Shell Oil: The Last Gasoline Car Will Be Built in 2070

It's hard to make such a long term prediction, so grains of salt taken. When oil really becomes less viable, due to the costs to extract it, of course other methods will become more attractive as fuel sources. I mean, how many whale oil lamps are made nowadays? :p
 
Seems like a possible goal. We will still need to extract oil for the many , many , many uses its still apart of in terms of our everyday lives.

Plastic anything will have to be substituted as well by then.
 
In other news Shell announces acquisition of the company that promises new battery technology
 
sfsuphysics said:
In other news Shell announces acquisition of the company that promises new battery technology
Click to expand...
More like feeding a narrative we're rapidly running out to raise the price. I mean between 2000 and 2005 under the headlines of 9/11 & Iraq, the price of gas tripled. But those things never actually reduced supplies and they are long since past and people don't realize they've been being gouged for the past 8 years. People are easy to social engineer.

In fact many have let themselves be trained to be rabid against using anything but gas.
 
jpm100 said:
More like feeding a narrative we're rapidly running out to raise the price. I mean between 2000 and 2005 under the headlines of 9/11 & Iraq, the price of gas tripled. But those things never actually reduced supplies and they are long since past and people don't realize they've been being gouged for the past 8 years. People are easy to social engineer.

In fact many have let themselves be trained to be rabid against using anything but gas.
Click to expand...

The price has more to do with the speculators and manipulation of the stock market than anything else.

That said, we are rapidly running out of oil. Current estimates that take into account current worldwide usage, easily accessible remaining oil fields, and *also* take into account the growing use of all the developing industrializing nations predict we will run out someone between 2050-2075...

This is why there is such a current push for moving to tar sands and shale gas and all kinds of shit we shouldn't even consider because of the horrendous environmental impact they will cause.

The oil companies just want new sources of oil (even if getting them might make the planet uninhabitable in the future) because they don't want to lose control of the energy market to new technology...
 
Nothing like the sound of a V8, V10 or V12 engine. They'll be missed when electric cars become the norm.
 
Yes, let's make technological predictions about 60 years from now. Those have historically been wise.

Lord knows nothing like nuclear war will have an impact.
 
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot said:
This is why there is such a current push for moving to tar sands and shale gas and all kinds of shit we shouldn't even consider because of the horrendous environmental impact they will cause
Click to expand...

Ah yes...the "fracking" scare. One more environmental hoax advanced by movies that falls apart under close scrutiny.

And I like that we're still pushing the "Peak Oil" bullshit 40 years later, with larger stocks than we ever before imagined.

Fossil fuels are here to stay.
 
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot said:
That said, we are rapidly running out of oil.
Click to expand...
Not hardly, we are constantly finding new vast sources of oil, and more importantly are constantly passing up known sources because there are cheaper options available.

As technology advances making extracting the oil less expensive and oil becomes more expensive as a commodity, all the oil we have known about and pass up becomes available for use.

I assure you the shift from petroleum to alternative sources of energy will be very gradual as prices reach equilibrium, and not until oil prices exceed alternatives will we see a major shift. This will occur LONG before we run out of oil, so chances of running out of oil? Zero percent.
 
Stiletto said:
Ah yes...the "fracking" scare. One more environmental hoax advanced by movies that falls apart under close scrutiny.

And I like that we're still pushing the "Peak Oil" bullshit 40 years later, with larger stocks than we ever before imagined.

Fossil fuels are here to stay.
Click to expand...

Thousands of families with toxic water tables are sure "scared". It "scared" NY state enough to ban it and there is a large underground deposit as well in NY.
 
Stiletto said:
Ah yes...the "fracking" scare. One more environmental hoax advanced by movies that falls apart under close scrutiny.

And I like that we're still pushing the "Peak Oil" bullshit 40 years later, with larger stocks than we ever before imagined.

Fossil fuels are here to stay.
Click to expand...

If fracking was as great as its promoters would have you believe the industry wouldn't have gone out of its way to become exempt from the clean water act.

It's the same song and dance every single time, the fossil industries' new technology is 'safe' and 'clean' until such time as its proven that it isn't and never will be.
 
Runningflame570 said:
It's the same song and dance every single time, the fossil industries' new technology is 'safe' and 'clean' until such time as its proven that it isn't and never will be.
Click to expand...

Ok...because without fossil fuels where would we be exactly?
 
kirbyrj said:
Ok...because without fossil fuels where would we be exactly?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It's like asking 'without wood and coal-burning heaters where would we all be?' the answer at least at one point in our history was 'probably mostly dead'.

That doesn't mean we should massively subsidize wood and coal-burning heaters, make up nonsense about gas/electric heaters/heat pumps, and reflexively attack anyone who points out their harmful impacts to human health as a doomsayer who is assaulting our way of life.

The technology is available and it's all rapidly dropping in price as it becomes more widely utilized, just like its proponents had argued to begin with. The argument shouldn't be whether or not we continue to produce billions of tons of toxins for purposes of combustion, it should be how rapidly we can stop doing so and the best way to go about that.
 
Stiletto said:
Ah yes...the "fracking" scare. One more environmental hoax advanced by movies that falls apart under close scrutiny.

And I like that we're still pushing the "Peak Oil" bullshit 40 years later, with larger stocks than we ever before imagined.

Fossil fuels are here to stay.
Click to expand...

Lol .. what? Have you even researched fracking? The very nature of it is polluting. So much that good ol' Tricky Dicky got Halliburton all sorts of exclusions to frack like there's no tomorrow.
 
Spidey329 said:
Lol .. what? Have you even researched fracking? The very nature of it is polluting. So much that good ol' Tricky Dicky got Halliburton all sorts of exclusions to frack like there's no tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Bro, do you even lift? Nothing like spoonfed ideologues regurgitating agiprop.

These aren't even predictions; they are forecasts based on two entirely different scenarios. They are really built as management thought exercises: What would be the best for Shell in scenario A vs scenario B. Part of the reason for Shell's comparatively poor 2013 performance is the huge bet on natural gas they made, vs. other companies' investments in crude. Now, that may pay off in some form down the line but it pays to think about what the world looks like when making such investments.
 
Stiletto said:
What I am denying is that what produced that fear was anything more than fearmongering.
Click to expand...
Did you actually read it? It's not denying that there are "risks", and the author of that industry mouthpiece blog is just asserting that "fracking" as used colloquially (i.e. as the extraction method of shale oil and gas which is done using hydraulic fracturing to get at the resources) is not technically correct. When done magically (because arglebargle nonsense), the isolated step of hydraulic fracturing itself isn't what causes the problems*.

Shale development entails risks, and there are specific and unique risks with each part of the overall process. Given the rules and regulations that apply to those specific processes, conflating one for the other could potentially result in disastrous public policies, including new rules or regulations that do not solve any legitimate problems.
Click to expand...

* it's the poisonous waste water used in fracking and gas released from fracking that are the problems, which have nothing to do with fracking :rolleyes:
 
I highly doubt we will even be using cars in 2070, there will be some more efficient way of transporting people developed by then.
 
Follow the link in the article. It's not real. Although, it won't be too far off if people keep breeding like there are infinite resources.

"scenarios, therefore, are not intended to be predictions of likely future events or outcomes and investors should not rely on them when making an investment"
 
You are assuming people in the eastern hemisphere give a shit what anyone in the western one thinks.
 
My only hope for 2070 is that people by then have opened their eyes and ceased voting morons into office.

Lol, who am I kidding.
 
Stiletto said:
Ah yes...the "fracking" scare. One more environmental hoax advanced by movies that falls apart under close scrutiny.

And I like that we're still pushing the "Peak Oil" bullshit 40 years later, with larger stocks than we ever before imagined.

Fossil fuels are here to stay.
Click to expand...

I live in Ohio, and I've personally sampled pre-fracking and post-fracking ground water, I'm no geologist or hydrologist, but the stuff (formerly known as water) coming out after fracking didn't taste right.
 
Godmachine said:
Seems like a possible goal. We will still need to extract oil for the many , many , many uses its still apart of in terms of our everyday lives.

Plastic anything will have to be substituted as well by then.
Click to expand...

Not really when you think about it. As long as all automobiles are off gas then theres not much need for crude oil. Pretty much every other use it has can be substituted and in 60 years tons of improvements will come along.
 
dochmbi said:
I highly doubt we will even be using cars in 2070, there will be some more efficient way of transporting people developed by then.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's what they thought 60 years ago too.
 
dochmbi said:
I highly doubt we will even be using cars in 2070, there will be some more efficient way of transporting people developed by then.
Click to expand...

Public transport was the norm until the 50s before the whole automobile/highway craze developed and car culture was established in the US. With the sheer expense of re-expanding transit systems these days and lack of investment in public transport (after tearing down all those transit networks, replacing light rail with buses, and going on highway-building binges in the 50s and 60s), I have serious doubts we're really going back that to that more-efficient way of transporting people.
 
They have been saying for years that we will run out of fossil fuels but we haven't yet and we use more then ever. It is hard for me to believe that that many dinosaurs and plants died to provide that crude we have been using. When they dig up dinosaurs there is no oil there. Some of the oil rigs in the oceans if you look back on maps have always been covered by water so did the Dino's walk out there and die? When they DNA the crude it doesn't match dinosaurs or plants. I believe crude is a natural resource of Mother Earth. I'm not sure how its made but the story from the Oil companies does not convince me.
 
Pylon said:
Public transport was the norm until the 50s before the whole automobile/highway craze developed and car culture was established in the US. With the sheer expense of re-expanding transit systems these days and lack of investment in public transport (after tearing down all those transit networks, replacing light rail with buses, and going on highway-building binges in the 50s and 60s), I have serious doubts we're really going back that to that more-efficient way of transporting people.
Click to expand...
More-efficient my ass. Fixed mass transit is less efficient primarily because its so completely inflexible.

If one area booms and another contracts over time, or the city simply expands, its extremely simple to add or subtract buses and bus stops that can go anywhere a road is, and you do need roads. Light rail on the other hand is hugely expensive to tear up roads and add the tracks and stops, and so they are generally only used in static environments with extremely high population density.

Personal transportation is also a hell of a lot more time efficient for the average person, which is why it is so much more desirable when it can be afforded. A light rail or subway station isn't going to stop by your front door in the suburbs and take you within feet of your office building. A car will, and you can enjoy the comfort of your own vehicle, whereas in mass transit you have no control and may be sitting between an intimidating gang-banger to your left and a drunk hobo that just vomited to your right, while some urban youths shout at each other in front of you.

Mass transit sucks. Everyone knows it sucks. People use it when they can't afford private transportation, or people have had so many g'damn babies each generation that an area has become so completely overpopulated that private transportation is no longer viable due to traffic jams.

IMO, you want to fix the root of the issue of an energy and pollution crisis... sterilize every woman after she's had two children and close the borders.
 
Pylon said:
Public transport was the norm until the 50s before the whole automobile/highway craze developed and car culture was established in the US. With the sheer expense of re-expanding transit systems these days and lack of investment in public transport (after tearing down all those transit networks, replacing light rail with buses, and going on highway-building binges in the 50s and 60s), I have serious doubts we're really going back that to that more-efficient way of transporting people.
Click to expand...

Light rail and busses are not more efficient (at least in $) in most cases.
 
pxc said:
Did you actually read it? It's not denying that there are "risks", and the author of that industry mouthpiece blog...
Click to expand...

Ah, the classic environmentalist defense: when your argument holds water, you're in the pocket of Big (Fill-in-the-Blank).

Not like environmental fearmongering is a huge moneymaking profession, or anything. Al Gore is practically destitute.
 
Pylon said:
Public transport was the norm until the 50s before the whole automobile/highway craze developed and car culture was established in the US.
Click to expand...

"Car culture" translated: "the point at which Americans had better access to travel freely and quickly than they ever had before".

"Car culture", "gun culture", "tobacco culture"...I like how we can now add "culture" to anything we want banished from society, but we know is sufficiently popular with most people that suggesting outright bans would be pointless.
 
Helion and that other company... General Fusion I want to say? are expecting to commercialize fusion by 2020 at a similar kw/hr to the cost of coal.

Considering coal is very cheap and battery tech is advancing rapidly for reasons other than just cars, I'd guess this estimate is really conservative.

Internal combustion engines are really inefficient, tons of the energy is given off as heat... they're only like 30% efficient. Factor in drivetrain losses and you're wasting quite a bit of energy. They're just convenient now due to the fuel source. That's cool though, they've gotten us this far and will continue working for us until we find a fully viable replacement.

Electric cars with motors basically in the wheels and batteries in the floor will probably perform a lot better and be more efficient by then. Or we'll have something else entirely that will make all of that pointless. 2070 is a long way off. I doubt we'll see internal combustion engines in personal vehicles as the majority on-road propulsion means by then, but who knows.
 
Sparky said:
They have been saying for years that we will run out of fossil fuels but we haven't yet and we use more then ever.
Click to expand...
lol are you stupid? Nobody ever said "we will run out of fossil fuels in the next couple of years". By the time we run out you will probably be an old man or even dead for that matter. The point is WE WILL RUN OUT EVENTUALLY. Please god tell me you dont think fossil fuels are an infinite resource. I mean, you DO agree that it will eventually run out, riiiiggghhhttt?
 
McFry said:
lol are you stupid? Nobody ever said "we will run out of fossil fuels in the next couple of years". By the time we run out you will probably be an old man or even dead for that matter. The point is WE WILL RUN OUT EVENTUALLY. Please god tell me you dont think fossil fuels are an infinite resource. I mean, you DO agree that it will eventually run out, riiiiggghhhttt?
Click to expand...

LiveScience doesn't agree. Take it up with them, I guess.
 
Kueller said:
I live in Ohio, and I've personally sampled pre-fracking and post-fracking ground water, I'm no geologist or hydrologist, but the stuff (formerly known as water) coming out after fracking didn't taste right.
Click to expand...

See, the scare tactic worked on you. If anything, fracking produces clean water and is often used to fertilize the soil for future food growing. Of course, they don't want you to know all that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top