The future of Motorcycling
 

Hi,

I was just thinking about what is the future of Motorcycling when we face the prospect of running out of oil pretty soon?

I mean it seems that in only a few decade there will be no oil left
It does not seems to be an issue when I looked at for example Aprilia willing to develop a V4 engine developped from their racing engine or Harley focusing their all brand on the famous V Twin?

Is there going to have any enjoyment riding an eletric bike?

What do you guys think

Gwel

There are a lot of factors to consider. Technologically Mains-Battery-Electric (from atomic power, wind, tidal, hydro etc.), fuel cell-electric (hydrogen) or alternative combustion technology is all possible. If everything else is equal people will go for the one that is nearest to a petrol engine. Given how many IC engines exist and need to be supported in the interim, I'd put my money in some sort of manufactured diesel substitute. Based on algae, grass crops or stewed coal? Who knows.

A 50 hp Diesel bike would suit me.

It's not just the technology though. If someone starts a huge war over the dregs of the oil, we could all (or those of us who are left) be using wheel barrows.

It'll take a major event to sort the technology out. As late as the 1930's if you put out a requirement for a delivery truck you'd still get the steam, mains-electric and battery-electric people turning up. Someone bought the equivalent of Betamax vehicles and it was only the Great Depression and Second World War that brought internal combustion fully on top. I'd expect the same for the next 50 years unless there is something very good (fusion?) or very bad (WW3) out there.

Andy

There are some around.
electric motorcycle - Google Search

I suspect diesel bikes will be next, like this:

Thunder Star 1200 Diesel by Star Twin

Or, even better, like this:

Military’s Diesel KLR 650 will be produced for civillian use

Bio-fuels are already available for diesel engines and these bikes can be fun. But I wouldn't worry too much. For the rest of our lifetimes, regular gasoline will be the norm. After that, either a gas substitute will enter production, or the technology used in electric vehicles will make serious advances... maybe they'll even be really fun! (But you'd have to put a baseball card in the spokes to get the sound.)

Oil will not run out .
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that oil is produced by bacteria and not from rotting dinosours and primaeval forests as is conventionally believed .
Bacteria have been found that produce hydrocarbons in areas that have the right combination of heat and raw materials .
Furthermore ,methane producing bacteria have been found in coal bed methane wells ,which proves that the methane within the well is not a finite resource . Modern science will ,no doubt, enhance these naturally occuring bacteria and use them to provide oil and natural gas .

Also vegetable oils and fuels are already being used in environmentally sensitive applications and their use will increase .

I have every confidence in the oil companies being able to sell me something to put in my bike until the end of time. The fact that everyone talks about electric and fuel cell vehicles when you can run an internal combustion engine on liquified Hydrogen directly seems odd. Maybe it's not that simple but if you could just replace the fuel tank with one full of liquified hydrogen and ride away why are we pissing around with electric vehicles?

Get used to the idea of no oil for private consumers, i say! As the huge rise in private-vehicle ownership in China/India (the £1400 Tata Nano, anyone...) results in massive demand for oil then the dwindling supplies will be reserved for Governmental use for the Military/Emergency-Services. According to a recent radio program, 1981 was the year when demand first outstripped supply (but who listens to scaremongering?). Anyway, i reckon that if you want to enjoy gadding around the planet in your own vehicle do it soon. Dave the Doom-monger.

Mwwaa ha ha ha ha!!!:stormy::stormy:

I'm pretty sure we won't run out of petrol. When new technology comes along, the old stuff doesn't disapear. I have a PC but can still get paper, I use a battery driver but also have a screwdriver. You can still buy leaded petrol and if I want to run my steam engine, I can still get coal and water.

Let the cuddly-bunny-tree-huggers come up with alternative fuels; it'll take the pressure off the oil supplies. They even believe that some of this technology is going to save the planet. It won't, (switch to Scottish accent) "we're all doomed"

....
...
.
But not for a while

- But a steam traction engine isn't really a practicable form of personal transport. Alternative fuels are the most realistic fallback we can use with our current vehicles, but to grow biofuels to cover our current needs would apparently need all currently available arable areas - so Hydrogen it is, then (good job Honda now have a prototype - Hurrah!).

I dont know if it's helpful to dismiss ecologists as "cuddly" etc. Many scientists are ecologists. You probably share their ideals even if you dont agree with all of it. You dont want to sound like the Daily Mail or J.Clarkson and we don't like him, do we?:eek3:

That depends what he's saying, does it not? Mr C is capable of great lucidity (allegedly, ho ho), in amongst the bombastic rubbish he often spouts. No comment on the Daily Mail :stormy:

Steam can be highly efficient - things have progressed a bit since Stephenson's Rocket .

You can also burn cuddly bunny manure .:rofl:

Myself ,I would prefer to distill alcohol and use some of it for fuel !:D

And you can tow the Manure Processing Plant in a little trailer you can tow behind the bike, or in a sidecar - wow, i can see it now... fantastic! Problem solved :rofl:

I'm not convinced.

Do you realise the biomass you would need to produce oil on the scale you are suggesting? Plus these bacteria, if they do indeed produce oil of the right grade and composition, do not do so out of thin air: they need their own metabolites to process, and where will they come from? Even if its possible, I do not think this is a viable or sensible solution: we need to move away from oil. Think of oil as the "tasty but very bad for you health" saturated fats of today's global economy...

Again, biofuels are not carbon neutral, and they use up a lot of arable soil that we are going to need if we are to feed everyone on this planet. I don't think we can afford to give up the 30% of arable land expected to be needed to replace oil to any comparable level; not at the rate humans are spawning left, right and centre.

And, frankly, even if oil needs could be met continually, do we really want to keep using such dirty fuels if there are cleaner and cheaper alternatives waiting to be developped? If in doubt take a few breaths from an exhaust pipe and see how good one feels...

Personally, I expect that there will be a period of clutching at straws and trying to hold on to the IC concept, but I think electric will follow. And why not? after a few years of demand for better products I expect battery technology will come on in leaps and bounds. Imagine a bike where you can map the power delivery,at home, not by tweeking fuel maps or carbs, but simply drawing a graph on your laptop and uploading!! Two stroke power bands without the smoke and rebuilds!! Brilliant!

I agree. There have been some recent tests of electric off-road bikes, in TBM I think, that have shown the potential. Problem is, we need to look at how we generate the electricity. Can you feel great about driving/riding your electic vehicle if the you get your charge from a coal fired powerstation?
I like the idea of an electric bike for some stealth green laning. Who would know you were out there ?

Your comparison with food "tastes great but bad for you" is what I was getting at. As alternative fuels/power become mainstream, the reserves of petroleum products won't be depleated meaning you could still rag about on your 2-stroke bike or drive your V8 pickup. (assuming you could afford it)

But think how many letters you post now that you have email. Are records electronic or paper driven now? Apart from the antiquated NHS... Paper will not last as a main form of info storage so I do not feel the analogy is accurate. As for the screwdriver, how many people use that screwdriver since they bought the cordless? I certainly don't unless I forgot to charge the spare...

I am interested and concerned about protecting not just the trees, but the environment as a whhole and yet, but by painting it in that light its made out to be something to scoffed and laughed at....why?

We get all excited about a new technology for, say, PCs or Digicams or TVs, but if its something that might make our overlander, V8, racerep, less growlly, we reject it...I don't get it. The IC engine must have been mind blowing when it was invented: I would like to see what next big leap we can achieve rather than leaving it to the sci-fi programmes to dream up! I want to see it happen. After all the IC basically helped society expand the way it has, but not always healthily IMO, would it not be cool to see in what new ways and directions we can grow with an all new concept? Imagine a society where oil was not the global priority. Not easy to do, is it?

The only reason that alternative fuels will not save the planet if because people are too lazy to make a change to their lives, or they do not like the idea of abandoning what they like, regardless of the advantages....

As for not being doomed just yet. Well, IMO, that depends on what we do now, because there is an almighty cluster-f#!k bearing on down on human society and to think otherwise, I think, is gonna get you sand in your ears...

OK. I get your point about freeing up resources, but I think this only an interim situation.

Would you actually want to rag around on those, that you have to pay to fill up, when you could get similar performance from electric, all "filled-up" from a panel on your roof, not from a speciallist supplier, "by appoinment" only!

Before dismissing references to the power of electric (easy to do given what is on the market now), just think about the changes in performace for digital cameras, PC harddrives and processors and mobile phones over the last 15 years: all thanks to the demand existing. Now super-impose that potential, on a market as important as personal transport.....

I find it interesting that everyone has focused on the enviromental issue's,and not the legislative side of things

The way thing's are going in the UK,and Europe it seems that bikes will soon be outlawed as expensive playthings that cost millions every year in medical/accident costs.

The cost of just getting a UK licence is getting ridiculous,with more training costs being forced onto learners.And the time required to "jump thru all the hoops" are pretty much equal to gaining a PPL licence.

When Mayor Boris allowed bikes to use some bus lanes in London,he was praised for forward thinking to help reduce some of the traffic entering C London.

When the number of commuters using bikes/scooters rose by a significant amount,Westminster Council decided to scrap free parking for bikes!!

Enjoy your "freedom" while you can

Andy

I have to say, that in my experience, decent driver training and awareness would go just as far for reducing MC accident related costs, whilst not threatening to eliminate a for of transport that is far more congestion friendly....

Its common for young folks to start out on scooters in France, regardless of their inclination towards bikes later in life. Reult? The car population are a lot more bike aware.... even if they do drive like lunatics....

I've always thought, pipe-dream though it is, that making car drivers spend 6 months on a scooter before getting a car would do wonders for their sense of perspective once driving a cage....

Mr Warthog ,you dismiss new technology and ideas without researching them yet you assume that electric powered vehicles will prove our saviour .
I work in the power industry and in N America it is struggling to keep pace with increasing demand.
GW Bush when he was in office gave the green light to ,I believe , over 100 new coal fired power stations ,and they are also building new nuclear stations .
Canada and the US will also be flooding MORE river valleys to produce MORE electricity .
If you factor in a further huge demand because of a switch to electric powered vehicles ,even more power plants will have to be constructed .

Arable land will continue to produce either fuel or food depending on the economics .Poorer countries will continue to go hungry ,the market economy has no heart .There have been several studies done on the likely fuel production one could achieve ,they have been contradictory because some of them have been influenced by the petroleum producers .

The earth's core contains the means for power production if the resources are handled correctly and we develop the technology to exploit it .

Neither of us know what will eventually happen .There is technology out there that could revolutionise transportation but it will probably be stifled by Big Oil or the Car Manufacturers who manipulate governments .Joe public is a pawn and usually thinks what he is conditioned to think .

The next step in technology will have to concern power storage ,because without the means of storing a substantial amount of charge [ie batteries] electric vehicles will always have a limited application.However knowing about the need for better batteries and having them available is another matter maybe technology will advance and maybe it won't .It hasn't advanced much in the last century .

Don't forget the petroleum industry has the world by the nuts and if it can use bacteria to produce useable hydrocarbons ,then it will and you will not see rapid advancements in alternative fuels.

Electricmotor cycles may become viable ,there are several on the market now ,but I hope that petroleum powered bikes will be around for a long time .The soulless whine of an electric motor is no substitute for a barking megaphone .
:mchappy:

I think D is right that Joe Public is fed disinformation. It's really difficult to get a true picture of oil reserves, as the big oil companies are expert in manipulating public opinion. They also kick governments around.

I wouldnt mind a diesel bike though. But the current ones are way too expensive.

That's a really interesting point. I just got back from a month in SF where I lived with a couple of alternative energy consultants (solar for the most part). They were telling me that the first thing they do when they go into a home is look at what they can do to reduce electricity usage - it's amazing how much you can drop by just changing over to the now viable LED bulbs - they're still pretty expensive, but the math (as our dear cousins over the pond say) proves they pay for themselves in electricity usage alone within six months.

In some homes - the more modern they say - where recessed halogen are the fashion - simply replacing them with LEDs reduces consumption in the home by a massive amount - up to 50% in some homes, with a more realistic 20% - 30% in others with more incandescent and less halogen.

If the government gets it's way in the UK - and it's going that way - incandesant bulbs will be illigal in the next five years, within 10 years they want all bulbs to be LED - so.... if we can reduce our home use by one simple step of replacing our bulbs, do we start to of-set our electic vehicle usage?

Of course the other option with fuel cell powered cars is the wonderful idea of a hydrogen unit in your garage... fills me with the heeby jeebies - but if they say it's safe.... well - I'll let others try if first.

In any case, I do think that over the next ten years we'll see more electric powered vehicles as governments around the world see them as, importantly, vote winners (hello Mr Obama) and as the car manufactuers see them as ways to get money out of the public purse (hello Mr Obama, and EU).

There's a wonderful docuemtary made by a very good freiend of mine - Mr Richard Titus - titled 'Who Killed the Electric Car'. It's a few years old now, but it's getting a lot of play as the US and EU start forcing manufactures down a line they've be reticent to pursue.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

It covers a lot of the issues discussed in this thread and is well worth a watch.

m

They can already do it. Now they have to learn how to do it cheap. Petroleum oil is still cheaper, so this isn't popular, but they will get there- the incentive is huge.

The latest innovation is some sort of moving bed process using algae and bacteria. Can't remember where the article was but it was supposed to be near to a commercial design.

Making a liquid fuel is nothing new. In the mid 1940's the Nazi lunatics running half of Europe managed to keep things moving using stewed coal and sugar alchohol. The problem is, it's still very expensive compared to something you dig out of the ground. It also wrecks engines, pollutes and halves fuel consumption at the 1945 technology level.

The cost isn't going to change, if anything it'll go up as it no longer has to compete with natural oil in large quantities. If fuel is £5 a litre, not many of us will be riding to the coast for a cuppa because we fancy it.

Enviromental issues are a different subject. I'm not against saving the planet and I do believe in man made climate change, but I really do wish they'd be honest. Man made climate change is not global warming, the general population don't understand that heat in one place causes blizzards in another. If the summer is wet they'll decide your scientist is wrong, so don't dumb it down. Resource allocation and population pressure is another subject and the reaction of industry (scrap your perfectly good vehicle and buy a new "green" one full of batteries :thumbdown:) is a problem not a solution. There are some hard choices coming and shouting confusion about whales and carrier bags and what your God wants you to do isn't helpful.

The bottom line; The planet is so big. It can only support a given value of life. If we all ride bicycles and eat bean stew there can be 20-billion of us. If we want V-8 cars and steak there can only be 2-Billion. If we are careful and don't waste, there is a level in the middle where maybe 10-billion of us can have clean water, enough to eat and some sort of personal transport.

IMHO, be lean and mean not green.

I'll go find another use for my soap box now :innocent:

Andy

The only savour for our fuel supply is to get all the cars in the world on hydrogen powered cars. Then there will be an almost endless supply of oil for those applications such as lesuire vehicles (bikes, quads, jetskis etc)

The government would then have no right to tax it so it would offset the price rise.

All this new technology is all very well, but for heating it is difficult to beat wood burning stoves. properly managed coppiced woodland is better than just carbon neutral as there is always a huge reservoir of trapped carbon in the current crops and their rootstocks. There is no reason why large scale planting of coppices should not be used for teh production of 'town gas' like they used to do with coal. This would make any country ( thinking particularly the UK) self sufficient in gas with a carbon neutral based industry that is good for 100'sif not 1000's of years

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 237180) Mr Warthog ,you dismiss new technology and ideas without researching them yet you assume that electric powered vehicles will prove our saviour .

Not entirely true. Yes I responded to your initial post without researching, but looked into it right afterwards: I did not find anything that contradicted my points drastically.

You stated the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 237024) Oil will not run out .

Personally, I have not found any evidence referring to naturally occurring bacteria in oil fields. What I did find were references to genetically modified strains of a given bacteria, into which manufactured DNA is inserted to make the bacteria excrete oil as a by product of its own metabolism. Amazing, but not the answer IMO. As I said before, you then need to think about the volumes needed to produce a single tank full of unleaded, multiplied by how much the world uses. Finally, I’d add that we have a tendency of storming forth on one path because we are blinded by its advantages, only to realise the full ramifications much later. Bacteria kill lots of people, plants and animals. I’m not sure I want mass production of bacteria whose main metabolic waste is a toxic material, no matter how valuable, and whose potential for mutation is unascertained. And I certainly would not want that in the hands of organisations who put $$$ before health and safety considerations.


My view is, running out or not, oil has had its moment and its time to move on. Oil has allowed technology to advance incredibly over the last 100 years, driven by demand. However, alternatives do exist. They have done for some time. It is not naïve to think that their popularity or even existence has not been stepped on by the oil industry: these would be oil's direct competitors. Nor is it naïve or unrealistic to say that oil is a dirty fuel. It is hazardous to produce, handle, use and its combustion is proving unhealthy for all concerned.

So, the alternatives:
I do think that electricity is the best bet, here. However, the reasons against that you posted above are based on the existing dominant production techniques. There are also Solar, Wind, Tidal and, as you mentioned, Geothermal. On that last point the American continent could kick arse, given that its entire West coast is part of the Ring of Fire around the Pacific: there is huge Geothermal potential. We know solar can work well, ditto for wind. They are often poo-pooed, but that is because it would not suit the conglomerates for us to think these were workable alternatives for free energy at best, or at least significantly cheaper than oil. These sorts of measures would mean that flooding this river or growing biofuel crops is not even necessary. As for batteries: I disagree. Think how far mobile phone batteries have come in the last 10 years. Why? Because we the consumer wanted it: that is it… I recently saw a programme that claimed that the technology existed and had been tested so that an electric car sustained 100mph for two hours on a single charge. Doesn’t sound so bad, does it…?

Here is what I think the problem is. Technology advances because demand grows. Demand grows, largely due to popular demand which, in turn, is largely influenced by marketing and advertising. So, in other words, as you suggested above: we buy what we are told we want and what we are told we should buy. So really, if you want alternative fuels, if you want the choice, if you don’t want the oil companies to have quite such a grip on the "world’s nuts", you need only vote with you wallet. I don’t mean rush out and buy an electric scooter tomorrow, I mean start choosing renewable energy as a domestic supplier, for example. In the UK you can nominate who you want your electricity to be provided by: conventional energy or renewable. The latter costs a bit more, but if demand rises, prices drop and its influence grows. Where domestic demand goes, transport will follow. It does no happen over night, but that is how it starts and its perfectly achievable for any Joe Public: they need only make those small changes to their lifestyles, and the market forces will follow suite. Perhaps not without resistance, but they will eventually go where the money is going. Once the Oil Companies who hold the patents on new technologies realise that demand is changing, they’ll break them out and start making money on the preparatory R&D they are no doubt already doing…

Now for vehicles. The issue here is that people, especially us blokes, see an attempt (nay, suggestion) to replace petrol engines with something like electric as a forced castration of sorts. There is way too much ego, and self-projection involved with our vehicle choice for us to make an objective decision. Bikes, cars; they are self expression, status banners, manhood extensions, what ever you want to call them, and I think that is why we are so vehemently opposed to such a change. New tech in any other field is welcomed with open arms: cameras, phones, PCs, MP3, MP4, MP97 etc. New gadgets! We love em!!
Bottom line is people, unfortunately, ONLY change when there is a direct and immediate benefit to them. Be it perceived or real.

I agree with you: I don’t want to loose petrol driven bikes either: I love the sound, smell, sensation, but I’m not going to kid myself and say that this has a long term future. I can’t, in good conscience, just deny, because my bikes are my bestest, bestest toys and I feel cool when I’m on them, that the alternatives are the smarter option.

The final question for anyone reading this is what is your real reason for being opposed to oil running out….

Do we really think that there is another source of oil that can match today’s demand and meet that of the next 20 year or more, or are we in denial?

Is it because oil really is the best energy source for society, or is it because we are scared of the alternatives and what they might mean to our lifestyles and the changes we might need to make?

For me, I admit, it’s the latter, but I think the alternative is either biking dying out or being an even more elitist pursuit that I can no longer afford. I’d rather ride a bike whose engine growl comes from speakers rather than exhausts than no bike at all…

Without wanting to come over as a nay-sayer, I'd like to pose a question to the electric vehicle advocates. I can fully see that an EV is a great alternative to a commuter car/bike, I can happily see myself plugging in every night (although in the back of my mind I might wonder about the environmental impact of digging all those noxious chemicals out of the ground and processing them), but the photoshop I did above was supposed to illustrate a point.

People on here aren't just bikers, they're bikers to the back of beyond, and the back of beyond isn't well served with power grids suitable for charging EVs. Will we all have to book hotels with power sockets? What happens when we run out of charge on the Road of Bones? How will an African community respond when we roll in and suck all their stored solar power up to charge our bikes overnight?

Why is the burning of fossil fuel so suited for powering our transportation needs and wants? Because the oil we burn is transportable, if we can get a vehicle there to need petrol we can get the petrol there to fill it up. So I remain to be convinced that the EV will be a solution for anyone who lives outside the developped world with its established power-grids at least for the foreseable future.

golden age, silver age, stone age, bronze age, iron age, oil age, errr something else
 

Thats a great point. Its possibly THE fundamental reason why EV's will not become overly popular. I believe the future is Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology, it seems to be going well in California. And the only emissions are water. Interesting information about oil being produced by bacteria, although I can no longer say my bike runs on 'churned up t-rex's'. How about Plutonium? OK so getting rid off the waste is not going to be easy, and could you imagine fiddling with the engine; you would be bricking it!

This thread reminds me of the scene in i,robot, where Will Smith gets out his 'old' motorcycle (for those of you who have not scene it its set in the future) much to the dis comfort of his female passanger who quotes "this thing runs on petrol?!?!?....petrol explodes you know!".

The thread was the future of motorcycling, not motorcycling adventure!! Still it's a pertinent point and the one I ponder on most when I think about my future trips in a world of uncertain energy sources...

However, if I were to have a guess, a supposition on how such a thing might evolve I would guess that solar panelling, such as those you can pick up now from Maplins could be used. Perhaps they will be foldable and unfurl to a relatively large area, and capture charge over a couple of hours. I imagine efficiency will increase over time.... Perhaps any downward gradient could run dynamos to charge the batteries through the bike's own momentum.

As for using up a community's charge: if it paid for how is it different from pitching up and buying 30 litres of their petrol now? There's no reason to suppose it would be free!

This is conjecture, but is it beyond the realms of possibility, 20 years from now?

If any of this happens it would be a gradual change: but we are only summising what the final outcome might be so the interim period of change/adjustment etc is overlooked.
Perhaps bike overland will not be possible anymore the same way that one cannot travel truly uncharted lands now, the way they did in the 1800s... Who knows, but where there's a will, there's a way...

Perhaps you should read a book by Thomas Gold ,"the Deep Hot Biosphere".
It explains how naturally occurring bacteria formed the oil deposits we now exploit .The Russians share his view of the origins of oil ,even if the US do not .

The Environmental Literacy Council - Abiotic Theory

Bacteria are used even now by oil companies to descale pipes [of salt and waxy oils] that bring oil to the surface .
Bacteria are alive in your gut digesting your food .
Bacteria digest oil too and are used to decontaminate toxic wastes .
They are everywhere and yes they are found in oilfields living under unimaginable temperatures and pressures .
Not all bacteria are bad .

The oil companies also have the money to buy power plants and are already heavily into alternative energy [Shell and BP already sell solar panels ],so no big surprises who you will pay to charge your batteries .
What would stop them from building a power plant on top of a methane or oil field ?

Batteries ,whether you believe it or not ,are still a very primitive method of storing power .Looking back over the last few cell pones I have had ,the only way they have improved has been in circuitry ,ergonomics and the number of tricks they can perform using less power ,batteries are still about the same .
The technology has been around for over a hundred years.

There may be electric bikes coming that will propel us at 100 mph for hours on end ,but it will take a major revolution in power storage to achieve that .
What will more than likely happen is that the bike will be electrically driven but will produce it's own electricity .This is a much better alternative than thousands of extra power plants needed to cope with millions of extra people wanting to plug in their vehicles for a booster charge .

My view for the future is that there will be less dependency on oil as a fuel ,but it will not run out as quickly as some have predicted .Perhaps if T Gold's theories are espoused and oil extraction is managed carefully ,there will be fuel available to motorcycle riders in perpetuity .

There also needs to be a major change in attitudes as well , some may cry about the environment but then jump on a 1200cc bike loaded with gear for an RTW .When we all know that you can successfully travel RTW on a 100cc bike .A smaller bike uses less of the earth's resources ,both in it's manufacture and it's fuel usage - so why aren't we all on 100cc bikes right now ?

I'd ride an electric bike ,though I may not really want to at first .
I don't think I'd fit speakers or stick a piece of cardboard in the spokes though .

But I'd really prefer a steam bike ,then I could burn anything I like and the Government would have a hard time taxing me .

hydrogen for the 125cc'ers, everyone else your buggered!
 

I still think electric powered vehicles are dumb, hydrogen fuel cell and 'synergy' hybrid drive systems are the future, at least for me. Hydrogen isused to power cars, buses, motorcycles(see below, although anyone with a full licence will be gutted) and submarines to mention a few. As Dodger pointed out, batteries are not very smart; more power goes into making them that what the finished product provides, not to mention the disposal off such items.

A most interesting article as well; Abiotic Theory.

To find out info on the Hydrogen Bike go here;
Why a hydrogen powered motorbike won't sell

To find info on why it will not sell to the majority of bikers, go here:
Why a hydrogen powered motorbike won't sell

Personally being on a 125cc (and enjoying it, and I know for a fact I'm not the only one:thumbup1:) this bike is probably my future, and I think it looks pretty smart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 237530) Perhaps you should read a book by Thomas Gold ,"the Deep Hot Biosphere".

Regarding this alternative theory. I am perfectly open to new ideas and theories but this is still only a theory, not fact and so, however nice a thought it might be that oil may continue, this will not make arbitrarily make it so.
I had heard of Hyperthermophiles, but the most extreme locations I had heard of for their existence was around such places as thermal vents on the seabed where temperatures are between 100-150C IIRR. However, there are still some points to raise about this theory and how it might affect the world oil addiction. Whether bacterial or geo-thermal, oil was created over a VERY long period.
Taking for example the East Texas oil field that had a starting volume of over 1.1 cubic kilometers. That volume of oil is not produced overnight: which ever the method. Yet it is nearly exhausted since its discovery in 1931. So, this basically means that even if oil is replenishable through microbial action: you are going to have to wait longer the a fortnight to get that supply back. In other words, even if this process exists, human demand's outstriping supply by an incredible margin, so oil, to all intents and purposes is still running out…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 237530) Bacteria are used even now by oil companies to descale pipes [of salt and waxy oils] that bring oil to the surface.

I am aware of bacteria’s positive, symbiotic contributions to life as well as their parasitic traits. After all, life on planet earth would not exist without them. However, all naturally occurring bacteria are there for a reason: they evolved into that role of a given ecosystem, whose complexity is often beyond what scientists can discern. So, in relation to bioengineering, developing a strain whose ecosystemic impacts are unknown, just so we don’t have to work at alternative ways of living, is lazy and short-sighted, not to mention potentially dangerous, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 237530) The oil companies also have the money to buy power plants and are already heavily into alternative energy [Shell and BP already sell solar panels ],so no big surprises who you will pay to charge your batteries .

I don’t mind who I pay for my energy as long as that energy has a minimal environmental impact, and the authorities controlling that energy do not act immorally. Unfortunately, neither of those are true at present, particularly as there are a number of conflicts raging where oil is doubtless the bottom line, and many environments have been royally stitched up by oil or its related activities. So, if Shell, BP or another decides to develop renewable energy sources: great. At last they can start putting to good use the technologies whose patents they hurriedly bought, but sat on for so long, rather than putting them on the market for fear of damaging their precious oil revenues.
I am not against oil. I’m just against it being the dominant force in the world: not when other energy sources could alleviate so many of the miseries oil contributes to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 237530) Batteries ,whether you believe it or not ,are still a very primitive method of storing power ……..snip

Perhaps this point is not such an obstacle after all:

Google search

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 237530) My view for the future is that there will be less dependency on oil as a fuel ,but it will not run out as quickly as some have predicted .Perhaps if T Gold's theories are espoused and oil extraction is managed carefully ,there will be fuel available to motorcycle riders in perpetuity .

I’d be quite happy for oil to have a more marginalized role in energy and in that respect I hope your predictions are right: after all we have worked to make its uses many. However, if you think that bikers will have access to whatever trickle bacteria may or may not produce, I don’t think it will happen: Fuel cell, or electric will not make flying or shipping any easier IMO, so I think they will get first picks before one of the smallest private transport minorities, not to mention the military!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 237530) There also needs to be a major change in attitudes as well, some may cry about the environment but then jump on a 1200cc bike loaded with gear for an RTW .When we all know that you can successfully travel RTW on a 100cc bike .A smaller bike uses less of the earth's resources ,both in it's manufacture and it's fuel usage - so why aren't we all on 100cc bikes right now ?

Guilty as charged. We rode an 1150 two-up and we plan to ride a Ural rig with three of us. Economy is far from brilliant, but it’s better than a car and 3 won’t fit on a bike. For what its worth, we may burn petrol riding, but when you camp: you’re not switching on lightbulbs!
Thing is, I am not advocating living in a cave or selling our beloved bikes, in order to get a bicycle or donkey trap. I think that if we made reasonable concessions in other parts of our lives (domestic energy for example, less air travel where possible) then said remaining oil could last a lot longer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 237530) I'd ride an electric bike ,though I may not really want to at first .

The bottom line for me remains the same: regardless of whether oil will run out or not, if it’s replenishable or not. It’s a question we have to ask ourselves.

Given the economic, environmental, and political state of the world, is oil really the energy source we want to keep relying on?
Relying on: not using in moderation or at our leisure. Relying. Because that is the status quo: it does have us by the balls, but it needn’t.

Let’s not think “is oil the one we enjoy the most”, “is it the one that is easiest to get on with”, “is it the on that will let me keep my toys”. Think “is it really the best way forward, even if forward means an awkward period of change and adaptation” before that “something new” becomes the norm, and we wonder why we hadn’t done it years ago?

Oil won't run out before we stop using it
 

Might be worth quoting sheik Yamani here; "The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil."The stone age ended because something better was developed, and there will come a point where it is worth developing alternative fuels. The oil companies are looking at this (not much of a business plan to rely on a finite resource for your future income, only politicians are that short sighted) but the cost of any usable alternative are such that it cannot reach the market until petrol becomes a very great deal more expensive (if you developed a fuel that was indistingushable from petrol today it would never be licenced for public use - petrol explodes, as noted above). Some years ago I was told the research costs were an acceptable gamble if oil was at a constant $100/barrel. That is probably doubled by now by infaltion and tighter regulation.

I suspect anyone reading this can be confident of a supply of petrol for the rest of their lives. Once petrol has been replaced as fuel for distribution and mainstream transport (cars), the small demand from motorcyclists and classic vehicle fans should result in a price reduction (but still higher than today). We will of course still be in the same position we would be with EVs; you'll get petrol for hobbiests in the developed world, but the less developed areas will only have the new fuel for basic transport. By the time that happens though, which countries will be developed and which not is anybodies guess.