<Future Scenarios: Mapping the Cultural Implications of Peak Oil and Climate Change The Oil Drum Report on First General Assembly of ASPO Switzerland, May 24th 2008, University of Basel>

309 comments on What If Gas Cost $100 a Gallon?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

DaveMart on May 26, 2008 - 5:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Some around here regard me as a cornucopian, but powering aircraft is a really very difficult problem indeed with oil shortages.
This is the exception which proves the rule, and if you haven't got fossil fuels then producing hydrogen or artificial liquid fuels would seem to be the only way.
Doing that will be very expensive and take a lot of time, and it should not be held in any reasonable contemplation that for many years the mass travel industry will cease as we know it today.
Very expensive flights across the Atlantic and Pacific with some turbo-props or propfans for shorter journeys but mainly trains and boats is the size of it.
Good-bye Hawaii.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
greenish on May 27, 2008 - 12:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Good-bye Hawaii.

Aloha also means goodbye.

Gotta go start carving a giant stone head now...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
abelardlindsay on May 27, 2008 - 12:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Coal-To-Liquids is how we'll make Jet fuel in the future...
The air force is already pumping money into it and no they don't care about the extra greenhouse gas emissions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Termoil on May 27, 2008 - 3:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm sure they do care - they just have higher and more urgent priorities. Whether they will make enough CTL Jet Fuel to sustain cheap consumer flights to Disney World and Hawaii remains to be seen.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on May 27, 2008 - 4:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Good to know they'll be able to keep their $240 million fighter-bombers going in a time of economic depression, maybe they will save Washington the embarassment of the world doing something productive and blow up a few wind turbines :)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
paulk_04 on May 27, 2008 - 1:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"Very expensive flights across the Atlantic and Pacific with some turbo-props or propfans for shorter journeys but mainly trains and boats is the size of it."

Zepplins anyone?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DaveMart on May 27, 2008 - 6:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Funny you should say so - I posted on a demonstrator air-ship the other day!
I think technological solutions are possible - but the present industry will disappear/remodel long before they come along.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NeverLNG on May 27, 2008 - 2:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

We shared comments on that airship yesterday. Intriguing idea. What do you suppose a transatlantic fare would have to cost? Seems like it might be pretty high-- that thing will take a while to cross the ocean, and people will need to sleep, so they won't be able to carry many passengers. It will be sort of like an arial Amtrak

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
vtpeaknik on May 27, 2008 - 2:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

What makes y'all think that airships are more energy efficient? They are bulky, thus have major drag, needing a lot of energy to move through the air. And that's at slow speeds, meaning that any headwind is a major additional loss of efficiency.

The relevant efficiency is per mile, not per minute. It is a common misconception that the engines of an airplane keep it in the air, thus the bouyancy of a ligher-than-air airship seems attractive. But in truth the wings keep an airplane aloft, while the engines are there to overcome drag.

Moreover, the helium to fill airships is depleting (and way too precious to waste on such - it is not "used up" on purpose but it does always leak). Hydrogen is renewable (in principle), but flammable...

The most efficient way to fly long distances is with long wings at relatively slow speeds. Sailplanes fly for hours with no engine at all, extracting roughly 5 horsepower (for a single-place aircraft) from rising air movements. I.e., with a 5HP engine such a sailplane could travel in a straight line at about 70 mph in still air.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fordprefect on May 27, 2008 - 3:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I would think a decent application for airships would be similar to sailing ships, but different. What happens if you don't try to go where you WANT to go, but instead just drop the airship into the jetstream and use power only for maneuvering? I know it's a one way street, but it's one way at 90+ kph energy free. On such a large structure, hot air should work pretty efficiently.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DaveMart on May 28, 2008 - 6:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That's a very good point.
To the extent that they are adopted I would see them following the trade winds, rather than powering through.
The large surface area also means that part of the power can be generated by PV.
I don't see them as anything remotely approaching the current airliner fleet though - perhaps some might be used as heavy lift vehicles instead of road transport.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

309 comments on What If Gas Cost $100 a Gallon?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version