We may be among the last generation of airline pilots

[ilovelamp]

I have an I idea. Everyone take a course on your time off and if you get laid off due to no more oil you can fall back on that. Personally Im investing in my GF to support me. She's going to be a clinical pyscholigist soon, and with lots of people out of a job, no more oil, she'll be a busy girl.

[baron_dude]

100 years is enough to get me through life.....phew!

Seriously though, maybe time for me to think about using my science degree to find new fuels for planes instead of flying them.

that being said we are due for an ice age in about another 20000 years or so, buy up all the bottled water and dried food now before it rockets up in price. The real issue we should be looking at is the rapidly expanding population of earth, becuase the real issue is that earth has a capacity and we are nearing it.....over population will cause an eventual population crash and then lack of flying jobs will seem like nothing. But I think that is a ways off too.

[RenegadeAV8R]

They have already run a jet engine on a 30/70 mixture of synthetic kerosene, and more recently, a 50/50 mixture, with no modification to the engine. With slight changes, a jet engine can run on 100% synthetic kerosene biofuel. There is also synthetic gasoline and diesel for piston engines.

"synthetic" fuel...

"synthetic" kerosene is made of COAL. Coal is a fossil fuel, as is oil.

Biofuel is not sustainable simply because it comes from agriculture, and agriculture is already used to feed the human population. How much land could be required to produce the equivalent of 86 millions barrels of oil that we consume *everyday*?

By the way, today's agriculture is highly "efficient" because of the fertilizers... ALL derived from oil. When these fertilizers will be removed from the equation, the agriculture yield will be lower that it was before the "Green Revolution" of the '30s...

RenegadeAV8R

[KAG]

100 years is enough to get me through life.....phew!
. The real issue we should be looking at is the rapidly expanding population of earth, becuase the real issue is that earth has a capacity and we are nearing it.....over population will cause an eventual population crash and then lack of flying jobs will seem like nothing. But I think that is a ways off too.

Actually the pre oil population the earth could sustain was about 1 billion. We've passed that.

[VikVaughan]

They have already run a jet engine on a 30/70 mixture of synthetic kerosene, and more recently, a 50/50 mixture, with no modification to the engine. With slight changes, a jet engine can run on 100% synthetic kerosene biofuel. There is also synthetic gasoline and diesel for piston engines.

"synthetic" fuel...

"synthetic" kerosene is made of COAL. Coal is a fossil fuel, as is oil.

Biofuel is not sustainable simply because it comes from agriculture, and agriculture is already used to feed the human population. How much land could be required to produce the equivalent of 86 millions barrels of oil that we consume *everyday*?

By the way, today's agriculture is highly "efficient" because of the fertilizers... ALL derived from oil. When these fertilizers will be removed from the equation, the agriculture yield will be lower that it was before the "Green Revolution" of the '30s...

RenegadeAV8R

Only SASOL is made from coal. There are crop based synthetics as well.

Regardless, the fact that coal is a "fossil fuel" is not necessarily a bad thing, as a)its scarcity may or may not be similar to that of oil. b) the geographical location of coal resources differ from oil. The only loss here is sustainability, which is mute in light of the fact that it can be synthesized form crops anyhow.

"How much land could be required to produce the equivalent of 86 millions barrels of oil that we consume"

Have you actually run the numbers? If you haven't, this is as much an argument for it as against it, in lieu of a tangibile number.

One number I HAVE heard from a halfway useful source is that hemp crops could provide the necessary biomass needed to produce enough fuel to replace oil. But then again, hemp is evil, so lets not think about that option

[MDT]

"Soylent Green is people!"

[. ._]

Hey, ya gotta do what ya gotta do for them multi-turbine hours...

[Odysseus]

I believe most people here understand that the real problem with peak oil is not really lack of supply, it is the dramatic increase in demand. This problem is not limited to oil and aviation, it is global and concerns every aspect of modern life. Population control is the only way for us to reduce the demand on our limited supply of resources, whether it be water, uranium, or oil.

The fact is there are more than 6 billion humans on this Earth; there are simply not enough natural resources to go around. Sure there are huge tracks of uninhabited land still left on Earth and there are probably plenty of undiscovered oil and metal deposits, but that does not mean we should keep reproducing until every square inch of inhabitable land is either housing, farmland, or has been ecologically devastated by mining or oil drilling. We can not become like cockroaches, which infest their environment until it becomes uninhabitable.

The most simple solution to this problem is for every couple on Earth to have a maximum of 1 or 2 children. Most industrialized nations already have a childbirth average or 1.5-2 per woman, this practice just needs to spread to the developing nations of the world. Fewer children means less mouths to feed for struggling families in developing (or third world) countries, and a better education and standard of living for the next generation. We need to break the cycle of poverty wherein a family conceives more children than they can feed, which unfortunately ensures those who survive to adulthood are malnourished and uneducated, and in turn conceive more children than they can feed.

So in short what I am saying is we need to effectively control the number of children per family (preferably by limiting this number to 1 child per family). We can do this in our country (and eventually in other nations) by making parents with more than 2 children pay for the real cost of raising their children. It is certain less people would have large families if they had to pay for the real incurred cost of education and healthcare of their children. Sure we all pay taxes for these things, but what I'm suggesting is to stop giving tax breaks to families with more than two kids. In developing nations, increased education about contraception and an advance in women’s rights will help decrease family size, as it has done in the industrialized world over the last 50 years.

Some people will say this idea is cruel, unethical, eugenic or whatever, but I think the world our children will live in if we continue down our current path of overpopulation will be far more cruel and unethical. One hundred years from now (even though I will not live that long), I would prefer a peaceful world with 3 billion people who enjoy a high standard of living than a resource depleted world with 24 billion hungry, uneducated and warring inhabitants.

[randallg]

To those worried about overpopulation, you can relax. According to UN estimates, world population will peak about 9 billion in 2050. Then it will begin to fall. Google "un population estimates 2050" for lots of information.

Europe's population is already declining. Birth rates are negative in every developed country except the US, and declining everywhere. Believe it or not, in the long run, lack of workers to support an aging population will become a bigger problem than too many people.

[sky_flyer]

I still think that bio and synthetic fuels are the way to go.

VikVaughan wrote:
They have already run a jet engine on a 30/70 mixture of synthetic kerosene, and more recently, a 50/50 mixture, with no modification to the engine. With slight changes, a jet engine can run on 100% synthetic kerosene biofuel. There is also synthetic gasoline and diesel for piston engines.

would you happen to have a link for this I would be interested in reading up more about this.

Also thinking back to the cross continental bio jet a few months back what does every one think of bio fuels for aircraft???

[North Shore]

Also thinking back to the cross continental bio jet a few months back what does every one think of bio fuels for aircraft???

Greatest thing since sliced bread, IMHO. Assuming some sort of a biodiesel-like fuel, then as long as they solve the gelling at low temperatures problems, then what's not to like? Lowered CO2 emissions, renewable, potentially homegrown, and no need to drastically re-engineer the existing fleet to run on exotic fuels such as Hydrogen...

[VikVaughan]

I still think that bio and synthetic fuels are the way to go.

VikVaughan wrote:
They have already run a jet engine on a 30/70 mixture of synthetic kerosene, and more recently, a 50/50 mixture, with no modification to the engine. With slight changes, a jet engine can run on 100% synthetic kerosene biofuel. There is also synthetic gasoline and diesel for piston engines.

would you happen to have a link for this I would be interested in reading up more about this.

Also thinking back to the cross continental bio jet a few months back what does every one think of bio fuels for aircraft???

Here are a few that might be of interest:

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/0805 ... nFuel.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7817849.stm
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/10 ... flight.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 175853.htm
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002476.html

[KAG]

Sorry to dig this thread up but I just watched "a crude awakening - the oil crash" (at blockbuster). It's a few years old but is pretty powerful stuff. If you have any interest in the peak oil argument, it is a very good watch.

[Romantic Lung]

Ever hear of a word called: Monopoly?

or the term: price fixing?

A couple posts alluded to this already.

Regardless; There is considerable application of science in aviation, correct?.
Why not apply those same standards, to the production and distribution of value throughout society in general.

Peak oil or not, Doesn't change by one atom, the social relations that govern "our" society.

Or that a pilot, however skilled, has to sell that skill on the market. A market which is anarchy in production, and at the same time, directed and forced at times overtly, upon the majority by an exceedingly miniscule minority.

[KAG]

It’s easier to think all is well, that nothing needs improving rather then face the truth.
I challenge you, watch the movie; some of those speaking out have a few more facts and experience with the oil industry. Some on there may surprise you.
It's not a renewable resource, it’s a finite resource. One that we are using at an increasing rate when supplies are at peak production or near so. At some point it’s going to become painfully clear we need to make a change. We are taking the first steps with smaller more fuel efficient cars, but we must continue this trend. I just hope it’s just that a trend, one that will fade.
For arguments sake, even if there were unlimited supplies of oil and natural gas, wouldn’t it better for everyone to get off the pollution an oil based economy produces?

[2namelt]

+1 to Biofuel.

Whether peak oil is a myth or not, oil is expensive; compared to my friends truck runs on 80% vegetable oil that comes straight from MCDONALDS!