Even more frigging oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Let me try and put out a few facts out front which seems to be missing in some of these discussions, which always pop us when it comes to energy supplies verses consumption of HC fuels.

We put 1 molecule of CO2 into 100,000 molecules of atmosphere every five years.


Another way of looking at exactly the same statistic is we have, by our actions, increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 50% since the start of the great experiment that we are living in.

1 in 1000,000 per 5 years sounds trivial, increase of 50% sounds alarmist, and both are factual depending on which side you want to push.

I'm on the fence on the greenhouse issue...but like the issue sans spin (e.g. read "burn" for a ridiculously overwhacked view).

But being a finite globe with finite resources, and exponential economic growth, I think that we should be doing things as efficiently and prudently as possible...if we mess this experiment up, we can't just rinse out the beakers and try again.

And besides, efficiency makes our finite resources last longer.

And also, even if we stumble across fusion/zero point, ALL of that energy has to be radiated away from the globe, greenhouse or not. There is a simple thermodynamic limit to the thermal capacity of the globe sans CO2 theories...with exponential growth, that has to be hit at some stage.
 
Quote:
And also, even if we stumble across fusion/zero point, ALL of that energy has to be radiated away from the globe, greenhouse or not. There is a simple thermodynamic limit to the thermal capacity of the globe sans CO2 theories...with exponential growth, that has to be hit at some stage.


And the question of radiative energy balance verses cooling effects from weather is a hotly debated aspect of climate modeling.

WE know that the urban heat island has an effect on microclimates, but how this effects the global climate is not fully understood.

One of the other lessor understood variables of climate modeling is cloud physics and dependencies of cloud droplet size, and how it effects this radiative energy balance as well.

One of the more interesting aspects of climate modeling for me is the Sun's cosmic radiation's effect on cloud condensation nuclei. From lab experimentments, it is known that cosmic radiation can change the amount of cloud condensation nuclei.
 
Molakule,
I'm not referring to the modelling, GW, solar trapping etc., simple k(T^4-t^4

As stated, eventually, with perpetual, exponential growth, the heat that we generate through utilisation of energy (even free energy) will have to be radiated into space, which will require the big T in the equation to rise.
 
OOOOps, my rose colored glasses just fogged up after reading the article.

3.5 to 233 billion barrels of oil estimated... then later says the upper estimate is 130-233 billion barrels.... so everybody thinks jackpot for sure!

The lower level is about 30 days of world demand, but wait.... often only 10 percent or less of shale oil is recoverable even after fracking.... now we are down to 3 days....

Now, the larger number, 233 billion is 70 times more, but still......

This is hard oil to extract, usually 1,000 barrels daily or less per well, with a tremendous drop within 2 years. So about 1,000 wells a year will yield a million barrels a day...2 percent of world oil demand! Surely a nice amount, but do not trade your economy box commuter car for a Hummer just yet.

Most estimates for the shale oil extracted in North Dakota costs nearly 100 dollars a barrel in order to break even.....so no 1 buck gasoline will come from that. Then consider that they started drilling in the most promising areas, and will proceed to more difficult sites as oil prices climb higher.
 
I am often surprised at the number of articles stating "US heads toward energy independence due to North Dakota oil fracing" or words to that effect. Then not noting that ND oil production is still less than 1 million barrels per day, of the 18 million we use. Not nothing that demand is down about 3 million barrels a day due to higher prices and increased mileage/efficiency, etc. Not noting that demand would have risen another 1-2 million barrels a day at the previous increase rate... so that we are have cut our potential demand by another couple of million barrels a day.

Is the idea that conservation is saving 5 million barrels a day that much less exciting than 1 million new?

On another note, the H.S. student next door still warms up his large pickup for 15 minutes every morning before driving the 1 mile to school. Parents worrying over his weight problem...yes, I suspect we could save a lot more!
 
Originally Posted By: fsskier
I am often surprised at the number of articles stating "US heads toward energy independence due to North Dakota oil fracing" or words to that effect. Then not noting that ND oil production is still less than 1 million barrels per day, of the 18 million we use. Not nothing that demand is down about 3 million barrels a day due to higher prices and increased mileage/efficiency, etc. Not noting that demand would have risen another 1-2 million barrels a day at the previous increase rate... so that we are have cut our potential demand by another couple of million barrels a day.

Is the idea that conservation is saving 5 million barrels a day that much less exciting than 1 million new?

On another note, the H.S. student next door still warms up his large pickup for 15 minutes every morning before driving the 1 mile to school. Parents worrying over his weight problem...yes, I suspect we could save a lot more!


+1

LOL

People apparently don't understand that peak oil means no cheap oil and there will be massive demand destruction.

If the oil was abundant and cheap like it was pre-2000 the ND oil production, or shale oil, or tar oil would not be possible.

So, yes, loss of conventional oil reserves will be replaced by unconventional reserves, but at MUCH HIGHER COST.

Sorry, cheap oil is burnt and gone with wind (biting back in a form of CO2).
 
That's quite a scattering of statements there, evidently all pointing to man-made global warming and the propagation of fear, uncertainty and doom. All of which are no basis for rational problem solving. I liken it to shoot first, aim second and hope third.
Quote:
This segues nicely into the other part of the equation,
The equation of...? What? This post was started by the story of the discovery of a vast amount of shale oil. Not MMGW, nor oxygen depletion. Why fork the thread with your fear & anxiety? What purpose does alarmism serve except to alarm? The propagation of fear is a political tool.

Quote:
...do we have enough O2 in the atmosphere?
For what? Respiration? Combustion? Oxidation? How much is enough and how much is too little? Your statement implies there is a finite source of oxygen, and once used up that's it. Nothing could be further from the Truth. It reflects a scarcity mentality. The Earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old. Modern man is about 35,000 yrs old. If oxygen depletion were real, I wouldn't be sitting here typing this. Mankind wouldn't never made it. Period. That's a lot of time between the two. There's a good reason why there is far more nitrogen in the atmosphere than oxygen: Mother Nature said so. There's also a reason why smoking isn't allowed near oxygen tents. Think about it...and relax.

Quote:
And how much of a burden can we place on Earth?
We? As in mankind? This is more of this ego-centric view that mankind is 'powerfull' enough to 'destroy' Earth. What a vain, narcissistic age we live in. Mankind has nowhere near that much power. Man is not some omnipotent God. That's not only fantasy but pure dellusion. How sad we have such confusion in our modern age discerning the difference. From a scientific view, about 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean. Of the remaining 30%, how much is habitable? Even less. And who is doing the vast majority of the crowing? Politicians. Do you really believe a politician? Any politician?

You want to know who is REALLY LHAO? Mother Nature. At the vanity of these true believers. She's in charge. She has the power. Her timeframe is far, far longer than ours.

Lastly, all the nuclear weapons ever built are no match compared to the eruption of Krakatoa. Not even close. Billions and billions and billions of tons of ash, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, hydroflouric acid, carbon dioxide, water and heat rocketed straight up into the upper levels of the atmosphere. Beyond 100,000 feet. Talk about screwing with the ozone layer. That's what you call a climate-changing event. Not some guy driving his truck to work. Or having a BBQ with his friends & family in his backyard. Or discharging "CFC's" by painting his kids wagon. No telling how much oxygen was consumed in that event. Yet here we are, still breathing.

But there was another, even worse. Far worse: The eruption of Tambora. That one takes the cake as the largest eruption ever in recorded history. Much more oxygen consumed in this apocolyptic explosion. And plenty of CFC's were inserted into the upper levels of the atmosphere...for decades. So why wasn't the ozone layer destroyed? Why don't we all have skin-cancer now?

The Ring of Fire encircles the Earth. And don't forget all the big volcanos erupting under the ocean. Remember, the ocean covers about 70% of the surface area. And yes, there are numerous volcanic eruptions going on underwater. Why haven't the oceans been poisoned by it?

If you want something to fear. Fear Mother Nature. She has no regard what-so-ever for inflicting severe damage to and upon mankind. And she has a very long history of doing so.

Quote:
Imagine holding the Earth at arms' length, a globe 7 inches in diameter. The breathable atmosphere is only .002 inches (2 thousanths) thick, the total atmosphere is less than .100 thick, a limited resource.

Yea...more fear mongering, paranoia, anxiety, insecurity, etc. "Our fragile Earth", eh? Remember she's about 4.5 billion years old. That's quite a legacy. You can scale anything to make a point. But lets leave the fear propaganda behind and talk about reality.

The Earth isn't a ball 7" in diameter: It's roughly 7,961 miles (12,756Km) in diameter....at the equator. It isn't even round. It bulges in the equitorial region. Remember that water thing? And further, like any spinning object, it wobbles on its axis. 2,000 yrs ago the North Star wasn't the North Star. Because the North axis didn't point at Polaris. And let's not leave out the Moon, nor the effect its gravity has on our planets shape and our planets rotational stability, which greatly influenced Earths environment to be stable enough to support any life, including our own.

You can think gravity for our atmosphere and our molten, metallic core for our strong magnetic field. Because without it, we might not have one. After all, Mars doesn't have either.

Breathable atmosphere? Since most humans, reptiles, mammals, and birds live near the ground and we can travel to just about anywhere on the Earths surface, relatively close to the gound and still breathe enough oxygen to support life, even near volcano craters, whats the surface area of the Earth roughly? 510,000,000 square kM's or 196,912,101 sqr. miles. All containing breathable air for humans and animals, from the North pole to the equator to the South pole and across every sqr. in of ocean....surface.

Yeah...just surface. As in right-down-on-it. Not an inch up, nor a foot, nor a meter. There is plenty of oxygen right at the surface, plenty to support human and animal life. People who swim in pools, lakes, rivers, and oceans breath air right at the surface. Whales & dolphins & porpoises and other marine mammals also breathe air right at the surface. They can't stand up, above the surface to breathe, can they? No; they're right at the air/water boundry. And though marine mammals must live in water, they're incapable of extracting oxygen from it because they have lungs, like us, not gills.

Lets take another example. There is even breathable air in the Earth! In the Earth of all places. Imagine that! Yep..man can go down in deep caves and breathe air. How else did he explore caves? Thousands of years ago? Lots of breathable air in lots of caves. The air even WHOOSHES out of the mouth of some. Where in the world would that come from.

OK so given the small size of an oxygen molecule and a rough surface area of 196,912,101 square miles, imagine how much oxygen there is. That's a phenomental amount! I'll leave you to work out a rough number. And remember, we're still only at the surface.

The highest elevation I've ever been at is 14,000 feet and yes, I could breathe there. No doubt it's a bit thin and I spend most of my time at around 650 feet above MSL, but I walked around up there for a few hours, hiking, and didn't pass out from lack of oxygen. Nor was I alone.

So what kind of volume are we talking about, at a height of 14,000 feet above the surface of the Earth? Dam big number? Dam straight.

Roughly: 1,852,250,000,000 cubic miles! Give or take a few......all full of breathable oxygen, all being pushed around by the jet stream and wind. Mother Natures vast mixer powered by solar energy!

I don't call that a "limited resource." Not by any means. Fortunately, Mother Nature rules not mankind, else we'd be extinct.

Quote:
I'm going to crawl under a chair now...
27.gif

I think you ought to stand on top of it and take a really deep breath of air. There's no shortage of oxygen. You can travel all over the Earth and still breathe. In the mountains, in the deserts, even in caves. There is air everywhere.

So take a deep breath....and relax.
 
Excellent essay, Sleddriver.
thumbsup2.gif


Quote:
Molakule,
I'm not referring to the modelling, GW, solar trapping etc., simple k(T^4-t^4

As stated, eventually, with perpetual, exponential growth, the heat that we generate through utilisation of energy (even free energy) will have to be radiated into space, which will require the big T in the equation to rise.


Hi Shannow and I understood your comment fully.


Have you seen any studies on the following (This would be very interesting regarding the T^4 issue)?

1. Data on the required future energy that needs to be supplied to a projected population say in 10-20 years.

2. Assuming nuclear fission reactors required for 1. above, how much extra energy would be radiated in the form of IR radiation?


BTW, CO2 has been one of the three greehouse gases that have been with us since the origin of this planet. Water vapor or vapour, is the most prevalent greenhouse gas on the planet with CO2 second, and methane third.

Some have been misdescribing CO2 is a pollutant. This is another case of a "prevasive definition." Pollution is by definition harmful, but CO2 is a component of the atmosphere found even in the purest air, and is essential to life.
 
Last edited:
Molakule,
where I saw it was a tongue in cheek rebuttal to an economist to the myth that perpetual (exponential) growth is even possible/sustainable...with a typical beancounter attitude of "you engineers will figure out the solution, you always do".

Exponential Growth basically doubles the utilisation of "stuff" every 20 years (give or take a GFC)...so the coal that will last for 400 years at today's consumption is likely only 200 years in 20 years time, and 100 years of 40 year future consumption (with 60 left).

Pretty soon, within a hundred years or so, mankind will have to live within his solar budget. As a plan at the present time, as that's the technology that we know we have in the bank....roughly doubling the land grab every 20 years

Fusion is the "you engineers will figure out a solution, you always do" ace that the economists sprout. Do you factor that into your future budget ?

I reckon so, but because of the increasing "closeness" of needing it, it should be getting massive resources right now.

Perpetual, exponential growth means that every 20 years, you've pumped as much additional heat into the environment as all of history combined, and that energy has to be radiated out into space.

That energy can only be radiated out through the T^4 law, so by definition we are already raising T, by an amount clearly impossible to measure on the scale at which we are playing
 
I think before we exhaust the oxygen into CO2 for global warming we have bigger problem to worry about.

Soot is causing Beijing and now even Japan (due to being downstream) a lot of health problem. The soot comes from coal power plant, so we will have a lot of soot/nox/sox related health problem like asthma and lung cancer from these before we will die of global warming. Natural gas is a lot better, but still not perfect.

IMO the deforestation of 3rd world nations' industrialization to catch up with the Western world's standard of living is what causes most of the eco system's disaster. We have floods that causes land slides, extinctions of plants and animals, pollution of water sources, etc that is likely irreversible.

I really think the efficiency of how we use energy should be improved, because creative engineering on the sourcing side will not catch up with the demand of China and India leaving 3rd world, let alone the entire Latin America and Africa. We already depleted the majority of all large fishes in the ocean, we can really deplete other natural resources (like wood, fuel, clean water, iron, copper, farmland, etc) that we currently think are unlimited.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
If we'd stop clearing forests and plant some new ones, we'd have plenty of O2 as well as a natural carbon sink.
Problem is, we also have a growing world population to feed, as well as increased demand for the relatively less efficient foods that we all prefer.
The resources seem to be available, just as the economists assured us they would be, but whether we can afford to release all that stored carbon is another matter.


The world population is going to peak mid this century and then start declining.

Plus mammals will slowly adapt to declining O2 levels. Doesn't anyone watch Fringe???
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Molakule,
where I saw it was a tongue in cheek rebuttal to an economist to the myth that perpetual (exponential) growth is even possible/sustainable...with a typical beancounter attitude of "you engineers will figure out the solution, you always do".

Exponential Growth basically doubles the utilisation of "stuff" every 20 years (give or take a GFC)...so the coal that will last for 400 years at today's consumption is likely only 200 years in 20 years time, and 100 years of 40 year future consumption (with 60 left).

Pretty soon, within a hundred years or so, mankind will have to live within his solar budget. As a plan at the present time, as that's the technology that we know we have in the bank....roughly doubling the land grab every 20 years

Fusion is the "you engineers will figure out a solution, you always do" ace that the economists sprout. Do you factor that into your future budget ?

I reckon so, but because of the increasing "closeness" of needing it, it should be getting massive resources right now.

Perpetual, exponential growth means that every 20 years, you've pumped as much additional heat into the environment as all of history combined, and that energy has to be radiated out into space.

That energy can only be radiated out through the T^4 law, so by definition we are already raising T, by an amount clearly impossible to measure on the scale at which we are playing


You may find this (somewhat long) article by an Australian economist interesting:
http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-libert...nd-deep-ecology
 
Originally Posted By: kam327
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
If we'd stop clearing forests and plant some new ones, we'd have plenty of O2 as well as a natural carbon sink.
Problem is, we also have a growing world population to feed, as well as increased demand for the relatively less efficient foods that we all prefer.
The resources seem to be available, just as the economists assured us they would be, but whether we can afford to release all that stored carbon is another matter.


The world population is going to peak mid this century and then start declining.

Plus mammals will slowly adapt to declining O2 levels. Doesn't anyone watch Fringe???



hahaha, an excellent show!

Thanks to sleddriver for a thoughtful and well reasoned response blissfully clear of political baloney.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
You may find this (somewhat long) article by an Australian economist interesting:
http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-libert...nd-deep-ecology


Not really long...but WOW...It actually started very well, I'm not a Suzuki, or Monbiot fan, but it wanders into lalaland pretty quickly.

But people have less sex as a result of not spending every waking moment working to survive is a revelation.

Pre contraception birth rates dropping with affluence either means that they are having less "fun" in their spare time...or were taking other actions to not have another mouth to feed...and at the current peak of "non starvingness" (mentioned in the article), we are taking (post contraceptive ability) lives at a prodigious rate so that either they don't die of starvation, nor inconvenience our own lifestyle by being around to house/clothe/feed.

Slaves were an easy way to increase productivity. You could do a couple of days work with a half day's effort with a half dozen of them. Extractible energy, we are doing the same thing (sans having another class of people in squalor, bar those who don't have it)
 
Richer countries tend to value knowledge and experience more than strength and youth which is often preferred in poorer countries that are capital poor. This incentivizes people to put more resources into educating children to a higher level. This is expensive, and a cost to families and society as a whole. Plus, women working and other factors tend to reduce the amount of children being born.

Slavery actually hurts the productivity of a society because it carves out a segment of the society's creativity from coming up with new ideas that can improve productivity. Machines are dumb and lack this ability.

Energy, via machines, improves productivity of most jobs by allowing specialization and offering performance beyond what is physically available to any human. And since people are paid for productivity, access to capital, that allows the purchase or fabrication of machinery, is key to the enrichment of a population.
 
I don't think I agree with the analysis of Tempest's observation. First of all I do not think wealthy nations "value" knowledge and experience more than strength and youth any more or less than poorer nations. The only reason is that the cost of living, therefore cost of labor hour, is higher in wealthy nations, so the available use of man-hour is polarized into either more knowledge based or unemployment. To put it in a simpler term, you can send your kids to college for an engineering or medical degree or you can let them collect welfare checks, because the amount of low paying jobs is reducing and they may be unemployed.

This doesn't means an engineer would go unemployed in Cambodia or an engineer will make more money than a factory worker in the US. It only means that there is a higher chances of a factory worker goes unemployed in the US and an engineer goes unemployed in Cambodia.

Same for productivity. It is not because the US value the employee more so the employer pay more to have them equipped and automated, it is because the not worth equipped and automated works are too expensive in the US and therefore only those more expensive ones are left.

Same for productivity of employee, the way we calculate productivity is value of economic activity produced per staff count. Those who are not producing as much are fired, those who are not working as much unpaid overtime in salary jobs are also fired, so the productivity increase because you can screen out the better employees from the rest. This is why when economy improve productivity always reduce. You already kept all the most productive people employed and you can only hire the less productive people (as a whole in the country, not individual employer). In 3rd world where the jobs are outsourced to, they can hire more people for the volume of work and not be as picky, so the break even point of hiring additional, not so productive staff is lower. This is all about cost, and not about whether US population in general are any better or worse.

Slavery is an artificial way to suppress wages, both to the free population who are competing for the work and to the slaves who are paid only the minimal for survival (food and shelter). It is bad for the society not because it "carve out a segment" of the society but because it is allocating resources with what we computer people called "greedy algorithm": that the slave owner assigned workers to what is valuable to the owner rather than individual competing for his own interest and therefore promote self improvement.

Productivity improvement in the developed world (or more costly places) are more common because it is just cheaper hire human to do the work in 3rd world nations. They could afford it, but it may not be justified when labor is so cheap. Outsourcing is actually one of the main reason productivity is not improved, because the investment is not providing an ROI unless the labor cost increase to a point that justify it.

Business leaders are not there for social responsibility, they are there to look out for the share holders interest. Improving standard of living is just a side effect of what they do, improving productivity is just a side effect of increase in labor cost, and more educated workforce is also a side effect of rising labor cost and competition from cheaper foreign labors that have a barrier to education and government policy that protect their own interests.
 
Originally Posted By: randomhero439
Let the gas prices drop...


Those that control supply will never let that happen...
 
Quote:
First of all I do not think wealthy nations "value" knowledge and experience more than strength and youth any more or less than poorer nations.

So day laborers make as much as a PHD's? Do older / more skilled people make more money in most jobs? When machines do most of labor, physical strength is less valuable and therefore less rewarded.

Quote:
The only reason is that the cost of living, therefore cost of labor hour, is higher in wealthy nations,

The thing you are missing is, why is the cost of labor higher and how did those nations get wealthy? Nations with high productivity tend to be far wealthier. That is not an accident.

Quote:
improving productivity is just a side effect of increase in labor cost,

Partially. As labor costs increase, an employee must have a higher productivity to justify what the employer is paying him, which is why minimum wages and labor regulations price unskilled people out of the market. It is also why businesses must invest in energy using technology to improve productivity of workers.
Ultimately, increasing productivity increases wages. This is provable: There are minimum wage laws in this country, and yet, the vast majority of people that work make more than this. The reason is that their productivity justifies the cost to the employer.
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: randomhero439
Let the gas prices drop...


Those that control supply will never let that happen...

Governments around the globe control ~80% of the world's oil supply.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: randomhero439
Let the gas prices drop...


Those that control supply will never let that happen...

Governments around the globe control ~80% of the world's oil supply.


...hence the reason we're paying $4 a gallon...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top