FAQ
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:15 am


Author Message
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:02 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
I think you are trying to walk a very fine line, iNow.

Good to know. I still feel we're largely saying the same thing and you're arbitrarily trying to make an argument out of essentially nothing. The reasons for my conclusion here are made more obvious when you see how you've selectively quoted me and left out the text that clearly showed the alignment between the positions.

Here's how you quoted me when making your argument:
Futilitist wrote:
A. "The world has a only a finite amount of oil."
B. "By 2015 we will begin to experience an ever worsening oil emergency."

Yet what I actually said was, "we face a finite and decreasing overall supply of oil."

It is not quite as silly as you make it out to be when you recall that I included the words, "and decreasing overall supply."

If oil is finite and we are using some every day, then "decreasing overall supply" is a given. But the overall supply you refer to is called oil reserves. That means oil in the ground that is not being produced yet. I am talking about something very different. What I am talking about is the flow rate or daily oil production rate.

While oil supplies in the ground have been steadily shrinking, the rate of daily oil production, in barrels per day, has been rising since 1859. It began to slow drastically in 2005. According to the US Department of Defense, it will begin to fall irreversibly by 2015, with a maximum decline rate reaching 7% per year. Your wording fails to convey the proper sense of urgency.

iNow wrote:
Likewise, you're now moving the goal posts on your own position. What you really said (and now changed in your option B above) was, "we likely face decreasing daily production of oil by 2015." That is not equivalent to "we will begin to experience an ever worsening oil emergency."

I am not moving the goal posts. "We likely face decreasing daily production of oil" is, in fact, equivalent to "we will experience an ever worsening oil emergency". That is why the US DoD is preparing for it.

iNow wrote:
I also find it a bit funny that you have the nerve to suggest marnixR is a "coward" with a "sleazy agenda" when you engage in such slimy tactics yourself. It's okay, though. Keep up this type of nonsense and you'll be shown the door. You have no leverage here.

I certainly realize I have no leverage here, but my "tactics" are not slimy. I am not moving the goal posts. I believe I am making a valid point. You are saying that the earth's overall endowment of oil is finite and decreasing. I am saying that the daily production rate is about to go into irreversible decline. We are clearly not saying the same thing.

iNow, please answer this question (I asked you twice already):
Do you agree with the US Department of Defense that world oil production will go into irreversible decline by 2015?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:34 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
If oil is finite and we are using some every day, then "decreasing overall supply" is a given.

Which makes me wonder why you're acting as if we disagree and trying to perpetuate an argument that isn't there.

Futilitist wrote:
Your wording fails to convey the proper sense of urgency.

Perhaps because, as has been said numerous times now, I acknowledge the existence of alternatives.

Futilitist wrote:
I am not moving the goal posts.

Yes, you did. You changed what you said originally. No amount of hand-waving and evasion will change this fact. Stay focused on the central topic moving forward. I'm already bored with this exchange with you.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:34 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
If oil is finite and we are using some every day, then "decreasing overall supply" is a given.

Which makes me wonder why you're acting as if we disagree and trying to perpetuate an argument that isn't there.

I am not acting as if we disagree. I believe we are having a genuine disagreement over the the need to be concerned about peak oil, which is the central topic of this thread. You seem to want to soft pedal the issue quite a bit compared to me. In your statement, that we face "a finite and decreasing overall supply of oil", you are using the word "supply" to mean the overall endowment of oil in the earth. Certainly it is true that the earth's endowment of oil is finite and, therefore, declining, but that is so obvious that your statement is basically meaningless as far as peak oil is concerned. A more proper and industry standard definition of the word "supply" means daily oil production, or flow rate, expressed in barrels per day. The world's daily oil production rate and the earth's overall endowment of oil are two very different things. By conflating the two, you create unnecessary confusion. My statement is far more precise and scientific, and, due to the 2015 forecast, my statement is much more of a cause for concern than yours. We could clear this up pretty quickly if you wouldn't mind answering this question, which I now ask for the third time.

iNow, do you agree with the US Department of Defense that world oil production will go into irreversible decline by 2015?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:53 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
If I felt your question was neither relevant nor interesting. Had I felt otherwise, I might have bothered answering it, but I don't feel otherwise. I'm done now. Thanks.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:19 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
If I felt your question was neither relevant nor interesting. Had I felt otherwise, I might have bothered answering it, but I don't feel otherwise. I'm done now. Thanks.

Let me make sure I have this straight. This thread is called "peak oil - does it matter?". The US Department of Defense forecasts that world daily oil production will begin to irreversibly decline within a year and a half. You don't think this is interesting or relevant to the topic of the thread. You refuse to discuss it further.

I guess that is fair. You are not compelled to answer my question.

What else should we talk about?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:15 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
Our ability to adapt is not limitless.


that may well be the case, but since at least 2 feasible alternatives are there, it doesn't exactly push the limits of what we can do right now

there's even a 3rd alternative, which is the coal-to-oil conversion of the Sasol process, which helped South Africa quite nicely in the apartheid days

so in all, there are options, and they are available (or will soon be) to take up the slack purely based on the crude oil price - hence peak oil, while real enough, may still be a red herring when it comes to the economy

Shale gas (fracked natural gas) is often touted as a hopeful alternative. Here is very well researched article that shows that we might not be able to rely on natural gas to offset the effects of peak oil:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/e ... mic-crisis

Quote:
Shale gas won't stop peak oil, but could create an economic crisis

Overinflated industry claims could pull the rug out from optimistic growth forecasts within just five years

Two years ago, following the publication of the EIA April 2011 report a New York Times investigation obtained internal EIA communications showing how senior officials, including industry consultants and federal energy experts privately voiced scepticism about shale gas prospects.

One internal EIA document said oil companies had exaggerated "the appearance of shale gas well profitability" by highlighting performance only from the best wells, and using overly optimistic models for productivity projections over decades. The NYT reported that the EIA often "relies on research from outside consultants with ties to the industry."
...
Independent studies published over the last few months cast even more serious doubt over the viability of the shale gas boom.

A report released in March by the Berlin-based Energy Watch Group (EWG), a group of European scientists, undertook a comprehensive assessment of the availability and production rates for global oil and gas production, concluding that:

"... world oil production has not increased anymore but has entered a plateau since about 2005."

Crude oil production was "already in slight decline since about 2008." This is consistent with the EWG's earlier finding that global conventional oil production had peaked in 2006 - as subsequently corroborated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2010.

The new report predicts that far from growing inexorably, "light tight oil production in the USA will peak between 2015 and 2017, followed by a steep decline", while shale gas production will most likely peak in 2015. Shale gas prospects outside the US are incomparable to gains made so far there "since geological, geographical, and industrial conditions are much less favourable."
...
A Post-Carbon Institute study authored by geologist David Hughes, who worked for 32 years as a research manager at the Geological Survey of Canada, analysed US production data for 65,000 wells from 31 shale plays using a database widely used in industry and government. While acknowledging that shale has dramatically reversed "the long-standing decline of US oil and gas production", this can only:

"... provide a temporary reprieve from having to deal with the real problems: fossil fuels are finite, and production of new fossil fuel resources tends to be increasingly expensive and environmentally damaging."

Despite accounting for nearly 40 per cent of US natural gas production, shale gas production has "been on a plateau since December 2011 - 80 per cent of shale gas production comes from five plays", some of which are already in decline.

"The very high decline rates of shale gas wells require continuous inputs of capital - estimated at $42 billion per year to drill more than 7,000 wells - in order to maintain production. In comparison, the value of shale gas produced in 2012 was just $32.5 billion."

The report thus concludes:

"Notwithstanding the fact that in theory some of these resources have very large in situ volumes, the likely rate at which they can be converted to supply and their cost of acquisition will not allow them to quell higher energy costs and potential supply shortfalls."

Report author Hughes said that the main problem was the exclusion of price and rate of supply: "Price is critically important but not considered in these estimates." He added: "Only a small portion [of total estimated resources], likely less than 5-10 per cent will be recoverable at a low price...

"Shale gas can continue to grow but only at higher prices and that growth will require an ever escalating drilling treadmill with associated collateral financial and environmental costs – and its long term sustainability is highly questionable."

Another report was put out by the Energy Policy Forum, and authored by former Wall Street analyst Deborah Rogers - now an adviser to the US Department of the Interior's Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Rogers warns that the interplay of geological constraints and financial exuberance are creating an unsustainable bubble. Her report shows that shale oil and gas reserves have been:

"... overestimated by a minimum of 100% and by as much as 400-500% by operators according to actual well production data filed in various states... Shale oil wells are following the same steep decline rates and poor recovery efficiency observed in shale gas wells."

Note that the European scientists at the Energy Watch Group essentially confirm the US Department of Defense forecast for a real crisis to begin by 2015. If shale gas production begins to decline at the same time as world oil production, we will be in big trouble. This seems like a pretty interesting thing to discuss.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:03 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
As of April 2013, the price of Methanol was $1.55 per gallon. It takes two gallons of Methanol to equal one gallon of gasoline. Any car that can run on gasoline can be modified to run on Methanol as well. In fact it burns cleaner, and has a higher octane rating.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/investi ... -methanex/

I'm not sure what process they're using to get it, so it's possible that maybe their process wouldn't be capable of scaling up to a large enough size if oil weren't filling some of the demand. I don't know. All I know for sure is that they're able to make a profit selling it for $1.55/gallon right now. So if you're buying 2 gallons of methanol in place of one gallon of gasoline, that would be $3.10.

It's cheaper than gas right now.

It has the added bonus of being contributing almost zero to pollution. If you burn it in a direct to electric fuel cell you can even burn it indoors without risk of harm from the fumes.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:21 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
and how do you produce methanol ? if it's in the same league as as biofuels, then it's bound to come into competition with land required to feed people

remember, these days growing palm oil trees for biofuel is one of the main reasons for disappearing rainforest (together with logging)

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:35 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
It's made by reforming natural gas and if you are going to use natural gas as a feedstock you might as well go all the way and make diesel by pretty much the same process but with different catalysts. The Sasol Fischer Tropsch process is optimized to minimize methanol production and maximize diesel IIRC.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:53 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
I read an interesting article in Forbes today titled, No Peak Oil Really Is Dead. I shared some of the money quotes below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbeha ... y-is-dead/

Quote:
More deeply, however, Peak Oil was ‘clutter’ science. Not quite junk science, but still a big mess. <snip> To wit, the core of the Peak Oil hypothesis could be summed up as: sometime in the not so distant future we need to put some effort into finding new oil extraction techniques. This might be easy in which case there will be plenty more cheap oil. Or, it might be hard, in which case either we can switch to something else or, as with most every other good on earth, we will want to devote some fraction of our time and energy to continually pushing the technological frontier. And, while this is superficially true, it leads you to no deep conclusion and provides no serious insight into the future of humanity or the global economy.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
jackson33
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun May 18, 2014 8:13 pm
TSF Original
TSF Original

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:09 pm
Posts: 5

Offline
W/O Reading all the post..."Peak Oil" has been an issue probably back to the first days oil became a viable source for energy. As is today and well into the future, technology will supply all the oil needed to further mamkind needs, as other energy sources are improved, which includes the so called clean energy sources which will probably not be wind or the current solar format sources. So does it matter....NO.... and it hasn't since my teen years in the early 50's, when it was a daily issue at school.

Out of pure curiosity, why was "Futilistic" chased from this forum...Seems he/she made a good effort to oblige an obvious like minded group of posters with a great deal of forum experience???


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun May 18, 2014 11:08 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
First of all Jackson, it's nice to see you that you are still around and kicking. I hope you have been well and that life for you has been much more positive than not. Last time we interacted, I recall that you were quite advanced in age, doing rather a lot of gambling online, and having quite a bit of success gaming the stock market as a day trader. Regardless, I hope that with whatever you are doing today you are both healthy and happy.

As for futilitist, it should be noted that he is still able to post here without restriction. He has not been runoff from the forum as you suggest (perhaps you're confusing this site with some other?).

If you wish to better understand his history here at this particular site and if you wish to gain insight into how he has been perceived by our members here at TSF, then perhaps you should start by actually reading the posts.

As you have just conceded in your own post, you have not yet bothered to do that... You have not yet spent time reviewing his history across the various threads in which he has participated... You appear quite unfamiliar with all of the rage filled rants, personal vitriol, and logical fallacies he has put forth nor do you seem aware of all of the trash he scattered about the site that we had to so constantly clean up.

So, if I may be so bold, I suggest that it is probably premature for you to so nonchalantly opine about his interactions or treatment here. While you are of course welcome to your own opinion, I urge you to consider better informing yourself prior to reaching any hasty conclusions.


Now, back to the thread topic, I tend to agree with you and your conclusions about peak oil. We will IMO either come up with new methods to find and extract it, replace oil with alternative sources of energy (whatever those may be), or (most likely) some combination of both. In fact, the post immediately prior to yours and the last one made until you recently bumped it states exactly that.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
jackson33
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 6:00 pm
TSF Original
TSF Original

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:09 pm
Posts: 5

Offline
I suppose 75 IS advanced age, but all is well. Rigney is 84 or so, also doing well on Facebook, several hundred friends. I quit card playing years ago, still do some day trading and post some on a political forum. You seem to be well, with your health problems which I hope continues under the new healthcare system.

As for "futilist", did read a post down in the "Trash" and as many posters, on many forums, he/she post what most experienced posters call a "rant" IMO is simple passion, along with lack of understanding (experience) to a particular forums protocol. In other words, many posters fitting in with the membership of any forum can do very well, however if the membership of some forums ideology opposes their own, the lack of experience often can make an otherwise reasonable poster seen as "ranting". Anyway, I've always respected "Skin Walkers" work on these forums and would like to see this forum do better...

Don't reply to this post, but if something interesting me pops up here, I may reply....


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 6:27 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
jackson33 wrote:
You seem to be well, with your health problems which I hope continues under the new healthcare system.

I don't really have any health problems to speak of. I'm diabetic, type 1, and have been since I was a kid, but I'm overall pretty healthy... fit... in good shape, etc. (and the new healthcare bill actually benefits me greatly with its protections of people with pre-existing conditions, but that's only if I lose my job... until that happens, I have a good plan available to me and my family).

Appreciate the kind thoughts, though... And sorry if I overstated your age. I meant no offense. For some reason, I thought you were in your late 80s, but was obviously mistaken. You're practically a teenager at 75! Also, FWIW (even though you and I have often disagreed on political topics) I've also always found you to be a bit better educated and more accurately informed than our friend rigney, but I guess that's neither here nor there.

Unrelated (and perhaps more on topic), I wonder how you and others feel about nuclear power. Does that seem viable as an option of getting ourselves off of oil and gas and other dead dinosaur and plant life that's been crushed into stuff like coal through the millenia?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 9:33 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
On nuclear power I say proceed with caution; but the timescale for new construction is so long that it won't make a positive difference for decades.

Germany is providing a natural experiment in the balance among different power sources. They recently announced that for a very brief period of time the country obtained 74% of its energy from renewable sources, mainly wind and solar, and this is in a cloudy north country. The more typical average renewable contribution is around 24%. This is as they phase out their existing nuclear plants.

The downside is that as nuclear is phased out, imports of coal are increasing, and the renewable industry is subsidized by consumers.


Top
jackson33
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 9:38 pm
TSF Original
TSF Original

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:09 pm
Posts: 5

Offline
I've long believed in the "abiogenic hypothesis" or oil is produced within the earths mantle, gas a by product and coal a natural formation while the earth has cooled or the crust formed. Add heat and pressure to the below definition, if you don't read the article.

Quote:
Foundations of the hypotheses

Within the mantle, carbon may exist as hydrocarbons—chiefly methane—and as elemental carbon, carbon dioxide, and carbonates.[12] The abiotic hypothesis is that the full suite of hydrocarbons found in petroleum can either be generated in the mantle by abiogenic processes,[12] or by biological processing of those abiogenic hydrocarbons, and that the source-hydrocarbons of abiogenic origin can migrate out of the mantle into the crust until they escape to the surface or are trapped by impermeable strata, forming petroleum reservoirs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin


This said; Of course Nuclear Power is a viable source, but is it acceptable to a basically ignorant general public? If they hear or are told of Japans problems, three mile island or other related events, they will be, then it will be rejected in any free society.

Thinking nanotechnology (parts), here is an interesting idea and viable to most any place people would accept it, if cheaper and not visible.


Quote:
PARIS (AP) - Small underground nuclear power plants that could be cheaper to build than their behemoth counterparts may herald the future for an energy industry under intense scrutiny since the Fukushima disaster, the incoming head of the Nuclear Energy Agency told The Associated Press.

Size is relative - the modular plants could be about as big as a couple of semi-trailers - easily fitting on the dimensions of coal plants they're ultimately intended to replace in the U.S. They would have factory-built parts that are slotted together like Lego blocks and hauled by train or truck - making assembly possible anywhere.

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2014/ ... nergy.html


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 12:10 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
bunbury wrote:
On nuclear power I say proceed with caution; but the timescale for new construction is so long that it won't make a positive difference for decades.

Germany is providing a natural experiment in the balance among different power sources. They recently announced that for a very brief period of time the country obtained 74% of its energy from renewable sources, mainly wind and solar, and this is in a cloudy north country. The more typical average renewable contribution is around 24%. This is as they phase out their existing nuclear plants.

The downside is that as nuclear is phased out, imports of coal are increasing, and the renewable industry is subsidized by consumers.

I, too, am a little bit worried about Germany right now. They are moving more and more towards coal, oil, and gas during these times of reduced economic growth and recession. They were one of the strongest and most advanced countries when it came to solar power, but given the problems across the European economy right now their subsidies are in some trouble (hence their massive import of fossil fuels from Russia).


Jackson - This is the first I've heard of underground nuclear reactors powering cities. I wonder how far along they are with the development of those and also how likely it is that they are being considered seriously by those in a position to help implement them.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 4:15 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
jackson33 wrote:
W/O Reading all the post..."Peak Oil" has been an issue probably back to the first days oil became a viable source for energy. As is today and well into the future, technology will supply all the oil needed to further mamkind needs, as other energy sources are improved, which includes the so called clean energy sources which will probably not be wind or the current solar format sources. So does it matter....NO.... and it hasn't since my teen years in the early 50's, when it was a daily issue at school.

Out of pure curiosity, why was "Futilistic" chased from this forum...Seems he/she made a good effort to oblige an obvious like minded group of posters with a great deal of forum experience???

Hello jackson33. I agree, it does seem a little weird that I am treated so harshly here.

iNow wrote:
If you wish to better understand his history here at this particular site and if you wish to gain insight into how he has been perceived by our members here at TSF, then perhaps you should start by actually reading the posts.

I agree with iNow that you should look into things yourself to form an accurate opinion about the goings on around here.

I think that we just got off on the wrong foot. Check out the thread that started it all:

GROUP THINK IN INTERNET FORUMS an EXPERIMENT

topic773.html

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
jackson33
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 5:22 pm
TSF Original
TSF Original

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:09 pm
Posts: 5

Offline
Quote:
Jackson - This is the first I've heard of underground nuclear reactors powering cities. I wonder how far along they are with the development of those and also how likely it is that they are being considered seriously by those in a position to help implement them.



Quote:
Pint-size nuclear plants get a boost from Obama administration
Small-scale nuclear plants can be strung together and might save utilities on capital costs. But critics question the efficiency and operating costs of small-scale nuclear plants.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) said it would provide $217 million in matching funds over five years to NuScale, which builds small, ready-made reactors that can be strung together.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/En ... nistration


iNow; Ran across this today and thought you might be interest. I won't elaborate here, but feel but National "Power Grids" is/was the wrong solution for distribution.



Futilist; You probably should not have asked me to research your "username", since I've learned your history with some long time forum agitators. If you have an objective for spending so much time on these forums, which you say are science oriented, reply only to those discussing your post/thread in a sincere manner. Your spending a lot of time on post or designing a thread topic, when IMO a very short one will do the job. My problem was with your years (2) and post counts (over 500 on two major forums), it didn't seem likely you were the problem, generally that would demand banning, which on one forum you claimed had happened. FTR; There are a couple SF, where more folks have been banned, than are posting and many others that are no longer around....get the point.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:34 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
Thank you for the link, Jackson. Appreciate that!

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:52 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
jackson33 wrote:
Futilist; You probably should not have asked me to research your "username", since I've learned your history with some long time forum agitators.

jackson33,

The first thing you might have noticed in your research was that my user name is Futilitist, not Futilist.

But, in any event, I did not ask you to research my user name. I just asked you to take a look at:

GROUP THINK IN INTERNET FORUMS an EXPERIMENT

topic773.html

(Also, I did not ask you to render your opinion about any of this on this thread. Any further discussion of this here is clearly off topic.)

Thanks again for expressing your initial concern,

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:26 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
...I did not ask you to research my user name. I just asked you to take a look at ...

... Also, I did not ask you to render your opinion about any of this on this thread ...


on the other hand, Jackson33 (or anyone else, for that matter) did not ask for your opinion on what is on topic and what is not

in most civil conversations people are free to voice their opinion, whether they have been invited to do so or not

(btw, you appear to have a knack for dissing potential allies)

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:29 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
on the other hand, Jackson33 (or anyone else, for that matter) did not ask for your opinion on what is on topic and what is not

in most civil conversations people are free to voice their opinion, whether they have been invited to do so or not

Do you not see the irony of the above juxtaposition? If, as you say, "in most civil conversations, people are free to voice their opinion", why shouldn't I be able to freely offer my opinion of what is on or off topic? I offered my opinion without waiting for an invitation, just as proscribed in the rule.

marnixR wrote:
(btw, you appear to have a knack for dissing potential allies)

1. I wasn't dissing him. I signed off by thanking him for his initial concern.

2. Why on earth do I need allies? Am I in some sort of danger here? ;) I thought this was a science discussion forum.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:40 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
iNow wrote:
No Peak Oil Really Is Dead

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbeha ... y-is-dead/
Quote:
More deeply, however, Peak Oil was ‘clutter’ science. Not quite junk science, but still a big mess.

<snip>

To wit, the core of the Peak Oil hypothesis could be summed up as: sometime in the not so distant future we need to put some effort into finding new oil extraction techniques. This might be easy in which case there will be plenty more cheap oil. Or, it might be hard, in which case either we can switch to something else or, as with most every other good on earth, we will want to devote some fraction of our time and energy to continually pushing the technological frontier. And, while this is superficially true, it leads you to no deep conclusion and provides no serious insight into the future of humanity or the global economy.


Does anyone else have any other comments about the actual thread topic of peak oil?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:55 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
I thought this was a science discussion forum.


indeed, and in that context it's rather strange that you should tell someone they've raised an opinion that you haven't asked for

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:55 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
iNow wrote:
No Peak Oil Really Is Dead

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbeha ... y-is-dead/
Quote:
More deeply, however, Peak Oil was ‘clutter’ science. Not quite junk science, but still a big mess.

<snip>

To wit, the core of the Peak Oil hypothesis could be summed up as: sometime in the not so distant future we need to put some effort into finding new oil extraction techniques. This might be easy in which case there will be plenty more cheap oil. Or, it might be hard, in which case either we can switch to something else or, as with most every other good on earth, we will want to devote some fraction of our time and energy to continually pushing the technological frontier. And, while this is superficially true, it leads you to no deep conclusion and provides no serious insight into the future of humanity or the global economy.


Does anyone else have any other comments about the actual thread topic of peak oil?

Yes.

The above paragraph that you snipped fails to take into account EROEI. Things like new extraction techniques, switching to something(?) else, and devoting an ever growing fraction of our time and energy to continually pushing the technological frontier means that we are going to keep getting less and less bang for the buck energy wise. Ever more expensive energy means ever more drag on the world economy, which still hasn't recovered from the 2008 crash. US GDP just went negative for the first quarter of 2014! Peak oil is certainly not dead. It continues to loom as the gravest threat facing civilization today. Rising energy costs will very soon drive the world economy into permanent recession, i.e. the end of growth. Once that happens, the fate of modern industrial civilization is sealed. Collapse is inevitable.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:16 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
The above paragraph that you snipped fails to take into account EROEI. Things like new extraction techniques, switching to something(?) else, and devoting an ever growing fraction of our time and energy to continually pushing the technological frontier means that we are going to keep getting less and less bang for the buck energy wise.

No it doesn't. That's quite clearly addressed in both the quote I shared and the larger article.

Futilitist wrote:
Collapse is inevitable.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but (as I have shared with you more than once in the past) it should not be asserted as fact, especially since this particular conclusion is so deeply contingent upon our response to the challenges you cite.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:34 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
The above paragraph that you snipped fails to take into account EROEI. Things like new extraction techniques, switching to something(?) else, and devoting an ever growing fraction of our time and energy to continually pushing the technological frontier means that we are going to keep getting less and less bang for the buck energy wise.

No it doesn't. That's quite clearly addressed in both the quote I shared and the larger article.

The EROEI for oil has been in decline for quite some time:

Image

When you replace declining conventional oil production with more expensive unconventional oil production, the overall energy return on energy invested for all of civilization declines. That is not an opinion. It is a simple, logical, and undeniable fact. And I did not see this fact "quite clearly addressed" in both the quote and the larger article. Perhaps you could just summarize the argument for why the continuing trend in EROEI is not a serious problem.

Futilitist wrote:
Collapse is inevitable.

iNow wrote:
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but (as I have shared with you more than once in the past) it should not be asserted as fact, especially since this particular conclusion is so deeply contingent upon our response to the challenges you cite.

OK. I fixed it:

Futilitist wrote:
The above paragraph that you snipped fails to take into account EROEI. Things like new extraction techniques, switching to something(?) else, and devoting an ever growing fraction of our time and energy to continually pushing the technological frontier means that we are going to keep getting less and less bang for the buck energy wise. Ever more expensive energy means ever more drag on the world economy, which still hasn't recovered from the 2008 crash. US GDP just went negative for the first quarter of 2014! Peak oil is certainly not dead. It continues to loom as the gravest threat facing civilization today. Rising energy costs will very soon drive the world economy into permanent recession, i.e. the end of growth. Once that happens, the fate of modern industrial civilization is sealed. Collapse is inevitable, IMO.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:59 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
The EROEI for oil has been in decline for quite some time

And I never disputed that.

Futilitist wrote:
That is not an opinion. It is a simple, logical, and undeniable fact.

Nice try at moving the goalposts, but the opinion being referenced was that "collapse is inevitable," not that production is declining and extraction costs increasing.

Futilitist wrote:
And I did not see this fact "quite clearly addressed" in both the quote and the larger article.

That's okay. It's right there for you to read again if you missed it the first time.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 4:18 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
In the meantime, here's more that are similar to drive home the core point (again) for you:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/841401- ... oil-theory

Quote:
One of the most important energy theories for investors in energy of any sorts is the notion of "peak oil", or the idea that at some point, we're going to hit a certain amount of oil production, and then we're going to have to naturally start producing less going forward from that middle point.

This makes sense if one doesn't understand the nature of innovation, the basics of economics, or the business of oil production. But once we analyze those angles, the theory falls apart.


http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/ ... wed-Theory
Quote:
The decision to shutter "The Oil Drum," the leading website devoted to peak oil, has come to symbolize the end of an era - and sparked a furious debate about whether the theory was all along based on a fundamental mistake. <...> The site's demise marks the end of a flawed theory and more generally the fact the commodity supercycle has turned. "Peak oil theory has basically gone the way of the California Condor, from widespread existence and acceptance ... to near extinction."
<...>
"Today, given the new abundance of shale oil, almost no real industry leaders are peak oil proponents," Forbes added, dismissing peak oil as "a theory based on lack of imagination."

According to the magazine, proponents underestimated the huge role advancing technology plays in allowing industry to discover new sources of oil and recover deposits previously thought to be inaccessible.
<...>
Interest in peak oil rose to fever pitch in 2008 as prices rose relentlessly to reach more than $147 per barrel. Later that year, the International Energy Agency (IEA), devoted its flagship publication, the annual World Economic Outlook, to analyzing the accelerating decline rates at many of the world's oil fields.

"The world is not running short of oil or gas just yet," the IEA observed carefully, but "field by field declines in oil production are accelerating." The industry would need to run faster and faster just to stand still, the agency warned. By 2013, oil and gas prices had fallen, in large part because of the North American shale revolution. The IEA could predict confidently that oil, gas and coal resources "are sufficiently abundant" to fuel the world until cleaner alternatives have been developed.
<...>
Failed predictions about peaking oil supplies, and steep rises in the price of other commodities, all stem from the same error: assuming a world of roughly constant technology, rather than one where technology is constantly changing, sometimes slowly, at other times in large disruptive jumps. Malthus, Jevons, Beal, Hubbert, the authors of Limits to Growth, Hirsch and the modern peak-oilers all failed to see how technology was already changing the world even as they wrote, and would alter it beyond recognition within just a few years.


http://science.time.com/2013/05/15/the- ... te-policy/
Quote:
But there was an upside to peak oil. Crude oil was responsible for a significant chunk of global carbon emissions, second only to coal. Only the shock of being severed from the main fuel of modernity would be enough to make us get serious about tackling climate change and shifting to an economy powered by renewable energy and efficiency. We’d have to because we’d have no other choice, save a future that might look something like Mad Max. We’d lose oil but save the world.

Increasingly, though, that doesn’t seem likely to happen. New oil sources, many of them unlocked by new technology—the Canadian oil sands, tight oil in North Dakota and Texas, ultra-deepwater oil in the Atlantic—has helped keep the supply of oil growing, even as greater efficiency measures and other social shifts have helped blunt demand in rich countries like the U.S. Oil isn’t likely to be cheap—a barrel of Brent crude is $102—and getting it out of the ground isn’t going to get any easier. But it’s increasingly likely that we will have more than enough oil in the future to keep the global economy growing and stave off any Mel Gibson-esque apocalypses.

Indeed, a new assessment released yesterday by the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that the surge of supply from North America—most of it from new unconventional sources—will transform the global supply of oil and help ease tight markets. Between now and 2018, the IEA projects that global oil production capacity will grow by 8.4 million barrels a day—significantly faster than demand. Oil isn’t likely to peak any time soon.


I like how it was summarized in one of the above articles... Peak oil is basically a theory based on a lack of imagination and the assumption of a static world.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:28 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
The EROEI for oil has been in decline for quite some time

And I never disputed that.

Right. But you also never explain how new technology can overcome the long term trend of declining EROEI, which ultimately means ever higher energy costs in the future. This trend seems to confirm peak oil theory. After all, we have had lots of technological breakthroughs over the years and yet EROEI continues to decline.

Image

Direct questions for you to consider:
1. Can new technology ever reverse the decline in EROEI? If so, how?

2. If not, how do we deal with ever rising energy costs in the future?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Last edited by Futilitist on Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:18 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
I don't agree that we need to reverse the trend of increased oil extraction costs for lower returns of oil supply since (as I've already shared) I believe we will ultimately displace the need for oil anyway (and are already heading well in that direction). I also think that the displacement I mention is a good thing given the associated climate impact.

Anyway... your questions above suggest to me that you may have missed this other post I offered (or are choosing to remain willful obtuse and simply ignore it perhaps?), so I'll quote it here again.

iNow wrote:
In the meantime, here's more that are similar to drive home the core point (again) for you:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/841401- ... oil-theory

Quote:
One of the most important energy theories for investors in energy of any sorts is the notion of "peak oil", or the idea that at some point, we're going to hit a certain amount of oil production, and then we're going to have to naturally start producing less going forward from that middle point.

This makes sense if one doesn't understand the nature of innovation, the basics of economics, or the business of oil production. But once we analyze those angles, the theory falls apart.


http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/ ... wed-Theory
Quote:
The decision to shutter "The Oil Drum," the leading website devoted to peak oil, has come to symbolize the end of an era - and sparked a furious debate about whether the theory was all along based on a fundamental mistake. <...> The site's demise marks the end of a flawed theory and more generally the fact the commodity supercycle has turned. "Peak oil theory has basically gone the way of the California Condor, from widespread existence and acceptance ... to near extinction."
<...>
"Today, given the new abundance of shale oil, almost no real industry leaders are peak oil proponents," Forbes added, dismissing peak oil as "a theory based on lack of imagination."

According to the magazine, proponents underestimated the huge role advancing technology plays in allowing industry to discover new sources of oil and recover deposits previously thought to be inaccessible.
<...>
Interest in peak oil rose to fever pitch in 2008 as prices rose relentlessly to reach more than $147 per barrel. Later that year, the International Energy Agency (IEA), devoted its flagship publication, the annual World Economic Outlook, to analyzing the accelerating decline rates at many of the world's oil fields.

"The world is not running short of oil or gas just yet," the IEA observed carefully, but "field by field declines in oil production are accelerating." The industry would need to run faster and faster just to stand still, the agency warned. By 2013, oil and gas prices had fallen, in large part because of the North American shale revolution. The IEA could predict confidently that oil, gas and coal resources "are sufficiently abundant" to fuel the world until cleaner alternatives have been developed.
<...>
Failed predictions about peaking oil supplies, and steep rises in the price of other commodities, all stem from the same error: assuming a world of roughly constant technology, rather than one where technology is constantly changing, sometimes slowly, at other times in large disruptive jumps. Malthus, Jevons, Beal, Hubbert, the authors of Limits to Growth, Hirsch and the modern peak-oilers all failed to see how technology was already changing the world even as they wrote, and would alter it beyond recognition within just a few years.


http://science.time.com/2013/05/15/the- ... te-policy/
Quote:
But there was an upside to peak oil. Crude oil was responsible for a significant chunk of global carbon emissions, second only to coal. Only the shock of being severed from the main fuel of modernity would be enough to make us get serious about tackling climate change and shifting to an economy powered by renewable energy and efficiency. We’d have to because we’d have no other choice, save a future that might look something like Mad Max. We’d lose oil but save the world.

Increasingly, though, that doesn’t seem likely to happen. New oil sources, many of them unlocked by new technology—the Canadian oil sands, tight oil in North Dakota and Texas, ultra-deepwater oil in the Atlantic—has helped keep the supply of oil growing, even as greater efficiency measures and other social shifts have helped blunt demand in rich countries like the U.S. Oil isn’t likely to be cheap—a barrel of Brent crude is $102—and getting it out of the ground isn’t going to get any easier. But it’s increasingly likely that we will have more than enough oil in the future to keep the global economy growing and stave off any Mel Gibson-esque apocalypses.

Indeed, a new assessment released yesterday by the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that the surge of supply from North America—most of it from new unconventional sources—will transform the global supply of oil and help ease tight markets. Between now and 2018, the IEA projects that global oil production capacity will grow by 8.4 million barrels a day—significantly faster than demand. Oil isn’t likely to peak any time soon.


I like how it was summarized in one of the above articles... Peak oil is basically a theory based on a lack of imagination and the assumption of a static world.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:50 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
I don't agree that we need to reverse the trend of increased oil extraction costs for lower returns of oil supply since (as I've already shared) I believe we will ultimately displace the need for oil anyway (and are already heading well in that direction).

OK. I don't believe that we can "ultimately displace the need for oil" as you suggest. I believe that oil is a lot harder to replace than you think.

iNow wrote:
I also think that the displacement I mention is a good thing given the associated climate impact.

I agree.

iNow wrote:
Anyway... your questions above suggest to me that you may have missed this other post I offered (or are choosing to remain willful obtuse and simply ignore it perhaps?), so I'll quote it here again.

I didn't miss the post you offered. I thought it was more conversational to boil the issue down to a couple of questions which you answered. Thank you. I think the "choosing to remain willful obtuse" thing sounds unnecessarily inflammatory.

iNow wrote:
I like how it was summarized in one of the above articles... Peak oil is basically a theory based on a lack of imagination and the assumption of a static world.

Catchy.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:58 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
I believe that oil is a lot harder to replace than you think.

But you don't know how hard I think it will be to replace oil. I have not discussed the level of difficulty that may or may not be involved in achieving that objective.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:46 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
I believe that oil is a lot harder to replace than you think.

But you don't know how hard I think it will be to replace oil.

Don't worry, I'm not attempting to read your mind or put thoughts in your head. You said oil could be replaced. For a variety of technical reasons, I don't think that is possible. Therefore, I stand by my statement. I believe that oil is a lot harder to replace than you think.

iNow wrote:
I have not discussed the level of difficulty that may or may not be involved in achieving that objective.

That is true, though the validity of your entire argument, as well as the fate of civilization, hinges on it. Go for it.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:09 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
You said oil could be replaced.

Because it can.

Futilitist wrote:
For a variety of technical reasons, I don't think that is possible.

This shows little more than the aforementioned failure of imagination.

Futilitist wrote:
I believe that oil is a lot harder to replace than you think.

Except, you don't know how hard I think it will be. I have not discussed the level of difficulty that may or may not be involved in achieving that objective.

Futilitist wrote:
iNow wrote:
I have not discussed the level of difficulty that may or may not be involved in achieving that objective.

That is true

And yet you continue claiming to know how hard I personally think it will be to replace oil. You cannot have it both ways.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:42 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
You said oil could be replaced.

Because it can.

If you think oil can be replaced, then you think it would be easier to do than I do.

iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
For a variety of technical reasons, I don't think that is possible.

This shows little more than the aforementioned failure of imagination.

No, it does not. I am factoring in many things which you seem to conveniently ignore. If I thought that unicorns might save us, it would show that I had more imagination than you, but how would that actually solve the problem?

iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
I believe that oil is a lot harder to replace than you think.

Except, you don't know how hard I think it will be. I have not discussed the level of difficulty that may or may not be involved in achieving that objective.

Once again, if you think that oil can be replaced, then you obviously think it would be easier to do than I do.

iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
iNow wrote:
I have not discussed the level of difficulty that may or may not be involved in achieving that objective.

That is true

And yet you continue claiming to know how hard I personally think it will be to replace oil. You cannot have it both ways.

You said that replacing oil is possible. If something is possible or achievable then it is obviously less hard than something which is physically impossible. Why can't you understand this?

This is pretty silly, iNow. Rather than repeatedly complaining that I am misrepresenting your position, why not just explain your position more clearly.

For example:
iNow wrote:
I don't agree that we need to reverse the trend of increased oil extraction costs for lower returns of oil supply since (as I've already shared) I believe we will ultimately displace the need for oil anyway (and are already heading well in that direction).

Although this basically answers my question, it leaves out a lot of important detail. Declining EROEI means ever increasing cost. Alternatives are expensive and they can only come to market when oil prices are high enough to make alternatives practical. Thus, the problem of ever rising energy costs can not be solved by displacing expensive oil with expensive alternatives. How do you answer this?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 5:43 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
If you think oil can be replaced, then you think it would be easier to do than I do.

Saying something is possible is not equivalent to saying something is easy. You're not arguing that it's difficult. You're arguing that it's impossible. Not the same.

Futilitist wrote:
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
For a variety of technical reasons, I don't think that is possible.

This shows little more than the aforementioned failure of imagination.

No, it does not.

Of course it does.

Futilitist wrote:
You said that replacing oil is possible.

Because it is.

Futilitist wrote:
the problem of ever rising energy costs can not be solved by displacing expensive oil with expensive alternatives. How do you answer this?

Alternatives become less expensive and more quickly achieve parity as supply of them rises and smart regulations (and even carbon taxes) are applied to oil.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:13 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
If you think oil can be replaced, then you think it would be easier to do than I do.

Saying something is possible is not equivalent to saying something is easy. You're not arguing that it's difficult. You're arguing that it's impossible. Not the same.

OK. We sure have wasted a lot of time on this.

Futilitist wrote:
For a variety of technical reasons, I don't think that is possible.

iNow wrote:
This shows little more than the aforementioned failure of imagination.

Futilitist wrote:
No, it does not.

iNow wrote:
Of course it does.

Brilliant.

My full answer to your charge of lacking imagination was:

No, it does not. I am factoring in many things which you seem to conveniently ignore. If I thought that unicorns might save us, it would show that I had more imagination than you, but how would that actually solve the problem?

You choose to only answer the "No, it does not" part and leave out all the rest. And your answer doesn't really do much to forward the discussion, does it?

My example of unicorns saving us, which you cherry picked out of my answer above, shows a lot more imagination than you have shown so far.

Futilitist wrote:
You said that replacing oil is possible.

iNow wrote:
Because it is.

In your opinion. Prove it.

iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
the problem of ever rising energy costs can not be solved by displacing expensive oil with expensive alternatives. How do you answer this?

Alternatives become less expensive and more quickly achieve parity as supply of them rises and smart regulations (and even carbon taxes) are applied to oil.

If alternatives achieve parity, they will be just as expensive as oil. That is what parity means. It still doesn't solve the bang for the buck problem, does it? The cost of energy cannot rise without negative impact to the economy, yet the cost will continue to rise, taking an ever larger percentage of every dollar. Something has to give. At a certain point, all economic growth will end. It is only logical. As Jay Hanson would say: "How could it be otherwise?"

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:18 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
If alternatives achieve parity, they will be just as expensive as oil. That is what parity means. It still doesn't solve the bang for the buck problem, does it?

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Futilitist wrote:
At a certain point, all economic growth will end. It is only logical.

Rubbish.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:41 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
If alternatives achieve parity, they will be just as expensive as oil. That is what parity means. It still doesn't solve the bang for the buck problem, does it?

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Stop trying to dodge the question.

iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
At a certain point, all economic growth will end. It is only logical.

Rubbish.

Good answer. Hard to argue with your logic on that.

Seriously, iNow, your posts are almost totally lacking in any relevant content, IMO.

If energy costs keep rising, and you haven't said that they won't, then there will be serious economic problems going forward. Civilization cannot continue without cheap energy. This explains why:

http://energyskeptic.com/2013/2012-global-eroi/

Quote:
What is global EROI now? A Review of 2012 EROI of Global Energy Resources

Jessica Lambert, Nov 2012. Charles Hall, et. al. EROI of Global Energy Resources Preliminary Status and Trends. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry

This 41 page pdf is full of graphs, how EROI is calculated, and other information that is quite interesting. If you’re new to the concept of EROI, this is a good paper to read, and if you’re familiar with it, this is a good source of “where we are now” as we approach the energy cliff. The concept of EROI is essential to understanding why we’re headed for collapse. There’s an assumption that alternative energy resources like solar and wind can fill in for oil because people have no idea how huge the scale and quality of energy from oil is (especially as a transportation fuel). Also see Nature magazine’s Hydrocarbons and the evolution of human culture Alice Friedemann

Some key findings of this paper:

.The energy and material resources available to a society determines the growth and decline of a civilization.
.Only if there’s a surplus of energy can a division of labor, with artisans, specialists, and cities exist. Even more energy is needed to reach high levels of wide-spread wealth (a middle-class), education, health care, and culture.
.Fluctuations in the availability of cheap high-quality energy (oil) are far better at predicting and explaining booms and busts than what kind of political or economic system a country has.
.Four of the five recessions since 1970 can be explained by increased oil prices. A recession results in declining oil prices, leading to more consumption, a boom period, leading to higher energy consumption and energy prices, constraining growth (again).
.High energy prices mean society has to divert resources away from discretionary spending to pay for the higher-priced energy.
.Fossil fuels supply more than 75% of the total energy used globally.
.The Energy Returned on Investment (EROI) has declined for all fossil fuel resources except coal since the 1950s. In the United States, the EROI of production iwas 30:1 in the 1970s and less than 10:1 now. Global EROI has gone from 30:1 in 1995 to around 18:1 in 2006.
.Although coal production has gone up, the quality of the coal has been declining since 1998.
.EROI of renewable energy is very low:

EROI Source

2:1 Biofuels are less than 2 to 1, negative or break-even
18:1 Wind (perhaps)
7:1 Photovoltaic solar

.Most renewable and nonconventional energy alternatives have substantially lower EROI values than conventional fossil fuels.
.Declining EROI, at the societal level, means that an increasing proportion of energy output is diverted to getting the energy needed to run an economy with less discretionary funds available for “non-essential” projects.
.The declining EROI of traditional fossil fuel energy sources and this eventual effect on the world economy are likely to result in a myriad of unforeseen consequences.
.For civilization as we know it to exist, the minimum EROI is:

Minimum EROI required---Activity

1.1 : 1---Extract oil
1.2 : 1---Refine Oil
3 : 1---Transportation
5 : 1---Grow Food
7-8 : 1---Support Family of Workers
10 : 1---Education
12 : 1---Health Care
14 : 1---Arts and other culture
Source: (Lambert)

Explanation: If oil EROI is 1.1 we can pump it up and see it. If it’s 1.2 : 1, you can both extract and refine it. To deliver the oil, you’d need at least a 3 to 1 EROI to build and maintain trucks, roads, and bridges. If the product is grain, not oil, then an EROI of about 5:1 because you need to add in the energy to grow and process the grain. And so on. Murphy et al., 2010 report that just prior to the financial collapse of 2008, the annual global increase of each conventional fossil fuel (oil, gas, and coal) was greater than the total annual production of all non-conventional, solar-based (i.e., wind turbines and photovoltaics) energy. This means that energy derived from nonconventional energy sources is not displacing fossil fuel use, it’s just contributing to annual global energy growth.

The devil is in the details, iNow.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:13 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist, your problem is that your reasoning takes the line of "if this continues", which is fine up to a point, but disregards that at some point any "if this continues" reasoning breaks down because something novel happens that invalidates its assumptions

ask the Club of Rome - it's one of the reasons why their Limits to Growth proved to be more alarmist than realistic in its predictions

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:49 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist, your problem is that your reasoning takes the line of "if this continues", which is fine up to a point, but disregards that at some point any "if this continues" reasoning breaks down because something novel happens that invalidates its assumptions

Like what?

marnixR wrote:
ask the Club of Rome - it's one of the reasons why their Limits to Growth proved to be more alarmist than realistic in its predictions

That is just an opinion. I don't think they were alarmist enough. And this is kind of irrelevant, as in not really pertaining to, let alone rebutting, anything in my last post about EROEI (which summarized a 41 page formal peer reviewed paper!).

Oh, and:
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist, your problem is...

Instead of worrying about my problems, why not focus on the problem at hand. What do you think about the EROEI problem?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:13 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist, your problem is that your reasoning takes the line of "if this continues", which is fine up to a point, but disregards that at some point any "if this continues" reasoning breaks down because something novel happens that invalidates its assumptions

Like what?


that's just the point : you can't tell in advance what will break your "if this continues" line of reasoning - the only thing you can tell is that at some point it will

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:35 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist, your problem is that your reasoning takes the line of "if this continues", which is fine up to a point, but disregards that at some point any "if this continues" reasoning breaks down because something novel happens that invalidates its assumptions

Like what?


that's just the point : you can't tell in advance what will break your "if this continues" line of reasoning - the only thing you can tell is that at some point it will

You don't directly address the issue of EROEI. Instead you just repeat your opinion that something will come along to save us. Wow.

What about all of this stuff?----

http://energyskeptic.com/2013/2012-global-eroi/

Quote:
What is global EROI now? A Review of 2012 EROI of Global Energy Resources

Jessica Lambert, Nov 2012. Charles Hall, et. al. EROI of Global Energy Resources Preliminary Status and Trends. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry

This 41 page pdf is full of graphs, how EROI is calculated, and other information that is quite interesting.

<snipped by iNow since it was already quoted exactly the same way in a previous post. if interested, you can read it two posts above or just follow the link. posts commenting about this action will be immediately moved to the Trash.>

This means that energy derived from nonconventional energy sources is not displacing fossil fuel use, it’s just contributing to annual global energy growth.[/u][/i]

marnixR,

Can you comment on any of this?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Last edited by iNow on Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.
shortened the quoted text since it had already been shared in previous post


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:22 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
If alternatives achieve parity, they will be just as expensive as oil. That is what parity means. It still doesn't solve the bang for the buck problem, does it?

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Stop trying to dodge the question.

When I said it's possible to replace oil, and shared that alternative energy sources become better and cheaper everyday, there was no onus on me to "solve the bang for the buck problem" or argue that it could. This is my response to your question.

Futilitist wrote:
If energy costs keep rising, and you haven't said that they won't...

We'll see. It's possible they will, and it's possible they won't. Neither of us can know for sure until it happens.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:24 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
You don't directly address the issue of EROEI.


because i think it's immaterial to the type of discussion i want to hold + i won't be dictated by someone with a bee in his bonnet
i'm not saying that a deus ex machina will come along to save us, all i'm saying that no-one can predict where current predictions will fall short of the future reality - you're not even willing to entertain the reality of that statement or even agree that it might have relevance

Futilitist wrote:
Can you comment on any of this?


as i've said before, it's not up to you dictate the direction this thread takes, if no-one feels like following

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:00 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
If alternatives achieve parity, they will be just as expensive as oil. That is what parity means. It still doesn't solve the bang for the buck problem, does it?

iNow wrote:
Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Futilitist wrote:
Stop trying to dodge the question.

iNow wrote:
When I said it's possible to replace oil, and shared that alternative energy sources become better and cheaper everyday, there was no onus on me to "solve the bang for the buck problem" or argue that it could.

The problem of diminishing returns on energy invested means that alternative energies will never be able to replace fossil fuels in terms of bang for the buck. Logically speaking, this must eventually lead to collapse. Thus, if you are saying that it is possible to replace fossil fuels with alternatives and avoid collapse, then it seems like the onus would be on you to explain how this could be possible if the EROEI problem is real. But if you don't think your seemingly illogical position warrants any further explanation, that's OK.

iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
If energy costs keep rising, and you haven't said that they won't...

We'll see. It's possible they will, and it's possible they won't. Neither of us can know for sure until it happens.

Yep, the future is unknowable.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:13 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
You don't directly address the issue of EROEI.

because i think it's immaterial to the type of discussion i want to hold

EROEI is immaterial to a discussion about peak oil? Seriously? On a science forum?

What type of discussion do you want to hold?

marnixR wrote:
+ i won't be dictated by someone with a bee in his bonnet

Huh?

marnixR wrote:
i'm not saying that a deus ex machina will come along to save us, all i'm saying that no-one can predict where current predictions will fall short of the future reality - you're not even willing to entertain the reality of that statement or even agree that it might have relevance

Sure I am.

marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
Can you comment on any of this?

as i've said before, it's not up to you dictate the direction this thread takes, if no-one feels like following

OK.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:21 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
The problem of diminishing returns on energy invested means that alternative energies will never be able to replace fossil fuels in terms of bang for the buck.
<snip>
Yep, the future is unknowable.

You cannot have it both ways, futilitist. You're once again arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy