WWTBAM Bored

Jeemie wrote: The problem with your side is you do not understand that what determine ultimately whether we have a shortage of oil is not the amount of oil in the ground, but the rate at which it can be extracted, and the amount of energy that's left over after it's been extracted than can be used for useful work like growing the economy.

You got it half right. Its the rate of net extraction less the rate of consumption. Supply - Consumption = Surplus/(Shortage). And his/my side fully understands. That is why resources are spent developing NEW and improved technologies to more efficiently extract, transport, refine, and deliver the energy.

Jeemie wrote: Your side doesn't understand that we could have 60 trillion barrels of oil in the ground, but if it takes us the equivalent of 1 barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil, then it's like we have no oil at all. Or if we can only produce 95 mbpd, but the world needs 100 mbpd in order to sustain even moderate growth in the economy, then we are going to have a shortage.

His/my side does. Its your side that doesn't understand. His/my side is not pushing the inefficient process of growing a food source and turning it into a less efficient fuel. Burning food is not the answer.

Jeemie wrote: Your side also doesn't understand the power of the exponential function, and how fast even modest growth in energy consumption can cause a large increase in the product being consumed. I know your side doesn't understand this because every time it evaluates a new source of oil and how long it can sustain us, I hear/see the dreaded words that are fingernails across the chalkboard for me- "This oilfield has enough oil to fulfill 1/5 of the US' needs at current rates of consumption.

Really? How should the potential supply of a reservoir of energy be explained? "at current consumption" is a real number. Are you proposing that saying how long a supply will last based on a made up number is better? Then you get into arguments over the assumptions that feed that made up number.

Jeemie wrote: Your side doesn't understand that a symptom of Peak Oil actually can be periodic gluts and lower prices because of a couple of factors- one being, that if economic growth is constrained, then people's wages can't grow fast enough, and demand for oil crashes even as the price does, and the second being investors start using oil as a hedge as opposed to actually using the oil to do things, because there are no investments in real economic growth worth going after.

I'll admit, I don't know what you are trying to say there. Perhaps it is "if people would quit trying to make money then everything would be better".

Jeemie wrote:Everything we have seen hints that that constraint is primarily the change in the availability of energy to keep the whole modern economy going.

Energy, people, food & water. The inputs to an economy. The desire to improve one's position in or quality of life. The catalyst. Same as its been for as long as humans have been around.

Jeemie wrote:I am actually quite disheartened at the lack of technological progress in the area of renewable energy.

Perhaps it is your side that doesn't understand.

The earliest known wind powered grain mills and water pumps were used by the Persians in A.D. 500-900 and by the Chinese in A.D. 1200.

BiT:

One

"How should the potential supply of a reservoir of energy be explained?" By factoring in reasonable expectations of rates of extraction and changes over time, as well as people's changing consumption habits.

When you say "This reservoir has enough oil to power the US for 10 years at current rates of consumption", it is misleading on two points. It overstates the amount of oil we'll actually get out of the reservoir, AND it understates people's consumption...because you know and I know that "current rates of consumption" is not a number that is going to hold over time...especially if you are expecting that there will be economic growth.

Sure "current rates of consumption" is a real number, but if the real number is a misleading metric, then that misleading metric may lead to bad decisions.

Two

Can you point to one post where I have ever advocated the use of corn to make ethanol? You will also find out that most people who are studying the growing constraints of energy on future economic growth are not advocates of growing corn for ethanol either.

This was a red herring to distract from the point I was making- people who do not believe oil is at a point where it is going to be increasingly difficult to get like to spend time talking about how much oil is left in the ground...you never hear them talk about extraction rates/consumption rates/EROEI- it's "Oh look! The Bakken has 500 billion barrels of oil!" So if you want me to believe "your side" understand this, then when you talk about oil, talk about rates and cost, not amounts. And don't treat every barrel of oil as if it's equivalent to another barrel of oil.

Three

That is why resources are spent developing NEW and improved technologies to more efficiently extract, transport, refine, and deliver the energy.

As I pointed out, these "new and improved technologies" have been around for decades. They weren't used in the past not because we hadn't developed them, but because they didn't...and still don't...make economic sense except at high oil prices...which drag the overall economy down. There have been no brave new technological investments that will make oil as plentiful and cheap as it once was...NONE.

Four

The rest of your replies- well, you're going to have to understand economics and physics to understand what I'm talking about. You are wedded to a world view where all we have to do is throw money, technology, and imagination at a problem, and it will get better.

But technology is dependent upon energy itself...you are facing a bootstrap problem if you are relying on that to save you.

Jeemie wrote: There have been no brave new technological investments that will make oil as plentiful and cheap as it once was...NONE.

I agree. But the same goes for potable water, wheat, and leather.

There are 1,001 more uses for oil than in 1960. The energy consumption per square mile of this planet is higher than it has ever been (growing economy thing).


But there have been brave new technological investments that has made extraction of oil and production of oil products cheaper than processes known and or used in the 1960s.


I really don't know what you are arguing for (or against). No one denies there is a finite supply of oil in the earth. No one denies that with each barrel extracted the next barrel will be more difficult to get. Oil companies are oil companies. That's what they do.

And why in the world would the President nominate Anton Chigurh as Energy Secretary????!!!! A there is no future in using a canister of compressed air as a form of energy!.

BackInTex wrote:

Jeemie wrote: There have been no brave new technological investments that will make oil as plentiful and cheap as it once was...NONE.

I agree. But the same goes for potable water, wheat, and leather.

There are 1,001 more uses for oil than in 1960. The energy consumption per square mile of this planet is higher than it has ever been (growing economy thing).


But there have been brave new technological investments that has made extraction of oil and production of oil products cheaper than processes known and or used in the 1960s.


I really don't know what you are arguing for (or against). No one denies there is a finite supply of oil in the earth. No one denies that with each barrel extracted the next barrel will be more difficult to get. Oil companies are oil companies. That's what they do.

Entropy Always Wins!

What was the value of a barrel of oil in 1776?

BackInTex wrote:

Jeemie wrote: There have been no brave new technological investments that will make oil as plentiful and cheap as it once was...NONE.

I agree. But the same goes for potable water, wheat, and leather.

There are 1,001 more uses for oil than in 1960. The energy consumption per square mile of this planet is higher than it has ever been (growing economy thing).


But there have been brave new technological investments that has made extraction of oil and production of oil products cheaper than processes known and or used in the 1960s.


I really don't know what you are arguing for (or against). No one denies there is a finite supply of oil in the earth. No one denies that with each barrel extracted the next barrel will be more difficult to get. Oil companies are oil companies. That's what they do.

I stated upfront what I'm arguing- absent a new cheap supply of energy, real economic growth will be constrained...and eventually start on a bumpy road down.

I don't have a solution to that...I do know that no one's even looking at it as a problem...hence we get things that make it all worse like quantitative easing or negative interest rates, or, if a GOP'er wins, reduced taxes and government austerity.

Nothing will get better unless the real problem is addressed.

PS That there are many more uses for oil now than in 1960 makes this problem worse, not better, BiT.

Jeemie wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Jeemie wrote: There have been no brave new technological investments that will make oil as plentiful and cheap as it once was...NONE.

I agree. But the same goes for potable water, wheat, and leather.

There are 1,001 more uses for oil than in 1960. The energy consumption per square mile of this planet is higher than it has ever been (growing economy thing).


But there have been brave new technological investments that has made extraction of oil and production of oil products cheaper than processes known and or used in the 1960s.


I really don't know what you are arguing for (or against). No one denies there is a finite supply of oil in the earth. No one denies that with each barrel extracted the next barrel will be more difficult to get. Oil companies are oil companies. That's what they do.

I stated upfront what I'm arguing- absent a new cheap supply of energy, real economic growth will be constrained...and eventually start on a bumpy road down.

I don't have a solution to that...I do know that no one's even looking at it as a problem...hence we get things that make it all worse like quantitative easing or negative interest rates, or, if a GOP'er wins, reduced taxes and government austerity.

Nothing will get better unless the real problem is addressed.

PS That there are many more uses for oil now than in 1960 makes this problem worse, not better, BiT.

Why isn't solar energy an answer? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Why isn't solar energy an answer? --Bob

1. The sun doesn't shine at night
2. It's not dense enough it takes up to much space
3. Transmission is expensive
4. It's not predictable and reliable
5. Storage is expensive
6. PV lose there efficacy over time
7. Dust and snow
Works in Hawaii but not Alaska

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Why isn't solar energy an answer? --Bob

1. The sun doesn't shine at night
2. It's not dense enough it takes up to much space
3. Transmission is expensive
4. It's not predictable and reliable
5. Storage is expensive
6. PV lose there efficacy over time
7. Dust and snow
Works in Hawaii but not Alaska

8. To convert to an electric economy will require a large amount of fossil fuel inputs.

There really isn't a fuel out there that is both as energy-dense and potable as petroleum. There are promising candidates...but it would take a concerted effort to get it done. The "free market" is unlikely to do it until there are major economic dislocations.

Obama wanted a "moon shot"- he should have chosen energy instead of cancer.

Jeemie wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Why isn't solar energy an answer? --Bob

1. The sun doesn't shine at night
2. It's not dense enough it takes up to much space
3. Transmission is expensive
4. It's not predictable and reliable
5. Storage is expensive
6. PV lose there efficacy over time
7. Dust and snow
Works in Hawaii but not Alaska

8. To convert to an electric economy will require a large amount of fossil fuel inputs.

There really isn't a fuel out there that is both as energy-dense and potable as petroleum. There are promising candidates...but it would take a concerted effort to get it done. The "free market" is unlikely to do it until there are major economic dislocations.

Obama wanted a "moon shot"- he should have chosen energy instead of cancer.

But we don't need a fuel to be as energy-dense and portable. We need energy storage that's both dense and portable. (And I understand that Elon Musk has made, or at least is claiming, significant progress on that front.) After all, in one sense, petroleum is itself just an energy storage mechanism.

Given the ability to store solar (or other renewable forms of) energy, can't we take our sweet loading up reserves for later use? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:But we don't need a fuel to be as energy-dense and portable. We need energy storage that's both dense and portable. (And I understand that Elon Musk has made, or at least is claiming, significant progress on that front.) After all, in one sense, petroleum is itself just an energy storage mechanism.

Given the ability to store solar (or other renewable forms of) energy, can't we take our sweet loading up reserves for later use? --Bob

Well theoretically if we ever get those high-capacity supercapacitors off the ground, then that's part of getting there (high density, portable energy storage). Then we could run off a variety of sources (geothermal, solar, wind, hydro, etc).

But we're not there yet.

And we will also want to make sure that building on a renewable base doesn't introduce a non-renewable bottleneck (relying on high capactitance, for example- well...we need materials to make the batteries, and they don't last forever).

And it will be some time before some of our heavy machinery and airplanes are running on something other than fossil fuels- but if we could run a lot of our other stuff on something else...)

Long story short- last estimates were if we started now to move to a renewable base, it would take 30 years to get there.

We may not have that kind of time.

There really isn't a fuel out there that is both as energy-dense and potable as petroleum.

I'm not drinking that particular Favr Aid (sorry I couldn't resist)

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

There really isn't a fuel out there that is both as energy-dense and potable as petroleum.

I'm not drinking that particular Favr Aid (sorry I couldn't resist)

Then tell me what's out there that could replace petroleum right now?

At the scales and economy.

Just riffing off potable v portable

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Just riffing off potable v portable

Yeah- LOL!

I usually correct my mistypes but was hoping no one noticed that one...

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2016/5/ ... cs-go.html

A new paper in a journal called Earth and Space Science says that effective climate sensitivity could be as low as 1°C

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2016/5/ ... cs-go.html

A new paper in a journal called Earth and Space Science says that effective climate sensitivity could be as low as 1°C

It is shown that in the EBM with explicit dynamical heat transport the traditional formulism of climate feedbacks can break down because of lack of additivity.

I find it difficult to argue with that.

Beebs52 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Any chance of rain this week?

Actually, the usual 20-30 percent on Thursday or something. We had a sprinkle the other day. It's rather scary. We've had maybe an inch since January. Houston had a 95 day between 1/2 inch events (from the website) since January to April. We have no water restrictions yet, which I attribute to the extreme fire danger. Because, I guarantee you that if this were in the summer after a normal spring, including the usual 14 or so inches of rain for four months, we would have been on an every other day. I figure they want peeps to keep their immediate vicinity semi-wet. It's crazy.

BIF just because I could

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Any chance of rain this week?

Actually, the usual 20-30 percent on Thursday or something. We had a sprinkle the other day. It's rather scary. We've had maybe an inch since January. Houston had a 95 day between 1/2 inch events (from the website) since January to April. We have no water restrictions yet, which I attribute to the extreme fire danger. Because, I guarantee you that if this were in the summer after a normal spring, including the usual 14 or so inches of rain for four months, we would have been on an every other day. I figure they want peeps to keep their immediate vicinity semi-wet. It's crazy.

BIF just because I could

Now that is bittersweet I don't care who yar. Welcome to waterworld.

Global warming is responsible for everything. Including Trump and Hilz.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.mochaexpress.com/Commentary/ ... ePossible/

Actually it was because they found out you could ferment grain into beer and the grain need tending so they stopped being wandering hunter-gatherers.