PEAK OIL: Going Mainstream

[drkitten]

I certainly have a different definition of what is evidence for a claim

No, you don't. You simply have no actual idea what the claim is.

I'm quite serious in believing that you don't understand thermodynamics. A thermodynamic limitation means that energy cannot be extracted because it violates a physical law. For example, we have a theoretical limit on how much energy can be extracted from a heat engine based on the temperatures of the heat sources and heat sinks. Irrespective of technology, we can't do better than those limits.

Of course, in practice we can't get anywhere near those limits. I think the best possible heat engines we can make are something like 5% efficient.

Similarly, we know the energy content of gasoline -- about 30 MJ/liter, which means we know (thermodynamically) there's no way to develop a gas-burning engine that can produce 50MJ of energy on a single liter of gas. Again, in "real life" we're nowhere near that limit.

Technology imposes a limit on what we can do today. Thermodynamics imposes a limit on what we can ever do. And technology is continuously improvi8ng.

...until you show or cite some calcs on how many quads/year with harnessing the rotation of the earth,

To a first approximation, the earth is a solid sphere with a 6000km radius, a mass of 6x10^24 kg, and an angular rotation of 0.00007. Rotational kinetic energy is defined as (1/2)(I)(w^2), which according to my envelope yields about 10^30 joules of energy, or about 10^12 quads. At 1000 quads/year, there is enough rotational energy there for "only" about a billion years.

Now, you're going to say "we can't tap that much energy out of the earth's rotation." And you're right -- FOR NOW. But that's not a thermodynamic limitation, but a technological one. We can build better and more efficient tidal generators, we can build generators we can deploy in new areas, and we can find other ways than ocean tides to tap into tidal energy (how about using Coriolis forces, for example?)

You can also use methane hydrate or dropping marbles into a black hole for the same level of evidence in the future...

Quite possibly. I don't know how much energy is trapped in methane hydrate world-wide, so I don't know how many quads of energy are theoretically available for extraction. I do know how many black holes are available within the orbit of the moon, and so I'm willing to dismiss dropping marbles into a black hole as a useful energy source for now. But the key word there is for now; a few breakthroughs in high energy physics from now, and we may be able to create and maintain artificial black holes and use them as energy sources.

You don't know what future technology will bring. And in the case of rotational energy, we know there's enough energy there to power human civilization for a hell of a long time. Thermodynamics says that it's possible, and all we need to do is figure out how.

 

[Hindmost]

No, you don't. You simply have no actual idea what the claim is.

I'm quite serious in believing that you don't understand thermodynamics. A thermodynamic limitation means that energy cannot be extracted because it violates a physical law. For example, we have a theoretical limit on how much energy can be extracted from a heat engine based on the temperatures of the heat sources and heat sinks. Irrespective of technology, we can't do better than those limits.

Of course, in practice we can't get anywhere near those limits. I think the best possible heat engines we can make are something like 5% efficient.

Similarly, we know the energy content of gasoline -- about 30 MJ/liter, which means we know (thermodynamically) there's no way to develop a gas-burning engine that can produce 50MJ of energy on a single liter of gas. Again, in "real life" we're nowhere near that limit.

Technology imposes a limit on what we can do today. Thermodynamics imposes a limit on what we can ever do. And technology is continuously improvi8ng.



To a first approximation, the earth is a solid sphere with a 6000km radius, a mass of 6x10^24 kg, and an angular rotation of 0.00007. Rotational kinetic energy is defined as (1/2)(I)(w^2), which according to my envelope yields about 10^30 joules of energy, or about 10^12 quads. At 1000 quads/year, there is enough rotational energy there for "only" about a billion years.

Now, you're going to say "we can't tap that much energy out of the earth's rotation." And you're right -- FOR NOW. But that's not a thermodynamic limitation, but a technological one. We can build better and more efficient tidal generators, we can build generators we can deploy in new areas, and we can find other ways than ocean tides to tap into tidal energy (how about using Coriolis forces, for example?)




Quite possibly. I don't know how much energy is trapped in methane hydrate world-wide, so I don't know how many quads of energy are theoretically available for extraction. I do know how many black holes are available within the orbit of the moon, and so I'm willing to dismiss dropping marbles into a black hole as a useful energy source for now. But the key word there is for now; a few breakthroughs in high energy physics from now, and we may be able to create and maintain artificial black holes and use them as energy sources.

You don't know what future technology will bring. And in the case of rotational energy, we know there's enough energy there to power human civilization for a hell of a long time. Thermodynamics says that it's possible, and all we need to do is figure out how.

I am afraid I am going to have to say that you missed my point. There is a big difference between the integral of energy in the solar system and what can be harnessed. Your calculation is doesn’t provide how much energy can be harnessed into a useable form. I can do the same thing with deuterium in the ocean and show we have energy for the next billion years or so. The reality is the ITER won’t even be close to ready for another 10 years and it won’t produce a single watt of power. The next generation tokomak won’t produce electricity either….so that is far in the future unless the miracle of cold fusion is actually science---which it isn’t. Laser fusion has even more difficultites.

I do know the energy return on oil was typically 100 to one when first discovered. Due to increased difficulty of recovering oil, that number has come down to about 10 to one on recent fields. Enhanced recovery uses more energy so, past the peak, there will be less energy available per barrel produced. Similarly, fracture techniques in natural gas recovery are energy and resource intensive.

The thermo limits on corn based ethanol are apparent…the best I have seen is 1.2 to one energy return—which is close to useless. Cellulose based ethanol does have a chance of a better return, but it still about 5 to one under ideal conditions—but is not viable yet. It will still be water and land resource intensive.

Of the two trillion barrels of oil sands listed as part of the world reserves, only about 250 billion barrels are recoverable and that recovery is resource intensive and will only return about 2.5 to 5 times the energy input--and it requires strip mining the country.

I have already cited some of the limitations of nuclear. One of the next generation plants would be designed to produce hydrogen. If we were to build about 250 pebble bed reactors, we could produce enough hydrogen to fuel about 25% of the US transportation needs.

Wind farms have a capacity factor of 35% during the best of times and 7% during the worst. A new infrastructure has to be developed to make this more feasible. A sporatic source compared to the current technology, so we are going a bit backward on this one.

Add about 1.5 billion people to the planet over the next 40 years, and you might start to see some thermodynamic limits.

Now, you can talk about future technology all you want, but none is going to improve on the energy return of oil and natural gas unless there is some incredible breakthrough with fusion. But the obstacles with fusion are formidable and I don’t think most people realize just how much. (the fact that most of the energy comes from a neutron is enough of a problem)

If you can find an energy source that does get us back to the 100 to one and is as transportable as gas and an infrastructure that is easy to deploy, I would be glad to debate it…but the mysterious “they” are not going to come up with unobtainium that solves the future energy requirements to fuel this planet---unless fusion becomes available.

I could go on, but I don't have the energy...

glenn “thermo-deficient”

 

[drkitten]

I am afraid I am going to have to say that you missed my point. There is a big difference between the integral of energy in the solar system and what can be harnessed.

There's a huge difference.

But it's not a thermodynamic one.

Your calculation is doesn’t provide how much energy can be harnessed into a useable form. I can do the same thing with deuterium in the ocean and show we have energy for the next billion years or so.

Fair enough.

The reality is the ITER won’t even be close to ready for another 10 years and it won’t produce a single watt of power.

Really? You know this? You can predict the future?

Randi's million awaits you, then.

Now, you can talk about future technology all you want,

And I will.

but none is going to improve on the energy return of oil and natural gas

Really? Tell Mr. Randi how you learned that. Then tell him what tomorrow's lottery numbers will be.

I could go on, but I don't have the energy...

... or the actual knowledge.

 

[Hindmost]

There's a huge difference.

But it's not a thermodynamic one.



Fair enough.



Really? You know this? You can predict the future?

Randi's million awaits you, then.



And I will.



Really? Tell Mr. Randi how you learned that. Then tell him what tomorrow's lottery numbers will be.



... or the actual knowledge.

Go on the with the ad homs/well poisoning...you are good at it. I will try to stick with technical issues related to this subject.

The ITER is not scheduled to be online for another 10 years. I am not predicting or trying to predict the future...I am just letting you know what the schedule is. It can't produce an output because it is not designed to produce any output. It is going to try an achieve higher than break even along with a few other things.

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

http://www.iter.org/proj/Pages/ITERAndBeyond.aspx

 

[drkitten]

Go on the with the ad homs/well poisoning...you are good at it. I will try to stick with technical issues related to this subject.

It's hardly well-poisoning to point out that you don't know what the next ten years of technological development will bring.

We're going around in circles. You say "present technology says this isn't feasible"; I say "future technology might make it feasible"; and you say "no, present technology says that there is no possibility that future technology will be any better than present technology."

 

[Malerin]

It's hardly well-poisoning to point out that you don't know what the next ten years of technological development will bring.

When it coms to ITER, he knows a lot more than you.

We're going around in circles.

Not really. Hindmost is backing up his claims. Yours amount to:
"There's a lot of energy in gamma ray bursts."
So?
"We should harness that with... technology"
Uh...
"You thermodynamically challenged ass!!!"

You say "present technology says this isn't feasible"; I say "future technology might make it feasible"; and you say "no, present technology says that there is no possibility that future technology will be any better than present technology."

No. "Future techonology" does NOT equal "magic". This is what Hindmost is trying to explain. The point is easy to grasp and he has been kind enough to source his arguments. I was depressed to learn fusion techonology is in such an infant stage. But I don't presume to know more than the people ACTUALLY BUILDING A FUSION REACTOR. Does your ego know no limits?

"If all goes well, DEMO will lead fusion into its industrial era, beginning operations in the early 2030s, and putting fusion power into the grid as early as 2040."
http://www.iter.org/proj/Pages/ITERAndBeyond.aspx

 

[drkitten]

No. "Future techonology" does NOT equal "magic".

You don't know what future technology does or does not equal.

He can, if he like, claim that that he does or doesn't expect a particular type of breakthrough. You can, too. Your claims don't even need to match his.

But to state that a particular type of breakthrough is thermodynamically impossible is to raise his expectations of technology -- literally -- to the level of a law of physics.

 

[Nosi]

I cannot speak for those outside the USA; however, Americans are a price sensitive bunch. When the oil peak starts pinching the pocket book, you will see a sea change in America as Americans adapt quickly to pocketbook abuse. When gas starts hitting $5 plus a gallon, Americans will start changing what they drive/ride.

Americans also have a sensitive stomach for environmental abuse, as you can tell from the flap from the BP mess. That may give some new technologies the imph they need to take off.

There are green pockets in America and elsewhere that are test driving non oil based tech. One such pocket is Greensburg, Kansas.

 

[Malerin]

You don't know what future technology does or does not equal.

You don't know invisble unicorns aren't prancing around you. Back in the real world, we know quite a bit about what "future technology" will mean for us in the next ten years. The following developments will not occur in the next decade:
Harnessing the energy of the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy
Creating a Dyson Sphere
Terraforming Mars
A manned voyage to Alpha Proxima
Fusion power replacing any fossil fuels
And on and on.

He can, if he like, claim that that he does or doesn't expect a particular type of breakthrough. You can, too. Your claims don't even need to match his.

Hind has done more than claim it- he has backed up his claims with evidence. All you have done is yell louder and louder that magic technology will come to our rescue. The warmers in the science forum certainly aren't holding out any hope that some wondrous tech will solve AGW. Go try your argument over there.

But to state that a particular type of breakthrough is thermodynamically impossible is to raise his expectations of technology -- literally -- to the level of a law of physics.

Strawman. Hind is claiming fusion energy is practically impossible, and will be for decades. He is right, as the people who actually are building a fusion reactor admit to.

Look, you're an econ professor, and it's obvious you've strayed from your niche here. You should apologize to Hindmost for insulting him and go back to defending insane monetary policies. Don't bother the people who actually know what they're talking about.

 

[Nosi]

There is a lot of room for efficiency improvements that will make the energy supply we have go further than it does now. We are seeing a higher demand for efficiency as energy costs go up. The energy star appliance is often picked over the non-energy star appliance as people mind the pocket book if not the planet and energy supply.

 

[mike3]

Look, you're an econ professor, and it's obvious you've strayed from your niche here. You should apologize to Hindmost for insulting him and go back to defending insane monetary policies. Don't bother the people who actually know what they're talking about.

Why suggest that instead of:

1. learn something,

2. promote better econ. policy (if his expertise is in econ, this is what he should be doing -- I sincerely hope what you suggested was a joke. A joke.)

?

 

[Mark6]

I cannot speak for those outside the USA; however, Americans are a price sensitive bunch. When the oil peak starts pinching the pocket book, you will see a sea change in America as Americans adapt quickly to pocketbook abuse. When gas starts hitting $5 plus a gallon, Americans will start changing what they drive/ride.

Americans did change their driving habits when gas hit $4 a gallon two years ago. Since then they (partially) retreated to old driving habits.

So yes, I agree Americans are a price sensitive bunch.

 

[jimbob]

Yes, and if we didn't believe you then, we're not going to believe you now. And for the same reason that you were wrong in the previous paragraph. You're not allowing for technological development. See the Simon-Ehrlich wager for further discussion.

I have had a look at how the wager would pan out over longer timescales, and I notice that the prices fluctuate vastly.

here is what seems to be a fairly current look at the prices.

Without getting into it too deeply, here are some things worth knowing. Given the above graph of the five commodities’ prices in inflation-adjusted terms, it will surprise no-one that the bet’s payoff was highly dependent on its start date. Simon famously offered to bet comers on any timeline longer than a year, and on any commodity, but the bet itself was over a decade, from 1980-1990. If you started the bet any year during the 1980s Simon won eight of the ten decadal start years. During the 1990s things changed, however, with Simon the decadal winners in four start years and Ehrlich winning six – 60% of the time. And if we extend the bet into the current decade, taking Simon at his word that he was happy to bet on any period from a year on up (we don’t have enough data to do a full 21st century decade), then Ehrlich won every start-year bet in the 2000s. He looks like he’ll be a perfect Simon/Ehrlich ten-for-ten.

The inflation adjusted oil price is also interesting as the time of the bet was a historic high for oil. If we look at the ;longer view (since the end of WWII, which is the length of the graph) the oil price has been climbing for some time. It did plummet, but has re reached 2006 prices.

 

[JihadJane]

Imagining Life Without Oil, and Being Ready - New York Times

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Imagining Life Without Oil, and Being Ready - New York Times

An article about loonies. Is there a point to it?

 

[Nosi]

As oil prices spike, demand for economy and oil economical products increase. As oil price bubbles burst and prices settle back down, demand for economy becomes softer but never to the pre-spike levels. Note the Hummer, that brand of vehicle did not survive the last acute oil price spike. Another left over from the last oil price spike is tiny smart cars on American streets. Ten years ago, a prediction of a fleet of these would get you laughed out of the bar.

There are also electric/gas powered bicycles on streets on my home town for hauling loads or for long distance. The electric/gas kicks in on the steep hills, as we've hills that rival San Francisco and some of these vehicles do carry serious loads. They are under pedal power going down hill. Some are wheel powered, when the rider goes down hill, he/she powers up the battery.

Admittedly, there's no shortage of recreational vehicles in my town, but they are more often filling a housing nitch rather than a vehicle nitch. A new home or even a prefab is out of reach for the average new family, even of the middle class. Many are credit shy, and you can save up for a second hand RV and call it a home for three.

The BP Gulf mess, while not economic, is still another kick in the nads for big oil and a boost for alternatives/conservation.

 

[Dymanic]

An article about loonies. Is there a point to it?

Perhaps it is that self-described "doomers" who run around using phrases like "life after petroleum" do as much to validate the message of the denialists as their own.

The fundamental logic behind Peak Oil is so simple that it would be incredibly boring if not for its implications. It's like evolution: Theory-with-a-capital-"T", and hotly disputed... in trailer parks across America (especially the South). Among oil industry analysts, Peak Oil is no more controversial than is evolutionary theory among biologists. The only lack of consensus has to do with the timing.

Predicting the economic and social impact is where things get complicated.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Perhaps it is that self-described "doomers" who run around using phrases like "life after petroleum" do as much to validate the message of the denialists as their own.

The fundamental logic behind Peak Oil is so simple that it would be incredibly boring if not for its implications. It's like evolution: Theory-with-a-capital-"T", and hotly disputed... in trailer parks across America (especially the South). Among oil industry analysts, Peak Oil is no more controversial than is evolutionary theory among biologists. The only lack of consensus has to do with the timing.

Predicting the economic and social impact is where things get complicated.

So, we have 50+ years to figure it out. Not a big problem, in my opinion.

 

[Dymanic]

So, we have 50+ years to figure it out. Not a big problem, in my opinion.

Quite a few people have taken a stab at projecting the peak. Not being one of them myself, all I've got is to defer to their expertise, and I must assume that you are doing essentially the same. But one aspect in which my approach to that appears to differ from yours is that I am inclined to ignore the outliers. Averaging the best guesses puts the peak somewhere around right about now.

You know, icebergs weren't a big problem for the Titanic, either. Until it hit one. As soon as that did happen, they were dealing with a certainty: the ship WAS going to sink. Not everyone on board recognized this fact right away, and of those who did, only a few also recognized another important fact: there weren't enough lifeboats, by half.

We are also dealing with a certainty. Our lives depend on oil just as much as those passengers' lives depended on the integrity of the hull of that ship, and not only do we not have enough lifeboats (by considerably more than half), they don't even exist. We don't even know what they would look like if they did.

If there is a perfect response to this challenge, I'm sure I don't know what it is -- but "Not a big problem" is roughly equivalent to "This ship is unsinkable", in my opinion.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quite a few people have taken a stab at projecting the peak. Not being one of them myself, all I've got is to defer to their expertise, and I must assume that you are doing essentially the same. But one aspect in which my approach to that appears to differ from yours is that I am inclined to ignore the outliers. Averaging the best guesses puts the peak somewhere around right about now.

Quite a few people have taken a stab at projecting the peak. Not being one of them myself, all I've got is to defer to their expertise, and I must assume that you are doing essentially the same. But one aspect in which my approach to that appears to differ from yours is that I am inclined to ignore the outliers. Averaging the best guesses puts the peak somewhere around right about now.

Quite a few people have taken a stab at projecting the peak. Not being one of them myself, all I've got is to defer to their expertise, and I must assume that you are doing essentially the same. But one aspect in which my approach to that appears to differ from yours is that I am inclined to ignore the outliers. Averaging the best guesses puts the peak somewhere around right about now.

Quite a few people have taken a stab at projecting the peak. Not being one of them myself, all I've got is to defer to their expertise, and I must assume that you are doing essentially the same. But one aspect in which my approach to that appears to differ from yours is that I am inclined to ignore the outliers. Averaging the best guesses puts the peak somewhere around right about now.

Quite a few people have taken a stab at projecting the peak. Not being one of them myself, all I've got is to defer to their expertise, and I must assume that you are doing essentially the same. But one aspect in which my approach to that appears to differ from yours is that I am inclined to ignore the outliers. Averaging the best guesses puts the peak somewhere around right about now.

Quite a few people have taken a stab at projecting the peak. Not being one of them myself, all I've got is to defer to their expertise, and I must assume that you are doing essentially the same. But one aspect in which my approach to that appears to differ from yours is that I am inclined to ignore the outliers. Averaging the best guesses puts the peak somewhere around right about now.

Quite a few people have taken a stab at projecting the peak. Not being one of them myself, all I've got is to defer to their expertise, and I must assume that you are doing essentially the same. But one aspect in which my approach to that appears to differ from yours is that I am inclined to ignore the outliers. Averaging the best guesses puts the peak somewhere around right about now.

If there is a perfect response to this challenge, I'm sure I don't know what it is -- but "Not a big problem" is roughly equivalent to "This ship is unsinkable", in my opinion.

Perhaps you see why "Not a big problem" is probably the correct answer.