Exxon Mobil Says Transition From Oil Is Century Away
#16
Lexus Test Driver
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
exxon as always is full of ****. 100 years my ***. 100 years from now we could have transitioned already from electric cars to hydrogen cars to cars that run on air to cars to fly to mars.
The world will hit peak oil sometime in the next decade. Most likely around 2015. So exxon is saying the period from peak oil to no oil will last around 95 years???
I'm willing to bet my life it won't
The world will hit peak oil sometime in the next decade. Most likely around 2015. So exxon is saying the period from peak oil to no oil will last around 95 years???
I'm willing to bet my life it won't
edit: from wikipedia:
Kenneth S. Deffeyes argued at one point that world oil production peaked on December 16, 2005.[5]
Sadad Al Husseini, former head of Saudi Aramco's production and exploration, stated in an October 29, 2007 interview that oil production had likely already reached its peak in 2006,[7] and that assumptions by the IEA and EIA of production increases by OPEC to over 45 MB/day are "quite unrealistic."[7]
2004 U.S. government predictions for oil production other than in OPEC and theformer Soviet Union
World Crude Oil Production 1960-2004. Sources: DOE/EIA, IEA
Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens stated in 2005 that worldwide conventional oil production was very close to peaking.[102] On June 17, 2008, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Pickens stated that "I do believe you have peaked out at 85 million barrels a day globally,".[103] Data from the US Energy Information Administration show that world production leveled out in 2004, and reached a peak in the third quarter of 2006,[citation needed] and an October 2007 retrospective report by the Energy Watch Group concluded that this was the peak of conventional oil production.
Last edited by lex; 05-29-09 at 03:49 AM.
#17
Pole Position
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
And that is exacly true. The hydrogen and electric cars are using more fossil fuels than regular cars in the sense that electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels. Hydrogen is especially bad, because more electricity is used by extracting hydrogen from water than produced by burning hydrogen.
As far as nuclear, thats requires uranium or plutonium, which are also fossil elements. While nuclear reactors are very efficient, it is unclear what Earth's resources of these elements are. They are probably not as abundant as oil, and might not last very long.
As far as nuclear, thats requires uranium or plutonium, which are also fossil elements. While nuclear reactors are very efficient, it is unclear what Earth's resources of these elements are. They are probably not as abundant as oil, and might not last very long.
Fossil fuels are here to stay unfortunately but at least we can cut them off from use in transportation and housing.
I strongly believe geothermal power is the way to go to generate electricity sometime in the future.
#18
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (3)
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
What oil refineries use to get the petrol and diesel fuels? Electricity of course. What gas stations use to to get that fuel int our cars? Electricity of course. I am not so sure that fossil fuels are more efficient in transportation than full electric of hydrogen-electric method.
Fossil fuels are here to stay unfortunately but at least we can cut them off from use in transportation and housing.
Fossil fuels are here to stay unfortunately but at least we can cut them off from use in transportation and housing.
#19
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I think a big part of the problem with going away from fossil fuels is exactly what we're seeing here...it should be electricity...no...hydrogen, no...nuclear...wait, geothermal...how about solar?
What's the answer? What's the ONE TRUE answer? No one knows.
Who wants to invest trillions of dollars into what might NOT be the next big energy thing?
Anyone want to invest some money in HD-DVD?....how about the DIVX format (no, not the codec)?...we could all pool our money and buy Betamax players...Memorystick media...or the MiniDisc.
The question of "Will fossil fuels last forever?" is a very easy one to answer. The question of "What's the next dominant energy source going to be?" is not so simple.
What's the answer? What's the ONE TRUE answer? No one knows.
Who wants to invest trillions of dollars into what might NOT be the next big energy thing?
Anyone want to invest some money in HD-DVD?....how about the DIVX format (no, not the codec)?...we could all pool our money and buy Betamax players...Memorystick media...or the MiniDisc.
The question of "Will fossil fuels last forever?" is a very easy one to answer. The question of "What's the next dominant energy source going to be?" is not so simple.
#20
Lexus Test Driver
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There are viable alternatives, just not one that is cheaper than oil at this point. All of you have seen how cheap these oil companies can sell thier oil and still make a profit, there is simply nothing out there with the same BTU that can compete with oil dollar for dollar, well, maybe coal, but that can get messy in the fill up station
![Smilie](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
#21
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
France is already buildings its first generation III reactor, and a second is being planned, the newest reactor type. Why the US cant do this but France can is beyond me. France is doing everything we should be doing.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
#22
Lexus Test Driver
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
30% of US reactors are fueled by recycled Soviet warheads. New generation reactors produce a lot less nuclear waste and can use the nuclear material longer. Current nuclear rods last about 18-24 months. If you want sheer output you cannot match a nuclear reactor, the highest power density of any generation source. To keep costs down a company should design a nuclear plant, get it working good and you just duplicate the heck out of it, instead of designing a new plant from the ground up each time. Duplication would save a lot of money.
Nuclear, much like hybrid cars are not the answer but a stop gap, we need to find a way to produce fusion energy instead of fusion.
#23
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
30% of US reactors are fueled by recycled Soviet warheads. New generation reactors produce a lot less nuclear waste and can use the nuclear material longer. Current nuclear rods last about 18-24 months. If you want sheer output you cannot match a nuclear reactor, the highest power density of any generation source. To keep costs down a company should design a nuclear plant, get it working good and you just duplicate the heck out of it, instead of designing a new plant from the ground up each time. Duplication would save a lot of money.
France is already buildings its first generation III reactor, and a second is being planned, the newest reactor type. Why the US cant do this but France can is beyond me. France is doing everything we should be doing.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
France is already buildings its first generation III reactor, and a second is being planned, the newest reactor type. Why the US cant do this but France can is beyond me. France is doing everything we should be doing.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
OT: Exxon mobile is full of crap. Obviously there is money to be made off oil so they won't look for an alternative. Idiots.
#24
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
You are forgeting about the nuclear waste, the spended rods. Those plutonium nuclear waste sits underground and stays radioactive for over 100,000 years.
Nuclear, much like hybrid cars are not the answer but a stop gap, we need to find a way to produce fusion energy instead of fusion.
Nuclear, much like hybrid cars are not the answer but a stop gap, we need to find a way to produce fusion energy instead of fusion.
#25
Lexus Test Driver
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
If you are talking about Argonne’s pyroprocessing technology, it reduces the amount of the nuclear waste generated from the power plant and the waste have a decay time of a 1000 years as oppose to over 100,000 year. It is still in the laboratory stage and need large scale testing. It is certainly a step forward but by no mean a solution to the nuclear waste problem.
#26
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
You are forgeting about the nuclear waste, the spended rods. Those plutonium nuclear waste sits underground and stays radioactive for over 100,000 years.
Nuclear, much like hybrid cars are not the answer but a stop gap, we need to find a way to produce fusion energy instead of fusion.
Nuclear, much like hybrid cars are not the answer but a stop gap, we need to find a way to produce fusion energy instead of fusion.
#27
Lexus Fanatic
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
France is already buildings its first generation III reactor, and a second is being planned, the newest reactor type. Why the US cant do this but France can is beyond me. France is doing everything we should be doing.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
#29
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My parents live on a lake in South Carolina with the Duke Power Nuclear plant less than a mile a way. Doesn't bother us any. Frankly, the energy is cheap and its clean.
#30
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I want power whether the sun isnt shining, the wind isnt blowing, or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor
A generation III reactor is a development of any of the generation II nuclear reactor designs incorporating evolutionary improvements in design which have been developed during the lifetime of the generation II reactor designs. These include improved fuel technology, superior thermal efficiency, passive safety systems and standardized design for reduced maintenance and capital costs.
Improvements in reactor technology will result in a longer operational life (50 to 60 years) compared with currently used generation II reactors (20 to 30 years), which are based on 1970’s technology. Furthermore, core damage frequencies have variously been estimated at between 10 and 100 times lower, depending on the design, making nuclear power plants of this design safer than previously built reactors.[1]
The first generation III reactors were built in Japan, while several others have been approved for construction in Europe.
Improvements in reactor technology will result in a longer operational life (50 to 60 years) compared with currently used generation II reactors (20 to 30 years), which are based on 1970’s technology. Furthermore, core damage frequencies have variously been estimated at between 10 and 100 times lower, depending on the design, making nuclear power plants of this design safer than previously built reactors.[1]
The first generation III reactors were built in Japan, while several others have been approved for construction in Europe.