Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Rod Speed · Guest

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes economical to mine.

That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.

Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be
turned into oil when the price is high enough to justify that with
oil sands, shale oil and even coal.

I wish you were correct.
Unfortunately, use of oil shale and tar sands and coal (CTL)
could only reduce the RATE of decline of available liquid fuels.
[/quote]
Wrong, particularly with coal.

[quote]I am starting to sound like Dan now, but please read the Hirsch report, or the EWG report :

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
[/quote]
Those dont say anything like that with coal.

[quote]There is no easy way out of this.
[/quote]
Yes there is. Anything can be turned into a liquid fuel when you have energy from nukes
and its completely routine to use hydrogen produced in nukes as a transport fuel.

[quote]We need significant help both on supply AND demand side to get through
this period without wrecking our economies and our planet>s eco systems.
[/quote]
Wrong.

[quote]Demand side is the most flexible :
[/quote]
Wrong again.

[quote]what we do not improve in efficiency we will give have to give up in driving/flying less.
[/quote]
Wrong again.

[quote]The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.

Sevenhundred Elves · Guest

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:51:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:
"beavith" <beavith1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:fnpa84tea05jdmrqbshcmjfcotms0nfplg@4ax.com...
...
Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes
economical to mine.

That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.

Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be turned into oil
when the price is high enough to justify that with oil sands, shale oil and even coal.
[/quote]
Well, when the price of oil and its substitutes gets high enough for
that to happen, only the rich will be able afford it. The rest (the
majority) will have to do without cars, airplanes, plastics,
medicines, herbicides, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers (those last
three, together with petroleum-based mechanization of farming, are
what>s responsible for "proving" Malthus wrong via the green
revolution), and most other stuff we all used to be able to buy when
oil was cheap.

S.

jmfbahciv · Guest

Rod Speed wrote:
[quote]Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
[/quote]
<snip>

[quote]The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.

Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.
[/quote]
Which uses lots and lots of plastics.

/BAH

Rod Speed · Guest

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

We need significant help both on supply AND demand side to get through
this period without wrecking our economies and our planet>s eco systems.

Wrong.

Demand side is the most flexible :

Wrong again.

what we do not improve in efficiency we will give have to give up in driving/flying less.

Wrong again.

The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.

Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.

Which uses lots and lots of plastics.
[/quote]
And there is plenty of coal to make those from if that ever becomes neccessary.

And that uses a lot less plastic than even a single car does anyway.

Rod Speed · Guest

Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
beavith <beavith1@netscape.net> wrote

Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes economical to mine.

That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.

Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that
can be turned into oil when the price is high enough to
justify that with oil sands, shale oil and even coal.

Well, when the price of oil and its substitutes gets high enough
for that to happen, only the rich will be able afford it.
[/quote]
Wrong. Its already high enough for that to happen.

The only real question is whether it will remain that high for long
enough to justify the huge cost of the infrastructure to do that.

It turned out not to be in the 70s and remains to be seen right now.

[quote]The rest (the majority) will have to do without cars, airplanes,
plastics, medicines, herbicides, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers
[/quote]
Wrong again. And many of those while it currently makes sense to make them from oil,
can be made from coal instead if that makes more sense due to the shortage of oil.

[quote](those last three, together with petroleum-based mechanization of farming, are
what>s responsible for "proving" Malthus wrong via the green revolution),
[/quote]
Wrong again. The green revolution was also about plant breeding, not just about those last three.

In spades with GM.

[quote]and most other stuff we all used to be able to buy when oil was cheap.
[/quote]
And can still buy even when oil is much more expensive. The cost of medicines,
herbicides and pesticides has very little to do with the cost of the oil used to
produce them. And they can all be produced from coal even if all the oil is used up.

Rob Dekker · Guest

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6elkh9F7ldodU1@mid.individual.net...
[quote]Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes economical to mine.

That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.

Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be
turned into oil when the price is high enough to justify that with
oil sands, shale oil and even coal.

I wish you were correct.
Unfortunately, use of oil shale and tar sands and coal (CTL)
could only reduce the RATE of decline of available liquid fuels.

Wrong, particularly with coal.

I am starting to sound like Dan now, but please read the Hirsch report, or the EWG report :

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

Those dont say anything like that with coal.
[/quote]
Please read the Hirch report on CTLs (starts at page 79). Even in crash-mode operation, we are likely to produce no more than 5
million bpd 10 years from now. That>s "whisling through the graveyard" as Dan would say.

It is unlikely that it will even get that far. Remember that replacing 10% of our fuel supply with CTL would require a 40% increase
in coal mining.
Even if you ignore the totally devastating environmental damage that full scale CTL-as-replacement-for-oil would cause, and you
would ignore the CO2 emissions that will more than double, ignoring the increase in Global Warming this would cause, and ignore the
damage from that, and even if you would ignore the public>s outcry for a cleaner future for our children, not a dirty one, would
ignore all the resistence that this path will cause with the American people, and by force would double or quadruple coal
exploration in this country, and have a crash-program for immensely large CTL facilities, even then it>s still not enough to pospone
the peak of Peak Oil, let alone provide some sort of growth in available energy for the transportation sector.

CTL just might postpone the inevitable : Eventually term we will run out of coal too, and be forced THEN to go to more sustainable
energy resources.

Rob

[quote]
There is no easy way out of this.

Yes there is. Anything can be turned into a liquid fuel when you have energy from nukes
and its completely routine to use hydrogen produced in nukes as a transport fuel.
[/quote]
Nukes take 20 years to become operational.
Would be good to start right now.
We need the electricity for all the electrical vehicles at that time.

About hydrogen as transport fuel, well, we talked about that many times here on sci.energy. There is nothing "routine" about it.
Just calculate the cycle efficiency for starters. We will talk about the other problems later.

[quote]
We need significant help both on supply AND demand side to get through
this period without wrecking our economies and our planet>s eco systems.

Wrong.

Demand side is the most flexible :

Wrong again.

what we do not improve in efficiency we will give have to give up in driving/flying less.

Wrong again.

[/quote]
Now you start to sound like a broken record.
I gave the Hisrch report and the EWG report.
Maybe you should show your data to dis-prove these.

[quote]The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.

Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.
[/quote]
Yep. That would help a bit.

[quote]
[/quote]

Rod Speed · Guest

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes economical to mine.

That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.

Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be
turned into oil when the price is high enough to justify that with
oil sands, shale oil and even coal.

I wish you were correct.
Unfortunately, use of oil shale and tar sands and coal (CTL)
could only reduce the RATE of decline of available liquid fuels.

Wrong, particularly with coal.

I am starting to sound like Dan now, but please read the Hirsch report, or the EWG report :

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

Those dont say anything like that with coal.

Please read the Hirch report on CTLs (starts at page 79).
[/quote]
That irrelevant to what is being discussed.

[quote]Even in crash-mode operation, we are likely to produce no more than 5 million bpd 10 years from now.
[/quote]
Likely is completely irrelevant to what is possible if say the oil runs out.

The oil cant possibly run out in 10 years.

[quote]That>s "whisling through the graveyard" as Dan would say.
[/quote]
Nope, nothing like it, because oil wont run out in 10 years.

[quote]It is unlikely that it will even get that far. Remember that replacing 10% of our fuel supply with CTL would require a
40% increase in coal mining.
[/quote]
When the oil does run out, OBVIOUSLY oil extraction is replaced with coal
mining once all the shale oil and oil sands have been completely exploited.

And thats not going to happen in anything like 10 years.

[quote]Even if you ignore the totally devastating environmental damage that full scale CTL-as-replacement-for-oil would
cause,
[/quote]
Thats pure bullshit too.

[quote]and you would ignore the CO2 emissions that will more than double, ignoring the increase in Global Warming this would
cause,
[/quote]
That hasnt been established, and if it was, the obvious approach is to use nukes instead.

[quote]and ignore the damage from that, and even if you would ignore the public>s outcry for a cleaner future for our
children, not a dirty one,
[/quote]
It remains to be seen if that purported 'outcry' continues in the face of a lack of transport fuel.

[quote]would ignore all the resistence that this path will cause with the American people,
[/quote]
Pity about how their attitudes would change when there is no more transport fuel.

[quote]and by force would double or quadruple coal exploration in this country,
[/quote]
Doesnt have to if the oil produced from coal is imported just like most of the oil currently is.

[quote]and have a crash-program for immensely large CTL facilities,
[/quote]
Nope, because oil wont be running out in 10 years.

[quote]even then it>s still not enough to pospone the peak of Peak Oil,
[/quote]
Thats just plain wrong.

[quote]let alone provide some sort of growth in available energy for the transportation sector.
[/quote]
And that in spades.

[quote]CTL just might postpone the inevitable :
[/quote]
Corse it would postpone running out of oil.

[quote]Eventually term we will run out of coal too, and be forced THEN to go to more sustainable energy resources.
[/quote]
Yes, but thats in hundreds of years, so there will be plenty of time
to do that then, and to produce nukes that dont have the undesirable
downside of being usable for weapons production as well.

[quote]There is no easy way out of this.

Yes there is. Anything can be turned into a liquid fuel when you have energy from nukes and its completely routine to
use hydrogen produced in nukes as a transport fuel.

Nukes take 20 years to become operational.
[/quote]
They dont have to.

[quote]Would be good to start right now.
We need the electricity for all the electrical vehicles at that time.
[/quote]
I doubt we>ll be seeing many electric vehicles. We>re much more likely to use
the nukes to produce hydrogen and use that as a transport fuel instead.

[quote]About hydrogen as transport fuel, well, we talked about that many
times here on sci.energy. There is nothing "routine" about it.
[/quote]
Its in use right now. Completely routine.

[quote]Just calculate the cycle efficiency for starters.
[/quote]
Its irrelevant if there is no more oil for use as a transport fuel.

[quote]We will talk about the other problems later.
[/quote]
There are no other problems.

[quote]We need significant help both on supply AND demand side to get through this period without wrecking our economies
and our planet>s eco systems.

Wrong.

Demand side is the most flexible :

Wrong again.

what we do not improve in efficiency we will give have to give up in driving/flying less.

Wrong again.

Now you start to sound like a broken record.
[/quote]
You>ve always sounded that way.

[quote]I gave the Hisrch report and the EWG report.
[/quote]
No news to me boy.

[quote]Maybe you should show your data to dis-prove these.
[/quote]
Nothing to disprove.

[quote]The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.

Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.

Yep. That would help a bit.
[/quote]
Hell of a lot more than a bit.

V for Vendicar · Guest

"beavith" <beavith1@netscape.net> wrote
[quote]Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes
economical to mine.
[/quote]
The oil production peak was reached 3 years ago.

The term refers to the point when the rate of production levels off and
begins to decline.

The cronically Brain Dead Bevith confuses a quantity with the rate of
change of tha quantity.

KKKonservatives are chronically and perpetually Ignoran.

Bevith is just the latest example.

V for Vendicar · Guest

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[quote]Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be turned
into oil
when the price is high enough to justify that with oil sands, shale oil
and even coal.
[/quote]
In fully intend to fuel my gasoline engines with Dead Fermented
RepubliKKKans.

Rod Speed · Guest

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

[quote]I see you only make statements like "not a problem" and "won>t be disruptive" and "this is bull shit" and statements
like that.
[/quote]
You>re lying now.

[quote]Anyone can do handwaving.
[/quote]
And anyone can do the sort of mindless chicken little imitations that you are doing too.

[quote]But this is sci.energy.
[/quote]
No it isnt.

[quote]We expect
[/quote]
You get no say what so ever on what any particular newsgroup expects, ever.

[quote]at least a bit of data with some thorough studies to back up your statements.
[/quote]
Dont need any of those on the basics like we wont be running out of oil in 10 years
and that there is more than just hydrocarbons that can be used as a transport fuel.

And YOU made the claims I commented on.

YOU get to provide at least a bit of data with some thorough studies to back up your statements.

THATS how it works.

[quote]In absense of that, there is not a lot to talk about.
[/quote]
Yep, your shit and now lies arent even worth discussing.

Rob Dekker · Guest

Rod,

I see you only make statements like "not a problem" and "won>t be disruptive" and "this is bull shit" and statements like that.
Anyone can do handwaving. But this is sci.energy. We expect at least a bit of data with some thorough studies to back up your
statements.
In absense of that, there is not a lot to talk about.

Rob

Rod Speed · Guest

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

it will make cheap energy economies and the poorer ends of those economies suffer the most.

I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore.

Airplanes, trucks, ships, trains...

Which aint cheap energy economys being discussed there.

I quote:

"Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore."

The primary use of oil in most of the world is for transport.
[/quote]
But that isnt the primary source of energy in the cheap energy economys being discussed there.

Guest

In sci.physics Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

it will make cheap energy economies and the poorer ends of those economies suffer the most.

I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore.

Airplanes, trucks, ships, trains...

Which aint cheap energy economys being discussed there.
[/quote]
I quote:

"Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore."

The primary use of oil in most of the world is for transport.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Rod Speed · Guest

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

it will make cheap energy economies and the poorer ends of those economies suffer the most.

I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore.

Airplanes, trucks, ships, trains...
[/quote]
Which aint cheap energy economys being discussed there.

Guest

In sci.physics Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore.
[/quote]
Airplanes, trucks, ships, trains...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 3 of 10