Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?

[mhaze]

.... If the non-existent methanol fuel you're fantasizing about suddenly were to become widely available at the pump (at any price), ....

You mean the stuff we can buy any day of the week in barge quantities for $1.18 a gallon, that stuff?

Don't make me laugh.

More facts ignored in pursuit of a resource-scarcity argument, subchapter "Peak Oil", and curiously used in a JREF thread in advocacy of socialistic control of oil resources.

 

[Dymanic]

You mean the stuff we can buy any day of the week in barge quantities for $1.18 a gallon, that stuff?

I was thinking more of the stuff for which you were quoting pump prices -- despite it not being widely available at the pump -- but let's treat availability and potential availability as effectively the same thing, and see if it helps your argument.

You were attempting to argue that the potential availability of alternative fuels was represents a flaw in Peak Oil theory. Did you understand my explanation as to why that is not the case?

 

[BenBurch]

I'd rather deal with peak oil by finding cheaper ways to do business rather than burning the last of the fossil carbon in the ground.

And we could.

Nuclear power for everything, including aircraft (by using electric power to synthesize liquid fuels) and the future will be secure.

Then in 40 years when Fusion finally works, we can decide if we want it or not.

 

[mhaze]

I was thinking more of the stuff for which you were quoting pump prices -- despite it not being widely available at the pump -- but let's treat availability and potential availability as effectively the same thing, and see if it helps your argument.

You were attempting to argue that the potential availability of alternative fuels was represents a flaw in Peak Oil theory. Did you understand my explanation as to why that is not the case?

You haven't made an argument. I can make one phone call and get methanol delivery in small or large quantities. As for pump prices, wholesale 1.18 can easily be retailed at 2.00 - 2.50.


That's a substitution of commodity, one for another, due to market efficiency. That's a good thing. As millions of Chinese know in those cities where methanol is being pumped. Oh, and your ideas about high quality crude -->> lower quality oil shale fail, too, for several reasons.

One I'll mention at this time is that there are countries who used to produce lots of high quality crude, who are moving in the direction of production from oil shale. But that doesn't "proof your hypothesis". There are other countries, who have consistently produced their own oil - only from oil shale. It just varies with the geography. But, continue to ignore facts that don't support the PeakOilHysteria.

Just like you ignored my comments about the relative stability of oil prices and the decline of currencies....

I'd rather deal with peak oil by finding cheaper ways to do business rather than burning the last of the fossil carbon in the ground.

And we could.

Nuclear power for everything, including aircraft (by using electric power to synthesize liquid fuels) and the future will be secure.

Then in 40 years when Fusion finally works, we can decide if we want it or not.

Oh, I doubt we'll be doing anything but running aircraft on kerosene for a long, long time. That's dense, because of the long chain carbons, so it's proportionally more difficult to synthesize. Methanol is just swapping an H for an OH on natural gas.

But I'll comment that "finding cheaper ways to do business" certainly qualifies under Julian Simon's theories about economics of commodity substitution. Simons held the scarce commodity, and the only one, was that of human brains and ingenuity.

 

[BenBurch]

Oh, I doubt we'll be doing anything but running aircraft on kerosene for a long, long time. That's dense, because of the long chain carbons, so it's proportionally more difficult to synthesize. Methanol is just swapping an H for an OH on natural gas.

But I'll comment that "finding cheaper ways to do business" certainly qualifies under Julian Simon's theories about economics of commodity substitution. Simons held the scarce commodity, and the only one, was that of human brains and ingenuity.

Look up furan-based fuels. There are actually pilot plants.

 

[mhaze]

Look up furan-based fuels. There are actually pilot plants.

I didn't rapidly find the energy density, but guessing at the energy density from the weight, that's likely acceptable as a kerosene substitute for jet engines.

But as far as substitute fuels, aviation is likely one of the very last industry sectors to either need or to be pushed into an alternative.

You'd have to change or recalibrate all the fuel flow meters, and a group of instrumentation associated with fuel reserves, range and the like. In practice we don't have aircraft that can do that (hit one button - fly with kerosene - hit another - fly with furan). In actual practice an alternative fuel requires an "STC", and as the fuel flow instruments were a part of the original aircraft certification, that STC would be a modification to the original certification.

That means that a pilot could do it manually (some rich guy just for fun in his toy jet) for the alternative fuel, but not, say, in a passenger jet. That wouldn't be permitted. And shouldn't be.

But, yeah, somewhere down the road an ability to run separate fuels could be built into aircraft, just like in multiple fuel vehicles that can run gasoline, ethanol, or m85 methanol.

This capability may already be in some planes and I'm not aware of it, example the Boeing "dreamliner". It's certainly possible.

 

[BenBurch]

In modern software-based planes, the changes would be minimal.

 

[Dymanic]

You were attempting to argue that the potential availability of alternative fuels was represents a flaw in Peak Oil theory. Did you understand my explanation as to why that is not the case?

You haven't made an argument.

Guess that answers that question. I'll give some thought to how I might manage to dumb it down some more.

As for pump prices, wholesale 1.18 can easily be retailed at 2.00 - 2.50.

Which makes it roughly equivalent to gasoline as far as energy content (for those who have already made the necessary modifications to their vehicles). Still does nothing to invalidate Hubbert's model.

 

[BenBurch]

Methanol may be artificially cheap now because of the surge in natural gas availability. Lots of supply coming online has forced down NG prices, and most methanol is now made from NG using a catalyst rather than distilling it from wood. When more applications for NG appear, the price can be reliably expected to go up.

 

[mhaze]

In modern software-based planes, the changes would be minimal.

I started to write an explanation, but decided to stick with the short version. No, not at all. A word such as "minimal" has no meaning here. And absolutely nobody will agree that changing a critical number for a fuel flow sensor is a "minor change". That affects whether you run out of gas, to put it bluntly.

Enough accidents have occurred with avgas being put in jet or visa versa that the FAA mandated different nozzles for the two types of gas. Doesn't matter if you think that's stupid, that is just historical reality.

Now you bring in a third type truck....

 

[mhaze]

Guess that answers that question. I'll give some thought to how I might manage to dumb it down some more.

Which makes it roughly equivalent to gasoline as far as energy content....

I quoted prices based on "gasoline equivalent gallons", that is the standard way alternative fuels are costed.

Of course, I did say up front .... before engaging you in a discussion about Peak Oil....that ALL CONTRARY EVIDENCE WOULD BE DISREGARDED.

Methanol may be artificially cheap now because of the surge in natural gas availability. Lots of supply coming online has forced down NG prices, and most methanol is now made from NG using a catalyst rather than distilling it from wood. When more applications for NG appear, the price can be reliably expected to go up.

It's not artificially cheap. It's simply the 5th largest industrial chemical, produced in huge quantities.

For this reason there is no cause to even look at the method of production. Yes, it's from methane. There is a sort of "green preference" for things to be produced from wood or trash or algae or whatever. But in the real world of chemical production, that sort of thing does not matter. The issue is the cheapest way to produce the chemical. And obviously, steam reforming - is about as cheap as it can get. So we are looking here at gas to liquid synthesis, a way to use natural gas in vehicles without the high pressure system and tanks.

Would price go up if volume went up due to methanol being used in vehicles? I don't have numbers handy for total production capacity and current production, but both are huge. Certainly price wouldn't go up because some shrieking Middle Eastern sheik was rattling his swords.

Moreover, with reference to the "PeakOilHysteria", I've shown how methane to methanol can fuel any given number of vehicles.

 

[Dymanic]

Of course, I did say up front .... before engaging you in a discussion about Peak Oil....that ALL CONTRARY EVIDENCE WOULD BE DISREGARDED.

I feel obliged to point it out: You're shouting. (And it isn't helping your case).

Evidence doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I've asked several times about production numbers. That matters a lot. I'm glad that you finally decided to just admit that you don't know what the production numbers are (just that "they're huge"). Just as important, you continue to fail to appreciate that confounding factors such as unanticipated production from alternate sources (unanticipated decline in demand, whatever) are not a problem for the Hubbert model, and hence need not be "disregarded" so as to defend the model.

Hubbert predicted in 1974 that the peak of global oil production would occur in 1995 "if current trends continue." (They didn't). In other words, he was saying "This is what my model predicts using these assumptions as inputs". Implicit in that is that using different assumptions as inputs would result in different projections. See how that works?

I've shown how methane to methanol can fuel any given number of vehicles.

Well, I'd say you haven't, actually, as you haven't provided the key piece of information needed to determine that.

 

[dc1971]

I feel obliged to point it out: You're shouting. (And it isn't helping your case).

Evidence doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I've asked several times about production numbers. That matters a lot. I'm glad that you finally decided to just admit that you don't know what the production numbers are (just that "they're huge"). Just as important, you continue to fail to appreciate that confounding factors such as unanticipated production from alternate sources (unanticipated decline in demand, whatever) are not a problem for the Hubbert model, and hence need not be "disregarded" so as to defend the model.

Hubbert predicted in 1974 that the peak of global oil production would occur in 1995 "if current trends continue." (They didn't). In other words, he was saying "This is what my model predicts using these assumptions as inputs". Implicit in that is that using different assumptions as inputs would result in different projections. See how that works?

Well, I'd say you haven't, actually, as you haven't provided the key piece of information needed to determine that.

Most of the "anti-transportation" people here on JREF will come up with big words, tricked-out-numbers, and insults in order to make their case here. I have yet to see any physical representation of spending or numbers involved in this issue. All I am seeing from these people are "IT CAN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE I SAID SO". But what's funny is they're not part of the decision making process so they feel it necessary to PRETEND they're part of that process. It's a hobby of theirs!

 

[Dymanic]

But what's funny is they're not part of the decision making process so they feel it necessary to PRETEND they're part of that process.

As I mentioned above, I don't see us actually having much of an energy policy at all, much less one that is the result of anything that deserves to be called a deliberate decision making process. The decisions mostly seem to be making themselves, and we just stumble along after. That seems even to apply to corporate CEOs and others whom one might be tempted to see as being well positioned to direct the action. But when opportunites for profit present themselves, how much choice do those guys really have as to whether or not to pursue them? When their activities are impacted by political unrest in some region, how much control do they have over that? (Never mind; I'm not sure I really even want to know the answer to that question -- but hopefully you get my point).

I think one of the most insightful things I've ever read on this subject is this little piece, titiled "What Soccer Can Teach Us about Energy Policy", and which I hope I am not being too greedy in sampling:

If you've ever seen little kids play soccer, you know how comical it is to watch. The whole teams (except the goalies, who are usually bored and distracted by interesting bugs at their feet), chase the ball around en masse as the ball is more herded than played. Goals are the outcome of a chaotic knot of players kicking as rapidly as possible, not the skillful execution of premeditated strategy. And so it is with energy policy. To be precise, we don't have one.

When Team Right has the ball, it furiously kicks it toward the fossil fuel and nuclear goal. Restrictive regulations are dismantled. New drilling leases are awarded. Piles of federal cash are shoveled to their preferred recipients. Investment in renewables and environmental protection is slashed. Wars for oil are started.

Then Team Left gets control, furiously herding the ball toward the green goal line. Incentives are awarded for wind and solar. Piles of federal cash are shoveled toward the renewable manufacturers. Taxes on fossil fuel producers are raised and their incentives are slashed.

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/soccer-and-energy-policy/1079

I find that to sum up the situation rather nicely (and I hope mhaze reads far enough to find the little gem waiting for him at the bottom, in the "investor's note"). The reason for a lot of my pessimism stems from what I see as a near total breakdown of the one element most vital to the functioning of our political system and everything it touches (which is just about everything): honest, open dialogue. We have largely become "a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda". I must confess that I myself sometimes like to pretend that I am part of a process of ongoing dialogue that may somehow, someday lead to better decision making, but most of the time I don't really believe it. Hobby is probably a more accurate way of looking at it.

 

[WildCat]

Most of the "anti-transportation" people here on JREF

Who's "anti-transportation"?

 

[mhaze]

....
Hubbert predicted in 1974 that the peak of global oil production would occur in 1995 "if current trends continue." (They didn't). In other words, he was saying "This is what my model predicts using these assumptions as inputs". Implicit in that is that using different assumptions as inputs would result in different projections. See how that works?

Well, I'd say you haven't, actually, as you haven't provided the key piece of information needed to determine that.

Gee, that sounds a awful lot like the Ten Year Sliding Timetable of Doom from our friendly eco-profit, Al Gore. Whatever bad is certainly going to happen is always just a little bit off in the future.

And I'm sure you understand that if I quote places like Rigzone, it's quite easy for me to quote production numbers - all the way down to each individual rig.

It's possible though, that there's a place we could reach agreement. I've shown we can achieve energy independence quite easily through gas to liquids, use of methanol as a substitute for auto gas, increased conventional drilling, and expansion of fracking operations into Colorado and Utah. This isn't complicated stuff. And yes, I've read the dismal forecasts of the future based on Peak Oil, and you are simply repeating them. They are easy to factually disprove.

We might have an area of agreement, though that the Peak Oil theory could come to be true in a couple hundred years. But don't expect me or hardly anyone else to buy off on this alarmist extremism line that it's "only a little while off". That worked for Peak Oil pretty well until about 2000, then the fracking operations started to ramp up.

Now that line of thought is basically, over. So I suggest you move on to predicting doom based on the co2 emissions from the fracking process or some other thing that at least has an empirical basis although perhaps not accurate. Oh, one other thing?

You mentioned something about I wasn't helping my "claim". It's not I who has a "claim". It's you. You are the one predicting a dire future due to Peak Oil - something that isn't predicted by futures prices. And yes, I know how you'd answer that "Those prices are wrong" just like regarding commodities substituion "But oil is different" and regarding economic growth and resource scarcity "But it's different this time". It's the string of rationalizations, denial, disregard for contrary facts, that today is so obvious in a stand like yours which I've noted in this conversation. And you don't seem to be able to refute it, but just keep repeating about the dismal future that we have.

We don't. We've got a bright and promising future.

 

[Dymanic]

And I'm sure you understand that if I quote places like Rigzone, it's quite easy for me to quote production numbers - all the way down to each individual rig.

Then I must conclude that your reason for declining my requests for you to do that is that the numbers don't support your claims. And by the way, I also understand that when you attempt to support your claims by quoting 15-year-old articles from places like the CATO institute -- a libertarian think tank founded by the oil billionaire Charles Koch -- you are further eroding your credibility as a person capable of evaluating sources on the basis of their potential biases. I found it quite amusing that you accompanied that link (in post #263) with this advice: "But note that you don't have to read this or study it to answer my simple question above." Yes, mhaze, I think that says a lot about the methods you apply in forming your conclusions. Did you follow your own advice on that, or did you actually read the piece yourself?

It's possible though, that there's a place we could reach agreement. I've shown we can achieve energy independence quite easily through gas to liquids, use of methanol as a substitute for auto gas, increased conventional drilling, and expansion of fracking operations into Colorado and Utah.

I don't agree that you have shown that. I could easily agree that with a great deal of effort and sacrifice (including setting aside some very real concerns about potential environmental impacts), we could modestly reduce our dependence on foreign oil through those methods. Never have said otherwise. Here's a sample of what I have said in previous discussions on these issues:

There never was any question about whether we will be increasingly relying on those marginal sources, along with tar sands and oil shales and all the rest. President Obama's weekly address 5/14 on "Expanding Responsible Oil Production in America" amounts to little more than a restating of the obvious, mostly for the benefit of the clueless. When your lifeboat is hulled, what you do is bail, regardless of whatever previous ideological objections you might have had to bailing as a legitimate sailing practice. But sooner or later, you run up against hard limits; limits which are dictated by geology, physics, and engineering, and cannot be overcome by ideology. As a solution to the developing global energy crisis, "drill baby drill" amounts to "don't do anything special".

And yes, I've read the dismal forecasts of the future based on Peak Oil, and you are simply repeating them. They are easy to factually disprove.

Forecasts of the future based on different assumptions lead to projections that vary from what you would call "dismal" to what I would call "wildly optimistic" -- but while crackpots and political ideologues may deny it, one thing upon which there is a strong consensus among oil experts is that if global production hasn't peaked already, it will.

But don't expect me or hardly anyone else to buy off on this alarmist extremism line that it's "only a little while off". That worked for Peak Oil pretty well until about 2000, then the fracking operations started to ramp up.

You're not arguing with me; you're arguing with some very basic and very inflexible realities of geology and engineering. The "lowest hanging fruit" metaphor came into wide use in these discussions for a reason. I linked to a graph above that shows global production to have remained relatively flat since about 2003. You're waving your arms around in the air a lot, and while you say that it would be easy for you to come up with some actual numbers to support your position, you're consistently unable or unwilling to do so. What's up with that?

It's not I who has a "claim". It's you.

I certainly have made claims. I've also done my best to provide arguments to support those claims, and evidence to support the arguments.

Here is a sampling of what I see as claims you have made, and which I feel you have not adequately supported with either arguments or evidence (or, in some cases, even bothered to try):

"I've shown we can achieve energy independence quite easily..."
"Now that line of thought is basically, over."
"Looks to me like we are poised to be the major oil producer of the world pretty soon."
"That Stuff isn't relevant. What is relevant is the cost per barrel of oil in one process of retrieval or another."
"...energy in/out doesn't matter"
"All that matters is that oil from fracking is viewed as profitable to bring to market."
"...there's a lot of free energy around wellheads..."

You are the one predicting a dire future due to Peak Oil

"Dire" is an emotionally loaded word. The Hubbert curve is a tool for predicting oil production. Any value it may have as a tool for predicting "direness" depends entirely on subjective value systems.

- something that isn't predicted by futures prices.

Did futures prices predict the extremely sharp increases that occurred in the 1970s?

 

[mhaze]

....
"Dire" is an emotionally loaded word. The Hubbert curve is a tool for predicting oil production. Any value it may have as a tool for predicting "direness" depends entirely on subjective value systems.....

And there we are in agreement. That's where you've gone wrong, in my view, in predicting a dismal future. The facts don't support that. At all.

 

[Dymanic]

And there we are in agreement. That's where you've gone wrong, in my view, in predicting a dismal future. The facts don't support that. At all.

I believe that what the facts support is that very soon we are going to be forced to make some very significant changes in the ways in which we obtain energy and the ways in which we use it. In short: under any forseeable scenario, we're going to have less energy available, and are going to have to learn to be a lot more frugal with what we have. I think most of us recognize this but tend to underestimate the degree of change that will be involved. For some, these changes may require completely abandoning cherished lifestyles. That prospect nearly always looks "dire" to one faced with it, but a lot of that may simply boil down to fear of the unknown. I've been forced to abandon cherished lifestyles more than once during the course of my life, and in looking back later, found myself mostly wondering why I didn't choose to make those changes sooner.

 

[Trakar]

I believe that what the facts support is that very soon we are going to be forced to make some very significant changes in the ways in which we obtain energy and the ways in which we use it. In short: under any forseeable scenario, we're going to have less energy available, and are going to have to learn to be a lot more frugal with what we have. I think most of us recognize this but tend to underestimate the degree of change that will be involved. For some, these changes may require completely abandoning cherished lifestyles. That prospect nearly always looks "dire" to one faced with it, but a lot of that may simply boil down to fear of the unknown. I've been forced to abandon cherished lifestyles more than once during the course of my life, and in looking back later, found myself mostly wondering why I didn't choose to make those changes sooner.

A big difference is in the terms being used, while dire situations can lead to dismal results, dire and dismal shouldn't be seen as synonymous.

Dire - Adjective: (of a situation or event) Extremely serious or urgent.

Dismal - Adjective: Depressing; dreary.

If you respond appropriately promptly, there is no reason for a dire situation to result in a dismal outcome. Dismal usually results from ignoring or failing to act appropriately to a dire situation.