What Happens When Petrol Runs Out?

[J4MIE]

Surprised there isn't a thread about his already, but just went for a drive earlier and noticed the huge queues to fill up at all the petrol stations locally, despite calls not to panic buy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7358069.stm

The problem is, dear government, that even though you are begging people not to panic buy, because everyone is doing it if you don't then you will be the one running out of petrol and people just aren't prepared to take the risk.

Anyway hopefully Grangemouth can get this all sorted out before it becomes a real problem :(

However, it has got me thinking of what would happen if there was no petrol available. Most people couldn't get to work, public transport would be non existant, food supplies would surely be hit as would farmers etc in the first place. Power stations etc would be affected as well and the effects would be huge, meaning no heating, lack of power etc and then of course no running water.

So surely civilization would be back in the dark ages? It's a scary thought, there isn't really any alternative to petrol at the moment.

Discuss? :confused:

[J4MIE]

By petrol I mean oil in general :p :

[JSH]

Ever seen the Mad MAx movies??

Yeah well, thats what it'd be like. Panic. Chaos. Devestation. War started by either the first group about to run out of oil or the last group that has it.

The survivors will be (individual groups of people - not Governments) fighting over anything they can use, methanol or ethanol, etc...

Then again, maybe, just maybe the world will get it's ass in gear and find an alternative first. :p :

[J4MIE]

Then again, maybe, just maybe the world will get it's ass in gear and find an alternative first. :p :

Mad Max it is then... :)

[Rollo]

Oil prices in general aren't driven by petrol but by the lower and heavier grades that come from fractional distillation. We're talking very long chain hydrocarbons that are "cracked" into smaller pieces. It's those very big bits that produce plastics and greases (C20 - C50)

Petrol on the other hand is only very short (C6 - C9) and can be produced by other methods, the most obvious is to grow it. Ethyl-Alcohol otherwise known as Ethanol or Biofuel can and already is used as a legitimate fuel.

As it stands, the most efficient crop to produce ethanol is sugar cane. In America however, for some bizarre reason maize and corn appears to be the subsidised crop. Switching to sugar cane as the main crop would yield a fourfold increase of biofuel production; therefore there would need to be a change in policy at governmental level.

I suspect that the USA already produces enough sugar to turn into biofuel as it is, if a) a change in transport policy was made b) people stop over-eating the crop.

For most of the world a change to biofuel and a bit more of reliance on public transport would just about do it. But the big sticking point is the USA.

America by itself currrently uses about 35% of all world oil production. Why?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm

The scary thing is that government policy did this in the first place. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 virtually killed off about 60 public transport systems. The man who effectively did this was a chap called Charles Erwin Wilson who was appointed Secretary of Defence under Eisenhower, and who previously was CEO of General Motors. If you wanted a case of business manipluating government policy that would be it.
Basically if America were to adopt a decent public transport policy, then roughly 30% of all world oil production wouldn't be simply burned.

[airshifter]

Oil prices in general aren't driven by petrol but by the lower and heavier grades that come from fractional distillation. We're talking very long chain hydrocarbons that are "cracked" into smaller pieces. It's those very big bits that produce plastics and greases (C20 - C50)

Petrol on the other hand is only very short (C6 - C9) and can be produced by other methods, the most obvious is to grow it. Ethyl-Alcohol otherwise known as Ethanol or Biofuel can and already is used as a legitimate fuel.

As it stands, the most efficient crop to produce ethanol is sugar cane. In America however, for some bizarre reason maize and corn appears to be the subsidised crop. Switching to sugar cane as the main crop would yield a fourfold increase of biofuel production; therefore there would need to be a change in policy at governmental level.

I suspect that the USA already produces enough sugar to turn into biofuel as it is, if a) a change in transport policy was made b) people stop over-eating the crop.

For most of the world a change to biofuel and a bit more of reliance on public transport would just about do it. But the big sticking point is the USA.

America by itself currrently uses about 35% of all world oil production. Why?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm

The scary thing is that government policy did this in the first place. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 virtually killed off about 60 public transport systems. The man who effectively did this was a chap called Charles Erwin Wilson who was appointed Secretary of Defence under Eisenhower, and who previously was CEO of General Motors. If you wanted a case of business manipluating government policy that would be it.
Basically if America were to adopt a decent public transport policy, then roughly 30% of all world oil production wouldn't be simply burned.

Climate and soil types affect what crops can be used for ethanol production. The US doesn't chose to use corn, we simply have the means to use it and very few areas that support the higher yielding crops. It's similar in many areas of Europe, with lesser yielding crops such as beets being used. Both ethanol and biodiesel production have increased in the US, as a percentage of total fuels used as well as raw output. But as long as total fuels used keeps increasing, it's not much help.

I agree our public transport system in most areas is terrible. Even in areas where it's much better people don't use it as much as most countries in other areas of the world. I think this is as much a matter of excess and lifestyle as anything else. Most Americans won't even buy a smaller car, but complain about gas prices. At some point the consumers will tire of big cars and move to smaller ones but most are slow to do it.

On a per capita or as compared to GNP comparison the US is more efficient than some countries, but overall inefficient compared to many. With the very large size of the country it amounts to a lot of waste.

[MrJan]

I've heard this talk of panic buying but petrol stations seem fine in my area except for being 1p more expensive than yesterday.

Is this just a Scottish thing or are we Devonians just relaxed enough not to give a toss?

[BDunnell]

Very good points, Rollo. :up:

We need to ensure that future energy sources are truly sustainable, for a start.

I would add that people generally need to get straight in their heads what they think of government intervention in business. There has been much talk recently of the need for the British government to intervene in the current banking crisis, much of it coming from people who normally take the view that as little intervention into the world of private enterprise as possible is desirable. Unfortunately, as we are now seeing, this laissez-faire approach isn't always the best. Much the same can be said of the energy debate.

[Malbec]

As it stands, the most efficient crop to produce ethanol is sugar cane. In America however, for some bizarre reason maize and corn appears to be the subsidised crop. Switching to sugar cane as the main crop would yield a fourfold increase of biofuel production; therefore there would need to be a change in policy at governmental level.

I suspect that the USA already produces enough sugar to turn into biofuel as it is, if a) a change in transport policy was made b) people stop over-eating the crop.

For most of the world a change to biofuel and a bit more of reliance on public transport would just about do it. But the big sticking point is the USA.


I'm a bit worried about this attitude towards biofuels. Ultimately those fuels can only be produced from crops that are currently grown for food. In the third world farmers may divert their land towards biofuels which may result in better pay but will also leave those countries vulnerable to famine if conditions are bad.

America and Europe both subsidise agriculture which results in massive overproduction of food but that is released onto the global market ensuring that food prices remain low and therefore affordable for the poorest countries. Again, if biofuel is taken up by the mass market much of that food will be abandoned for biofuel resulting in a global shortage and therefore rise in price of food.

Since the cost of food is increasing massively worldwide anyway due both to large increases in population and the ever-rising cost of transporting the food around the world thanks to oil prices, biofuels will only add to the pressure. Already we have protests and political turmoil in many countries due to the rise in price of food, if it increases further things can only get worse.

Biofuels don't offer a substantial improvement in the cleanliness of engines, they merely reduce the reliance on crude oil a small amount. Switching to it would result in global repercussions. It simply isn't worthwhile.

[306 Cosworth]

There's enough oil in the world to last at least the next 500 years - FACT!

We don't need to worry about it :up:

[harvick#1]

America by itself currrently uses about 35% of all world oil production. Why?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm


because every 4 out of 5 cars are SUV's or big trucks that get 15 MPG tops. why people need those, I have no clue.

[BDunnell]

I'm a bit worried about this attitude towards biofuels. Ultimately those fuels can only be produced from crops that are currently grown for food. In the third world farmers may divert their land towards biofuels which may result in better pay but will also leave those countries vulnerable to famine if conditions are bad.

America and Europe both subsidise agriculture which results in massive overproduction of food but that is released onto the global market ensuring that food prices remain low and therefore affordable for the poorest countries. Again, if biofuel is taken up by the mass market much of that food will be abandoned for biofuel resulting in a global shortage and therefore rise in price of food.

Since the cost of food is increasing massively worldwide anyway due both to large increases in population and the ever-rising cost of transporting the food around the world thanks to oil prices, biofuels will only add to the pressure. Already we have protests and political turmoil in many countries due to the rise in price of food, if it increases further things can only get worse.

Biofuels don't offer a substantial improvement in the cleanliness of engines, they merely reduce the reliance on crude oil a small amount. Switching to it would result in global repercussions. It simply isn't worthwhile.

This is what I was getting at when I mentioned the need to be truly sustainable. The chief scientist of Greenpeace recently spoke out against biofuels for these very reasons. An interesting report on the Flight International web site last year outlined some developments by NASA that may offer some hope for biofuels, though — http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/01/16/211491/making-the-desert-bloom-with-fuel-yielding-plants.html

What has happened to this research since, I have no idea, however.

[Rollo]

America and Europe both subsidise agriculture which results in massive overproduction of food but that is released onto the global market ensuring that food prices remain low and therefore affordable for the poorest countries. Again, if biofuel is taken up by the mass market much of that food will be abandoned for biofuel resulting in a global shortage and therefore rise in price of food.


Massive overproduction of food has obvious results if you just happen to look down Main St of any US City and increasingly the high streets of the UK - fat people. This appears to be wastage on a massive scale and all it would require would be a redistribution of current food allocations (however, this would require altruism on the part of multi-national corporations and that's never going to happen).
In terms of actual calorie count, the world currently produces roughly 7 times what it would take to feed the world (Pears cyclopedia 2007 - based on WHO stats).

Again, there won't be a single magic bullet to this problem but a series of little 1% steps. Discounting them is short-sighted... just like every multi-national corporation.

[backbone1]

because every 4 out of 5 cars are SUV's or big trucks that get 15 MPG tops. why people need those, I have no clue.

I might have expected similar opinions from one of the many anti-Americans on this site. Unfortunately, regardless of the source, similar comments only perpetuate the growth of dis-like / hate towards our country. I'm surprised that someone flying the red, white and blue would make such a statement. Some simple research would show that in fact S.U.V. sales (which include light trucks, i.e. small pick-ups, Land Rover's, Ford Explorer's, Nissan Pathfinders, Kia's version of an S.U.V., etc.) peaked at less than 57% of total U.S. sales in 2004, it has declined slightly each year and is now close to 50% of total vehicle sales. Ehhhh, that would be 2 1/2 out of 5 vehicles,... if you are going to mention statistics, they should be somewhat accurate.
In my opinion the foreign manufacturers are equally to blame for the S.U.V. trend in the states, if the "world opinion" is so negative towards the inefficiencies of S.U.V.'s, then the non U.S. manufacturers should refuse to produce them,... like that will ever happen,... greed, greed, greed.

The simple fact that the New York Times article / study classifies "small trucks" specifically used by businesses for work / deliveries, etc. within the same category, suggests the reported numbers ultimately represent a skewed result. Yes, I agree that "we" Americans have supposedly lived a life of luxury / excess over past decades, but a big part of that is the level of development in this country and the standard of living that most have become accustomed to. Within itself, the country is large which inherently makes the dynamics of infrastructure, etc. less efficient. Any global economy that includes big business and yes (the huge wasteful government machine is included), manufacturing, technology, tourism, shipping / transportation, and other industries; together with high incomes that afford such luxury, said entity will naturally be a large consumer of resources. Interestingly enough, I've never noticed the hoards of tourists that visit the U.S. annually choosing to conserve by sleeping in tents, renting bicyles, and eating tofu three times a day. In other words, U.S. citzens are not the only ones who contribute to the nations wasteful ways. My British brother in law visits yearly and he always rents the largest Cadillac he can find, an 3 ton, Escalade S.U.V., well,... when in Rome,... I guess.

Now that U.S. petrol / gasoline appears it will reach $4 a gallon, do you actually think the S.U.V. market will remain strong? I can't explain all the factors that control the past low cost of fuel in this country and even at $4 per gallon, it remains far less than Europeans pay. However, when factors dictate that any resource is comparitively "inexpensive" to any group and there seems to be an endless supply that doesn't directly effect "them", do you typically see said group act conservatively on a volunteer basis? Say for instance that the U.K. "had a corner" on the production of Ale / Beer and although producing it created a negative world impact and the natural materials to produce it would eventually run out,... all the while the Brits enjoyed the product at 1/4 the cost of others in the world and seldom, if ever, saw a shortage,... the British per capita consumption would easily lead the world! Not that it already doesn't. Ha ha.

There are definitely some intellectual types on this board and those individuals may disagree, however regarding the vehicles "we" drive, I think the average U.S. citizen has never been severely effected by the cost of petrol. Isn't evolution and societal change normally driven by necessity? Right or wrong, it's mostly human / animal nature,... I say until cost and supply directly cause a crisis here, it will be difficult to change U.S. opinion on the matter. Additionally, if you think the U.S. has "set the bar" in energy consumption, wait another 10 to 20 years until "The Big Red Machine" is churning at full capacity,... if things continue at the current pace, I'll bet the inefficiency, consumption, and environmental contamination will make what's happened here in America pale in comparison! China and its demand for what developed countries around the world now share, will eventually impact the planet at a scale never before seen by mankind.

[BDunnell]

Additionally, if you think the U.S. has "set the bar" in energy consumption, wait another 10 to 20 years until "The Big Red Machine" is churning at full capacity,... if things continue at the current pace, I'll bet the inefficiency, consumption, and environmental contamination will make what's happened here in America pale in comparison! China and its demand for what developed countries around the world now share, will eventually impact the planet at a scale never before seen by mankind.

Some most interesting points, there, backbone1. :up:

With regard to the above quote, well, maybe some sort of example should be set by the US and the rest of the western world? After all, the US and certain allies have been all to willing to try and blaze a trail of democracy through certain regions. Ought it not to be possible to do likewise with regard to the environment?

[Rollo]

In my opinion the foreign manufacturers are equally to blame for the S.U.V. trend in the states, if the "world opinion" is so negative towards the inefficiencies of S.U.V.'s, then the non U.S. manufacturers should refuse to produce them,... like that will ever happen,... greed, greed, greed.

A company with a conscious? Get outa here.


Now that U.S. petrol / gasoline appears it will reach $4 a gallon, do you actually think the S.U.V. market will remain strong? I can't explain all the factors that control the past low cost of fuel in this country and even at $4 per gallon, it remains far less than Europeans pay. However, when factors dictate that any resource is omparitively "inexpensive" to any group and there seems to be an endless supply that doesn't directly effect "them", do you typically see said group act conservatively on a volunteer basis?.

The answer to both of these questions lies in the instrument of taxation. Governments are responsible for placing taxes on goods and services. One of those reasons is social conscious. A good that is deemed to be harmful or one which should be discouraged in use ought to have a higher tax - cigarettes are a prime example. Petrol in the UK is another.

Foreign companies will sell their product into the US as to what the market demands. Since the US market demands bigger vehicles than the rest of the world, then that's what's sold. If there was a policy change made to increase the tax on petrol, then there'd be a change in consumer habits.

But that won't happen in the short term because Detroit controls a big part of Washington.

[555-04Q2]

There are already alternatives. Problem is the oil companies try their hardest to keep the alternatives at bay, for now. But they all have alternative power solutions for when the oil runs out.

[airshifter]

This is what I was getting at when I mentioned the need to be truly sustainable. The chief scientist of Greenpeace recently spoke out against biofuels for these very reasons. An interesting report on the Flight International web site last year outlined some developments by NASA that may offer some hope for biofuels, though — http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/01/16/211491/making-the-desert-bloom-with-fuel-yielding-plants.html

What has happened to this research since, I have no idea, however.


Interesting article. That NASA center is not far from where I live and allows visits. I might inquire as to if I could check out anything they have here. I think my daughter would find it interesting as well as myself.

I have a link somewhere on some EPA studies about ethanol plants that take fuel from essentially any growing plant, on a celluosic level. They are not very cost effective to build, but the potential is great. Just as with current crops used, some plants and grasses produce more fuel, but many of these are fast growing plants we consider weeds. Since most will grow almost anywhere, the theory is that the weeds grow on top of existing biomass that is already in the composting stage, using nothing more than natural sunlight and mostly existing rainfall in most cases.



Some great points in this thread. I agree that companies other than US companies are fueling the SUV and waste inclined vehicle trend, but it's our fault for buying them and using them. As for the taxation issue, more fuel used means more taxes paid, so to some extent that already exists. Rather than penalties for exessive fuel use, the US government has given incentives for fuel savings, even by individuals.

Many fuel saving home improvements such as windows, insulation, doors, etc that meet or exceed a certain energy efficiency rating qualify a person for a tax credit. We got a credit of $300 IIRC for having installed more energy efficient windows. There are also credits for certain hybrid vehicles, though I personally think it was a poorly written rule. I could buy a hybrid truck that gets terrible MPG and get a credit, but can't get a credit for a very fuel efficient car that isn't a hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle.


I also agree with most points made by Backbone1. Most Americans have never really felt the crunch of gas prices, so they drive what they want. I drive few enough miles now that driving my 4x4 truck would only cost me a few hundred dollars a year more than driving a car that gets 33-35 MPG. I choose to drive the car to set an example for my daughter, and to keep more of my money in my pocket, not out of budget need. Likewise with our better windows and the air handler to our AC in the house. We weighed long term savings and instant increase in comfort over the financial aspect, but other than that there was little incentive to buy more efficient products.

[Rollo]

I could buy a hybrid truck that gets terrible MPG and get a credit, but can't get a credit for a very fuel efficient car that isn't a hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle.


A certain Chev Silverado by any chance? Oh, we've already had a thread about that ;)

[Malbec]

Massive overproduction of food has obvious results if you just happen to look down Main St of any US City and increasingly the high streets of the UK - fat people. This appears to be wastage on a massive scale and all it would require would be a redistribution of current food allocations (however, this would require altruism on the part of multi-national corporations and that's never going to happen).
In terms of actual calorie count, the world currently produces roughly 7 times what it would take to feed the world (Pears cyclopedia 2007 - based on WHO stats).

Again, there won't be a single magic bullet to this problem but a series of little 1% steps. Discounting them is short-sighted... just like every multi-national corporation.

I suspect you misunderstood my point.

The overproduction of food by America and Europe thanks to subsidies has resulted in global food prices being artificially low. Whilst this has made it difficult for farmers in developing countries it has also allowed their governments to feed their people cheaply.

If you cut food production in favour of biofuels, prices will rise globally, there will be countries that cannot afford it. At worst this will cause famine but it will more likely cause political unrest.

The increase of obesity in the west has little to do with the low cost of food and more to do with the change in lifestyle over the past 50 years.

[Rollo]

I didn't misunderstand your point, I merely disagree with it.

In general food produce is one of those things that you can't export all that easily (for reasons of spoilage etc.), so that's why I negated the net trade between the countries. The goods that mainly affect net trade vaules between nations are how elaborate the manufacture process is, not food prices.
The export of motor cars will for instance earn more export coin than the export of the steel which went into it in the first place.

[Malbec]

I didn't misunderstand your point, I merely disagree with it.

In general food produce is one of those things that you can't export all that easily (for reasons of spoilage etc.), so that's why I negated the net trade between the countries. The goods that mainly affect net trade vaules between nations are how elaborate the manufacture process is, not food prices.
The export of motor cars will for instance earn more export coin than the export of the steel which went into it in the first place.

Actually we're talking about the trade in things like grain and rice which are the staple elements of nearly every food culture in the world. These things do not spoil very quickly if stored and transported properly.

We're not talking about net trade values. We're talking about the availability of cheap foodstuffs to people in the third world. The law of supply and demand applies as usual. If the US/EU cut food production and divert it to biofuels the global cost of food which is going up anyway will go up further.

I'm sure you're aware that many countries don't produce enough food to feed their population and make up for the shortfall by buying cheap US/EU grain. Increase that cost and those countries (usually the poorest) get hit hard.

Here are some links to show whats happening right now around the world:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7347697.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7361945.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7344892.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7284196.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7309099.stm

People should not switch to biofuel in order to climb onto some pseudo-environmental bandwagon at the cost of causing other people to starve. Neither should it be done at the cost of political stability in poorer countries. Its as simple as that.

[xtlm]

other stuff will eventually emerge

they used to have synthetic fuel (but the opec lowered the cost of a barrel, to put that company out of business)

it may get bad......but we will survive

there is enough fuel in this world at current usage for 40-50 more years.

Expect to see in the next 10....cars that run off of everything....electricity, hydrogen, even air! (all of these technologies exist btw....there just needs to be a shift......something that big companies will most likely not do until its ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY....because well, thy like money...and that is a problem in this situation)


I think hydrogen is the way to go.....we got oceans of water...just distill and electrolysis it....and if you use solar energy for that process...i think this be good

[Malbec]

Expect to see in the next 10....cars that run off of everything....electricity, hydrogen, even air! (all of these technologies exist btw....there just needs to be a shift......something that big companies will most likely not do until its ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY....because well, thy like money...and that is a problem in this situation)


I think hydrogen is the way to go.....we got oceans of water...just distill and electrolysis it....and if you use solar energy for that process...i think this be good

I agree. In a way its going to be like it was in the dawn of motoring when steam, petrol and electric power fought a three-way battle.

I think hydrogen is the way to go too, not just because of its availability but because of all the totally non-petrol based solutions its the only one that will result in the smallest change in lifestyle, we'll still be able to fill a tank in minutes at a filling station as opposed to plugging a car in and waiting hours.

[rah]

I was just listening to an article on Hydrogen production coming from microalgae in ponds. Basically it will end up like a large plasit bag lying in the sun with water and algae in it. Then you just get them to produce hydrogen by feeding different chemicals. This is one of the best projects I have heard about so far.

[Mark]

Thing is petrol won't just 'run out' overnight, as others have said there are still a few hundred years left of resources even at present consumption levels. However those that remain are increasingly expensive to extract, resulting in much higher prices at the pumps, we'll see gradually increasing prices and periodic shortages, coupled with countries trying to secure supply by miliatry means (some say we're already seeing this), it's all quite scary.

The amount of oil available at the moment is no less than has always been, it's just that there is much more demand now.

[Mark]

People should not switch to biofuel in order to climb onto some pseudo-environmental bandwagon at the cost of causing other people to starve. Neither should it be done at the cost of political stability in poorer countries. Its as simple as that.

I agree. However I think we're reaching a crossroads here. We have to decide what's going to be most important to us down the line. Do we stop global warming and thus creating a global food shortage, or do we feed everyone and let whatever is going to happen to the climate, happen.

Either way there is going to be large scale hardship. Personally I would choose keeping everyone fed, as at least that is something we know we can do something about.

[rah]

I agree. However I think we're reaching a crossroads here. We have to decide what's going to be most important to us down the line. Do we stop global warming and thus creating a global food shortage, or do we feed everyone and let whatever is going to happen to the climate, happen.

Either way there is going to be large scale hardship. Personally I would choose keeping everyone fed, as at least that is something we know we can do something about.

I would disagree, the projected effects of global warming will harm many more people than going green will do to the worlds food supply. We just need to even things out a bit as far as food goes.

[maxu05]

I think what we should do is stop turning food crops into fuel, and concentrate on turning waste material into fuel. Put food into hungry mouths, not your fuel tank.

[Mark]

I think what we should do is stop turning food crops into fuel, and concentrate on turning waste material into fuel. Put food into hungry mouths, not your fuel tank.

Hydrogen is one possibility as that just really needs electricity to produce, but it's awful to transport and store.

A biofuel thing they are looking into is a more of a tree type crop which can grow in conditions that food crops cannot, that would be ideal. Of course it would probably mean many landscapes changing but remember those empty windswept moorlands aren't naturally like that, they look like that because of sheep farming.

[BDunnell]

I agree. However I think we're reaching a crossroads here. We have to decide what's going to be most important to us down the line. Do we stop global warming and thus creating a global food shortage, or do we feed everyone and let whatever is going to happen to the climate, happen.

Either way there is going to be large scale hardship. Personally I would choose keeping everyone fed, as at least that is something we know we can do something about.

I don't understand this 'either/or' approach. One hears it a lot nowadays - it's as if people think it's impossible for governments, scientists or whoever to do two things at once.