form of oil shale. But folks have been trying to figure out how to extract it for 70 years now, without much success. Part of the problem is that there hasn't been much incentive to spend money on research when cheap conventional oil is (was) available.
The Alberta tar sends are estimated to contain about 10 times the proven reserves. That's another trillion and a half barrels. But no one wanted to spend the money to prove the reserves until they found a feasible way to synthesize crude from the tar.
raycon:
Current consumption rate is about 30 billion barrels per year. The estimate of remaining recoverable reserves is about 1.2 trillion barrels. That works out to 40 years if current consumption doesn't change. No one knows what sort of recovery we can get from oil shale, so your 65 years is in the ball park.
Two problems. First, demand is increasing steadily. In fact it's been keeping perfect step with the world population for the last 25 years. Second (and this is the real issue that DougInUtah first mentioned) we can't keep producing it at the present rate, because it's getting harder to extract it and get it to the end user. So in reality, the reserves will probably last a lot longer than 65 years. But that's not going to help if we can't deliver it as fast as we need it.
Yes, we need to do something about energy consumption, that's why I'm a CEM (Certified Energy Manager). But, do we need to do it so fast and hard we crush the world economy? Some people would say yes because of global warming? I don't pretend to have the answer. I do remember the stories my parents told about the Great Depression. Do we need to change our way of life, yes we do. I personally have gone to ALL CFL in both houses and drive a diesel truck for the better fuel mileage. I have a set back thermostat and a timer on my hot water heater. One more thing I could do; put a catalytic converter on my wood stove. But within the bonds of reasonable and cost, how much more can I do. Add a wind mill or hydro plant? Yes, but those cost a lot of up front money and I'm still paying college loans.
Ok, ok, ok, shut up Bruce.
Oh btw - Oil to be consumed, check out these 2 links:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007103105
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002981.html
Bruce
Why would changing over crush the world economy? Germany has a program where they are trying to get 20% of their energy from solar. They'll meet it ahead of schedule and are thinking of boosting expectations to 30%. Their economy didn't collapse, and they have become a leader in solar cell manufacturing, research and design.
We can continue on with the tried and true, and we will fall further behind. Economic advances only come through innovation. If we really embraced the idea of becoming energy self sufficient, we would revitalize both our research and manufacturing base.
We went to the moon in the '60s. The nation embraced the idea of innovation. A lot of new products and technologies came to the forefront. Now, it seems like we are content to move money from point A to point B and call it an economy.
The thing for me is not who has - how much - where - at what cost, it's what gets wasted. At work the big garage had overhead doors, some of the guys would take a truck out and be too lazy to shut the door - There's the space heaters just running away, trying to keep up with 10F cold air - The repy from the lazy guys - "I'm not paying for it" How can you overcome such stupidity? Right after Katrina when prices spiked, 3 diesel pickups running in front of the coffee shop - The owners inside - You gussed it, bitching about the price of fuel. We're surrounded by morons.
"
As fuel gets more expensive, people will be more conservative minded, and alternatives will happen. But...until then, we'll adjust to the cost of fuel as it continues to climb..it ain't there yet (IMO).
Are you sure about those numbers for German solar energy production, Ron?
An article I read in the Washington Post put their current solar production at .5% of their total energy production. It said that they hope to increase that figure to 3% by 2020.
They've also embarked on a program to replace all of their nuclear power plants with coal-fired plants by 2020.
Autos powered by steam produced by solid bio fuels such as wood, wood or switch grass pellets, corn, cherry pits etc These vehicles should also be capable of burning pelletized coal. Fuel stations would carry whatever could be produced regionally. That's my solution ;) ;D
Lots of very good debate here fellows. Perhaps a litle more heated than nessasary but good just the same. I'm enjoying all the different view points. I don't know the answer either. As I said, I work in the oil industry. I would love to see a viable alternative fuel come about. Even if one were to apear tommorow we still would be very much reliant on petroleum products. They are a part of nearly every aspect of our lives, and not just for fuel. Until something comes along and puts me out to pasture I'll keep on digging it out of the ground for us. I hope i get put out to pasture soon.
Woodcarver
I saw it on PBS just a few weeks ago. I'm pretty sure that's the number that they're trying to get to, and they said they were ahead of schedule. They showed solar cells in lots of locations, like along highways, and had an interview with a farmer that has put in fields of solar panels. The sheep were grazing underneath.
The Germans have some sort of buy back program that lowers your electric bills pretty dramatically. The incentive puts everyone into wanting to put them up.
If Germany can have a program for motivating their people into solar, and Denmark can do it with wind, and Iceland can do it with geothermal; why can't the US do something? We allow the oil companies to write off billions in tax money, and then throw millions at alternative fuels.
Bottom line is that alternatives don't reap tax money. You can't tax energy or energy making if the individual can make his own. You can tax it, but you'll never collect it off of a bunch of small time operators.
I try to keep out of thing like this.We can talk about this for days.As long as certain companies are making millions,this will keep going on.This country is run by oil not by solar or wind power.
Offroad diesel was 3.439 here a couple hours ago. Got orders for 12 more FC of firewood today
I found the Washington Post article. Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402466.html
Thanks for the link. The show I saw was NOVA. I found the quote from the show where I got the 20% and the 30%. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3406_solar.html
It was the narrator talking to Herman Scheer, a member of the German Parliment. In 2000, Germany instituted a National Renewable Energy Act which requires Germany to produce 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. The detractors said the goal is impossible, but Scheer says they are ahead of schedule and could reach 30% by 2020.
The program also stated that the Germans are producing about 1 million solar cells each week, and have created 170,000 jobs.
A lot of petroleum provides feedstock for chemical and plastic companies. The amount of waste is huge.
Example: I happen to like Pental type automatic pencils. When these first came out, I could buy 30 leads in a small cardboard tube. Just recently I bought some at the local stationary store -- 12 leads in a thick plastic container that could easily hold 100 leads. I wasn't buying leads I was buying the container -- but there were no alternatives. Time to go back to wooden pencils and old fashioned pencil sharpeners.
A lot of items are sold in big, bulky plastic blister packs. You practically need a chainsaw to open some of those packages. Why do they package things that way instead of in a compact cardboard box? A retailer showed me some promotional material from his distributer. The blister packs are bulky and hard to open in order to discourage shoplifting.
Using plastic this way is a terrible waste of valuable liquid fuel. There are plenty of alternatives. Cardboard containers, cellophane bags and wrappers (it's made from cellulose doncha know), glass bottles for example.
This isn't going to change real soon unless the government(s) start restricting the inappropriate use of petrochemicals. We try to do our part. Barb's crocheted a bunch of string bags (out of cotton) to hold produce purchases (instead of using the store's plastic bags. We've been using canvas shopping bags for more than 20 years. Given a choice, I'll buy drinks in glass or aluminum containers rather than plastic. These are just a few ways to reduce indirect oil consumption.
Here is an article released by Reuters yesterday about the Canadain oil reserves.
Bruce
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN2022657220071120
High fuel prices are not a new issue and the points of view are still the same.