GM Says - Peak Oil is Real

[a_unique_person]

THE world's biggest car maker, General Motors, believes global oil supply has peaked and a switch to electric cars is inevitable.
In a stunning announcement at the opening of the Detroit motor show, Rick Wagoner, GM's chairman and chief executive, also said ethanol was an "important interim solution" to the world's demand for oil, until battery technology improved to give electric cars the same driving range as petrol-powered cars.
GM is working on an electric car, called the Volt, which is due in showrooms in 2010, but delays in suitable battery technology have slowed the project.







http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/times-up-for-petrol-cars-says-gm-chief/2008/01/14/1200159401944.html

[WildCat]

The claim that ethanol is an important interim fuel can only mean one thing - GM is playing politics.

Ethanol is a sick joke, and an expensive one at that.

[Puppycow]

I don't know if "peak oil" is true or not, but my back-of-the envelope calculation (proven reserves/rate of consumption) says only 42 more years of consumption at current rates (insert caveats here).

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They were saying the same thing in the 70's. We know how that prediction turned out. :rolleyes:

[Francesca R]

So we might run out of oil, but we won't run out of electricity? Because that just comes out of a socket in the wall whenever you want it.

[ZenFountain]

They were saying the same thing in the 70's. We know how that prediction turned out. :rolleyes:

2.5 billion Chinese and Indian oil consumers plus increasing demand in the developed world will do wonders...

The Volt is an incredible machine on paper, I hope for the sake of GM they don't get cold feet in the final stretch or roll it our prematurely like the EV1 was.

[Matteo Martini]

The claim that ethanol is an important interim fuel can only mean one thing - GM is playing politics.

Ethanol is a sick joke, and an expensive one at that.

WildCat knows more about the oil business than Wagoner.
And, more about Philosophy of science than Popper

ADD
Just joking, WC!!

[Matteo Martini]

I don't know if "peak oil" is true or not, but my back-of-the envelope calculation (proven reserves/rate of consumption) says only 42 more years of consumption at current rates (insert caveats here).

Collin Campbell, a geologist for Exxon Mobil, Shell and others, said there are no new large oil fields to be discovered to make up for declining supplies. Cutting edge technology has speeded up depletion, acting like “a giant straw sucking up the last sources of easy oil,” Simmons said.

Simmons cited the United States as a prime example of what is occurring throughout the world. “No one thought we would ever peak,” he observed. For a century the United States was the world’s major producer of oil. Production reached 10.2 million barrels in July 1970 and then dropped, despite a wave of exploration during which four-and-a-half times more wells were drilled. Now the U.S. imports two-thirds of its supplies.

http://www.pww.org/index.php/article/articleview/12240/1/403

[WildCat]

WildCat knows more about the oil business than Wagoner.
Apparently I do know more about the efficiency of making ethanol from corn than he does.

It will give you enough energy to maybe plant a new crop of corn and make ethanol out of it, but there won't be much (if any) left over to fuel automobiles.

But maybe if AGW comes to pass soon we can grow sugar cane in the US Midwest!!

[Beerina]

Collin Campbell, a geologist for Exxon Mobil, Shell and others, said there are no new large oil fields to be discovered to make up for declining supplies.

This in spite of the announcement of some new giant ones not two years ago.

Cutting edge technology has speeded up depletion, acting like “a giant straw sucking up the last sources of easy oil,” Simmons said.

Increasing levels of technology make the "harder" oil "easier", and more viable economically. The net effect is a continuing increase in the quality of life, which, in this case, includes mobility.

His quote, which suggests a sudden running out is imminent, is exactly the same kind of fraud promoted by scare-mongering book sellers in the 1970's, shot down over and over again by this guy (http://juliansimon.org).

Moreover, "China" and "India" coming "on-line" means an additional 2.5 billion people in an increasingly powerful economy, with all its attendant increases in technology. India just announced a $2500 car. Somebody wants it more than Detroit, that's for sure. Which is what freedom in the economy is all about, and how it solves problems.

[CaptainManacles]

They were saying the same thing in the 70's. We know how that prediction turned out. :rolleyes:

They were completely correct?

[Almo]

They were saying the same thing in the 70's. We know how that prediction turned out. :rolleyes:

Hubbert was right about the US Oil Peak, to within a few years.

[Hindmost]

This tread has touched on this issue.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102623

A few things to remember...

There hasn't been a major oil discovery since the 70s. 80% of the oil we use today is from wells discovered prior to 1980. The world is using 30 billion barrels of oil per year and finding about half that amount. The projections for energy use is for oil to increase to 120 million barrels per day from 85 million per day we are using now with in the next two decades.

glenn

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hubbert was right about the US Oil Peak, to within a few years.

Assuming he was right, my guess is it is not because we peaked in this country, but instead that we stopped looking.

[kallsop]

If someone gets motivated enough to develop a clean way to extract oil from tar sands (unlikely), there is enough oil for hundreds of years. Ethanol from corn is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe fusion power will happen in my lifetime and we can use oil for uses other than energy. We could make a go of fission power too, but at the present rate of urgency, it's not going to be significant until the oil really runs out, and precisely when that happens has the predictive precision of future earth temperature or tomorrows weather.

[Puppycow]

There is a new study out on ethanol from switchgrass (http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=51107).

Switchgrass grown for biofuel production produced 540 percent more energy than needed to grow, harvest and process it into cellulosic ethanol, according to estimates from a large on-farm study by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL).

Results from the five-year study involving fields on farms in three states highlights the prairie grass' potential as a biomass fuel source that yields significantly more energy than is consumed in production and conversion into cellulosic ethanol, said Ken Vogel, a U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service geneticist in UNL's agronomy and horticulture department.

The study involved switchgrass fields on farms in Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. It is the largest study to date examining the net energy output, greenhouse gas emissions, biomass yields, agricultural inputs and estimated cellulosic ethanol production from switchgrass grown and managed for biomass fuel.

"This clearly demonstrates that switchgrass is not only energy efficient, but can be used in a renewable biofuel economy to reduce reliance of fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance rural economies," Vogel said.

The joint USDA-ARS and Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources study also found greenhouse gas emissions from cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass were 94 percent lower than estimated greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline production.

[Hindmost]

Assuming he was right, my guess is it is not because we peaked in this country, but instead that we stopped looking.

Hubbert indicated back in the 50s that the lower 48 states would peak in 1969. The actual peak was in 1970. There was no restriction on drilling at that time. Even finding Prudhoe bay and other places...he was still close even including Alaska. He was not making any claims about the rest of the world.

Fast forward...many have taken his work, refined it and applied it to the world reserves. Based on that work, the "Hubbert" peak for the world is expected to be right about now. Even if it is 10 years from now...the situation isn't good.

Maybe he was lucky with the US considering the technology of the time, but his methods have been validated as being very accurate for determining oil supplies from fields.

glenn

[RecoveringYuppy]

There is a new study out on ethanol from switchgrass (http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=51107).

Using a conservation cellulosic conversion value, researchers found that switchgrass grown on the marginal fields produced an average of 300 gallons of ethanol per acre compared to average ethanol yields of 350 gallons per acre for corn for the same three states.

I hate it when they forget to tell you the rate vs time, but if that is 300 gallons per acre per year then we'd be talking 1 and a half million square miles to raise switchgrass to replace all the petroleum the US uses. Presumably we won't replace all petroleum with this one source but still it points out the main problem with biofuels.


Six cellulosic biorefineries that are being co-funded by the U.S. Department of Energy also are in the works across the U.S. that should be completed over the next few years. These plants are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year, according to the U.S. Department of Energy

The US uses about about 300 billion gallons of oil in a year, the world uses over a trillion. Long way to go.

[Matteo Martini]

Just one small question.
Why do we have to wait until oil is peaked, before moving to renewables?

[Matteo Martini]

I hate it when they forget to tell you the rate vs time, but if that is 300 gallons per acre per year then we'd be talking 1 and a half million square miles to raise switchgrass to replace all the petroleum the US uses. Presumably we won't replace all petroleum with this one source but still it points out the main problem with biofuels.

The US uses about about 300 billion gallons of oil in a year, the world uses over a trillion. Long way to go.

Let`s see..
1 acre=4000m2
300 gallons per acre per year
so..
300 gallons per 4000m2 per year
The US uses 300 billion gallons of oil
Let assume oil=ethanol (I do not know if you can assume this) and let`s see how much m2 you need of switchgrass.
Total US consumption of oil/ethanol in one year would require 4000 * 1billion m2 of land, that is, 4Trillion m2 of land, that is, 4 million km2 per year, that is, an area of about 2000km per 2000km.
Wow..

What should the Japanese do, as Japan has almost no land available for switchgrass?

[CaptainManacles]

Just one small question.
Why do we have to wait until oil is peaked, before moving to renewables?

no one said we did, but a looming oil peak certainly gives us cause to place more concern on our dependency on oil.

I think a better question would be why the obsession with "renewable"? Nothing is renewable when used in high enough quantities. Trees are renewable but try supplying our country's energy needs by burning wood and see how renewable it is. This reality is thankfully being realized about ethonol before we become too invested in it. Any system has a finite amount of energy, and if you start sucking enough energy out of it thinks start to go bad. Unfortunately, most people have a real hard time accepting the idea that the way we're doing things now is actually pretty sensible and the world isn't imploding around us.

[Matteo Martini]

If someone gets motivated enough to develop a clean way to extract oil from tar sands (unlikely), there is enough oil for hundreds of years. Ethanol from corn is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe fusion power will happen in my lifetime and we can use oil for uses other than energy. We could make a go of fission power too, but at the present rate of urgency, it's not going to be significant until the oil really runs out, and precisely when that happens has the predictive precision of future earth temperature or tomorrows weather.

Is there any evidence that oil from tar sands can be extracted in an economically viable way at all?

[Matteo Martini]

no one said we did, but a looming oil peak certainly gives us cause to place more concern on our dependency on oil.

I think a better question would be why the obsession with "renewable"? Nothing is renewable when used in high enough quantities. Trees are renewable but try supplying our country's energy needs by burning wood and see how renewable it is. This reality is thankfully being realized about ethonol before we become too invested in it. Any system has a finite amount of energy, and if you start sucking enough energy out of it thinks start to go bad.

Yes, you have to let Mother Nature have the time to replace the source you have used, in your example, if you burn a tree, and after that, you plant a new one and wait 20 years before doing it again, you leave the tree the time to grow
Oil takes millions of years (?) to be generated


Unfortunately, most people have a real hard time accepting the idea that the way we're doing things now is actually pretty sensible and the world isn't imploding around us.

Why "the world isn't imploding around us"??

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just one small question.
Why do we have to wait until oil is peaked, before moving to renewables?

We don't. You are welcome to buy an electric car at any time.

[a_unique_person]

Assuming he was right, my guess is it is not because we peaked in this country, but instead that we stopped looking.

Do you honestly think they would't be looking for oil, given the amount of money to be made from it. You can't get oil out of stone.

[Jimbo07]

Is there any evidence that oil from tar sands can be extracted in an economically viable way at all?

The fact that it's being done every day? The fact that companies have multi-billion dollar plants up at Ft. Mac, and are dumping more in?

Just wondering if those are evidence?

Nexen/Opti (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=ft.+mcmurray,+ab&ie=UTF8&ll=56.413664,-110.949125&spn=0.033901,0.079823&t=h&z=14&om=1)

[Hindmost]

I hate it when they forget to tell you the rate vs time, but if that is 300 gallons per acre per year then we'd be talking 1 and a half million square miles to raise switchgrass to replace all the petroleum the US uses. Presumably we won't replace all petroleum with this one source but still it points out the main problem with biofuels.


The US uses about about 300 billion gallons of oil in a year, the world uses over a trillion. Long way to go.

In addition to what you have indicated, switchgrass has had a high yield only in controlled lab conditions. The energy yield is essentially theoretical based on the cellulose content. Right now, there isn't an economic enzyme to convert the cellulose to sugar...etc. So, any practical use is years in the future.

glenn

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Do you honestly think they would't be looking for oil, given the amount of money to be made from it. You can't get oil out of stone.

They would when it is cheaper to import it.

[a_unique_person]

The fact that it's being done every day? The fact that companies have multi-billion dollar plants up at Ft. Mac, and are dumping more in?

Just wondering if those are evidence?

Nexen/Opti (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=ft.+mcmurray,+ab&ie=UTF8&ll=56.413664,-110.949125&spn=0.033901,0.079823&t=h&z=14&om=1)

It can be, but it is almost as bad as biofuels in the amount of energy needed to process it.

[Matteo Martini]

It can be, but it is almost as bad as biofuels in the amount of energy needed to process it.

Mm..
Alberta Government calculates that about 28 billion cubic metres (174 billion barrels) of crude bitumen are economically recoverable from the three Alberta oil sands areas at current prices using current technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands#Estimated_oil_reserves

[Matteo Martini]

Moreover, "China" and "India" coming "on-line" means an additional 2.5 billion people in an increasingly powerful economy, with all its attendant increases in technology. India just announced a $2500 car. Somebody wants it more than Detroit, that's for sure. Which is what freedom in the economy is all about, and how it solves problems.

Do not you think it may be a problem, when 2.5billion people will start using cars?

[Darth Rotor]

Do not you think it may be a problem, when 2.5billion people will start using cars?
Now do you understand why the US has not retired its nuclear arsenal? They want our oil.

DR


If you didn't pick up on the sarcasm, at least you have the excuse of English not being your native lingua.

[Jimbo07]

It can be, but it is almost as bad as biofuels in the amount of energy needed to process it.

For the record, I'm not particularly a fan of oil sands development, I was just responding to a request to prove that it is economical. :boggled:

There is an analogy between energy and money, but it is not always a 1:1 relationship. As long as prices rise, many things can become economical, regardless of energy balance, due to factors like: speculation, political instability elsewhere, etc. Large energy projects are always estimated with an oil price lower than the levels we're seeing currently, so even if the prices to come back down a bit, oilsands companies still stand to profit.

Biofuels (despite some claims) do have a positive energy balance, as does oilsands development. Granted, neither of those balances are as positive as poking a hole in the ground and getting lighter crudes. However, no oil company in the world is saying that those reserves are growing. There is widespread acknowledgement that the easiest oil is going to get scarcer.

anyway...

[IllegalArgument]

In addition to what you have indicated, switchgrass has had a high yield only in controlled lab conditions. The energy yield is essentially theoretical based on the cellulose content. Right now, there isn't an economic enzyme to convert the cellulose to sugar...etc. So, any practical use is years in the future.

glenn

This is exactly the problem my girlfriend is working on, she's a molecular biologist trying to engineer better bacteria to convert cellulose to ethanol.

Very difficult nut to crack.

[Beerina]

Do not you think it may be a problem, when 2.5billion people will start using cars?

It may very well be. But "greed works", and if oil is prohibitively expensive, then other solutions will be brought online. As long as government officials don't get in the way.

The intellectual fraud here is the claim that disaster is imminent, with the convenient chaser that so-and-so should be elected to "save us". Which, of course, is what the hype is all about.

If GM thinks oil is becoming more of a problem (it's not really outrageously priced, historically, by any means) then please, feel free to develop alternative engines. These are the "substitutes" that economists talk about. Alternatives to oil with standard engines (ethanol, or LPG, or ???), alternative engine types (electric, hybrid, or ???), etc. At every level, powerful economies and their businessmen and engineers are working to develop solutions.

[Hindmost]

This is exactly the problem my girlfriend is working on, she's a molecular biologist trying to engineer better bacteria to convert cellulose to ethanol.

Very difficult nut to crack.

Even though there is such thing as luck, I wish your girlfriend and her team the absolute most luck possible...the eureka moment will be sweet!

glenn

[Ocelot]

Assuming he was right, my guess is it is not because we peaked in this country, but instead that we stopped looking.

Nice guess.
As it happen Hubert wasn't just guessing. He knew how many test wells were being drilled. How many were finding oil and how that varied over time.

Oil exploration is still a very big industry. Though less profitable than in the past for obvious reasons it can't be said that we've stopped looking.

[Almo]

Assuming he was right, my guess is it is not because we peaked in this country, but instead that we stopped looking.

Think about the economics of this assertion. If they stopped looking at around $25 a barrel, why with the oil price triple what it was don't you think they'd look again?

[Matteo Martini]

It may very well be. But "greed works", and if oil is prohibitively expensive, then other solutions will be brought online. As long as government officials don't get in the way.


You speak like Ron Paul :)
(By the way, the stone age did not end because stones became too expensive)


The intellectual fraud here is the claim that disaster is imminent, with the convenient chaser that so-and-so should be elected to "save us". Which, of course, is what the hype is all about.

If GM thinks oil is becoming more of a problem (it's not really outrageously priced, historically, by any means) then please, feel free to develop alternative engines. These are the "substitutes" that economists talk about. Alternatives to oil with standard engines (ethanol, or LPG, or ???), alternative engine types (electric, hybrid, or ???), etc. At every level, powerful economies and their businessmen and engineers are working to develop solutions.

Mm..
You seem to have a faith that viable alternatives to oil are possible.
I do not want to question this in absolute terms, but, where does your certainty come from?

[rtalman]

I've been doing a little research on switchgrass after seeing it mentioned by Puppycow.

The DOE did it's own study (http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html) and had a 6 year average of 11.5 tons of dry mass from switchgrass per acre per year. A company by the name of Coskata (http://www.coskataenergy.com/), which is being financed in part by GM, claims to have a process that can produce 100 gallons of ethanol per ton of dry organic material, without the need for enzymes. They also claim their process is cheap (around $1 per gallon of ethanol).

According to http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm the U.S. consumes about 146 billion gallons of gasoline per year, so we would need roughly 1.3 million acres of land to produce enough switchgrass to replace the gasoline we currently use per year. According to the DOE study, switchgrass can grow most anywhere, and doesn't require a lot of irrigation.

Now I don't discount the idea that Coskata could be another Steorn, but it does look promising.

[RecoveringYuppy]

How did you arrive at 1.3 million acres? 11.5 tons of switchgrass/acre-year. 100 gallons ethanol per ton switchgrass means a little over 1,000 gallons/acre-year. 146 billion divided by 1,000 is 146 million acres.

[rtalman]

How did you arrive at 1.3 million acres? 11.5 tons of switchgrass/acre-year. 100 gallons ethanol per ton switchgrass means a little over 1,000 gallons/acre-year. 146 billion divided by 1,000 is 146 million acres.You are right, I grabbed the number from the DOE paper...Bransby's 6-year average, 11.5 tons a year, translates into about 11,500 gallons of ethanol per acre.then I rounded up to 150 billion gallons a year and divided by 11,500 gallons. I did not catch the previous sentence in the same paper Bransby's site holds the one-year record at 15 tons per acre. Those are dry tons weighed after all the moisture's been baked out. Convert that into ethanol, an alcohol that can fuel vehicles, and it equals about 1,500 gallons per acre.Mea Culpa.

ETA: At 115 gallons per ton, we would need ~130.5 million acres of land to produce 150 billion gallons of ethanol. Currently, 495 million acres of U.S. land is used to produce timber for wood products (http://www.hpva.org/products/facts.asp)

[WildCat]

According to the DOE study, switchgrass can grow most anywhere, and doesn't require a lot of irrigation.
But to convert that switchgrass to ethanol requires water, and lots of it.

[rtalman]

But to convert that switchgrass to ethanol requires water, and lots of it.What constitutes a lot? The Coskata process uses less than one gallon of fresh water per gallon of ethanol produced, versus 3-5 for corn, and as much as 7 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol for enzymatic routes.http://www.coskataenergy.com/process-advantages.html

[Hindmost]

You are right, I grabbed the number from the DOE paper...then I rounded up to 150 billion gallons a year and divided by 11,500 gallons. I did not catch the previous sentence in the same paper Mea Culpa.


Just to make this a bigger mess...the US also uses 60 billion gallons of diesel fuel a year.

glenn

[WildCat]

What constitutes a lot? http://www.coskataenergy.com/process-advantages.html
That's a lot! Where will all that water come from? It's already scarce in most of the western US and even in parts of the eastern US due to drought.

[Jimbo07]

But to convert that switchgrass to ethanol requires water, and lots of it.

So does oilsands extraction. To a lesser extent, coal and nuclear plants use a fair bit of water. Water may become the precious resource...

[rtalman]

That's a lot! Where will all that water come from? It's already scarce in most of the western US and even in parts of the eastern US due to drought.I don't know if the process requires potable water or not, but how much water is just flushed down toilets every year?

Assuming 300 million people using the john once in the morning and once in the evening at 1 gallon a flush (most low-flow toilets are 1.6 gallons per flush), 300,000,000*2*365=219,000,000,000 gallons of water a year.

Surely if we are 'pissing' away that much water annually, we can afford to put water into ethanol production, which will return it to the ecosystem after being used.

[Matteo Martini]

You are right, I grabbed the number from the DOE paper...then I rounded up to 150 billion gallons a year and divided by 11,500 gallons. I did not catch the previous sentence in the same paper Mea Culpa.

ETA: At 115 gallons per ton, we would need ~130.5 million acres of land to produce 150 billion gallons of ethanol. Currently, 495 million acres of U.S. land is used to produce timber for wood products (http://www.hpva.org/products/facts.asp)

Mm..
I am not sure of the maths, as I got 1 billion acres were needed (my post n.20)
Also, this solution can be OK for the US, as they have lots of land, but.. what about countries with little land (Japan, Italy, ..)?

I think solar is offering more interesting perspectives, at the moment..

Just read in the net (and posted in other threads as well.):
The NYT quotes Nansolar's founder and CEO Martin Roscheisen saying, "With a $1-per-watt panel, it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems."
http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustaina...google_gr.html

With an expense of USD20000, you can have a 10KW system, which can power your electric car
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive...-volt-concept/

[rtalman]

Mm..
I am not sure of the maths, as I got 1 billion acres were needed (my post n.20)
Also, this solution can be OK for the US, as they have lots of land, but.. what about countries with little land (Japan, Italy, ..)?Let them eat cake. :D

Lots of land in Canada, South America, Africa... if ethanol production is the way, wouldn't it be a global commodity just like oil is now?

I think solar is offering more interesting perspectives, at the moment..
Why not work on both? And other sources, too?

[Matteo Martini]

Let them eat cake. :D

Lots of land in Canada, South America, Africa... if ethanol production is the way, wouldn't it be a global commodity just like oil is now?

Why not work on both? And other sources, too?

I basically agree with the approach.
I am just trying to figure out which will be the more convenient alternative to "normal" oil, just speculating..
Which will be the alternative that will come out in the next few years
Oil from Tar Sands can be also used, even if I do not think it can be exctracted fast enough.

[rtalman]

I basically agree with the approach.
I am just trying to figure out which will be the more convenient alternative to "normal" oil, just speculating..
Which will be the alternative that will come out in the next few years
Oil from Tar Sands can be also used, even if I do not think it can be exctracted fast enough.Even if we have not reached peak oil, petroleum is still a finite resource. Oil from Tar Sands will only extend the due date.

[a_unique_person]

Mm..
I am not sure of the maths, as I got 1 billion acres were needed (my post n.20)
Also, this solution can be OK for the US, as they have lots of land, but.. what about countries with little land (Japan, Italy, ..)?

I think solar is offering more interesting perspectives, at the moment..

Just read in the net (and posted in other threads as well.):
The NYT quotes Nansolar's founder and CEO Martin Roscheisen saying, "With a $1-per-watt panel, it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems."
http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustaina...google_gr.html

With an expense of USD20000, you can have a 10KW system, which can power your electric car
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive...-volt-concept/

Convenient time to mention this?

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2140277.htm



TONY EASTLEY: As increasing fuel costs and rising interest rates start to bite, a group of academics believes the problems will be insignificant compared to looming global food shortages.

At a conference in Melbourne today experts will discuss what they say is the growing scarcity of food and rising prices.

As for Australia - they foresee an increasing need for biofuels and an insatiable demand from India and China for Australian produce.

Michael Edwards has this report.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: Listening to those who fear global food production isn't keeping pace with demand, isn't comforting.

Science journalist Julian Cribb is one of those people.

JULIAN CRIBB: The amount of food available has dropped fairly precipitously since about the year 2000.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: Julian Cribb lists varying reasons for the decline and says there's little being done at a governmental level to reverse it.

JULIAN CRIBB: There's drought, there's biofuels, which is taking over a lot of agricultural land area where we are burning millions of tonnes of grain in our cars these days which we could be eating or feeding to animals. There is the impact of climate change and particularly we are running out of land and we are running out of water.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: And he says Australia, despite its strong agricultural sector, will feel the effects.

JULIAN CRIBB: As food prices go up worldwide you can expect the price of staple food in Australia to go up. You can expect meat prices to go up because an awful lot of meat is fed on grain these days.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: Julian Cribb is just one expert speaking at a forum in Melbourne today about global food security and the prices Australians could have to pay at the supermarket.

Joining him will be Mick Keogh from the Australian Farm Institute.

Mick Keogh says that increasing demand from fast growing economies such as China and India is having an impact.

MICK KEOGH: Instead of three meals of rice a day they start looking at products like pork, poultry, fish and then beef and sheep meats. The reason that creates extra demand is for example to create a kilo of beef requires seven kilos of grain so what you do in shifting to animal protein is dramatically increase the demands on grain production.



There's an awful lot of people in China and India who are richer than me.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

They were saying the same thing in the 70's. We know how that prediction turned out. :rolleyes:

Wait, What! We have yet to reach the peak?


I was told the sky was falling 30 tears ago and...?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Even if we have not reached peak oil, petroleum is still a finite resource. Oil from Tar Sands will only extend the due date.

What if the due date is 500 years from now?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Let them eat cake. :D

Lots of land in Canada, South America, Africa... if ethanol production is the way, wouldn't it be a global commodity just like oil is now?
Why not work on both? And other sources, too?

Uhhh, we eat corn and sugar. These are already commodities. :boggled:

[Matteo Martini]

Convenient time to mention this?

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2140277.htm

There's an awful lot of people in China and India who are richer than me.

Mm..

Which evidence do we have that there is a "growing scarcity of food"?
"The amount of food available has dropped fairly precipitously since about the year 2000"
Who said that?
Evidence?

[rtalman]

Uhhh, we eat corn and sugar. These are already commodities. :boggled:Switchgrass will grow in areas currently not devoted to agriculture. In the South where the land has been so depleted from cotton crops that most farmers believed no crop would ever grow again, switchgrass can grow in abundance, and it returns nutrients to the soil.

[Beerina]

Even if we have not reached peak oil, petroleum is still a finite resource. Oil from Tar Sands will only extend the due date.

I don't even know if that's true. Creation of oil or other complex hydrocarbons by genenetically engineered bacteria in the lab is a big priority right now, and should be highly possible.

[Solitaire]

So we might run out of oil, but we won't run out of electricity? Because that just comes out of a socket in the wall whenever you want it.

Personally, I think Solar Electric Vehicles will save the world.

Prius White Paper (http://www.solarelectricalvehicles.com/articles/prius-white-paper.shtml)

But then I'm an optimist. :)

[Matteo Martini]

Personally, I think Solar Electric Vehicles will save the world.

Prius White Paper (http://www.solarelectricalvehicles.com/articles/prius-white-paper.shtml)

But then I'm an optimist. :)

I have the same hope too.
High efficiency solar panels at home, high-efficiency electric car and some recharge stations around the country

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Nuclear energy is the current solution. To bad the hippies protesting NO NUKES in the 60's and 70's were so stoned that they do not remember that they were protesting bombs not energy plants.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I don't know if "peak oil" is true or not, but my back-of-the envelope calculation (proven reserves/rate of consumption) says only 42 more years of consumption at current rates (insert caveats here).
Unfortunately, that calculation is deficient in a number of respects and the caveats are probably larger than the assumptions. E.G. that no probable reserves will be brought on stream, that no other hydrocarbons will be found or that economic changes will not make existing deposits more economic for longer etc etc.

[Rob Lister]

How did you arrive at 1.3 million acres? 11.5 tons of switchgrass/acre-year. 100 gallons ethanol per ton switchgrass means a little over 1,000 gallons/acre-year. 146 billion divided by 1,000 is 146 million acres.

which, when you consider overhead like access roads, housing, storage, processing, etc, works out to an area about the size of texas (268,000 sqmi).

What to do with the tailings?

[RecoveringYuppy]

I don't even know if that's true. Creation of oil or other complex hydrocarbons by genenetically engineered bacteria in the lab is a big priority right now, and should be highly possible.
"highly possible". Can you justify that?

The problem with any bio-whatever energy solution is that human energy usage is substantial compared to the total energy consumption of all other forms of life on Earth combined. Life on earth captures something in the neighborhood of 500 trillion KwH/year. Human energy needs are in the neighborhood of 125 trillion KwH/year and growing. Human energy needs are going to exceed the needs of all other forms of life on earth combined in the near future.

Producing chemical feedstocks with bacteria might be feasible, but our energy needs? That raises some substantial questions of what scale can be achieved with bio-energy technology.

[Almo]

I don't even know if that's true. Creation of oil or other complex hydrocarbons by genenetically engineered bacteria in the lab is a big priority right now, and should be highly possible.

The energy has to come from somewhere. If you get bacteria to convert 500 KJ of energy into some type of oil, that energy still had to be supplied by something.

If you're saying it would be some roundabout way of storing solar energy in an easily transportable and useable medium, then that would be really cool.

[shadron]

They were saying the same thing in the 70's. We know how that prediction turned out. :rolleyes:

Yeah, true, but then they only have to be right once. (only half facetiously).