Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Sevenhundred Elves · Guest

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:22:47 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
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.

Wrong. Its already high enough for that to happen.
[/quote]
It is? Really? So where is it happening now?

[quote]
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.

The rest (the majority) will have to do without cars, airplanes,
plastics, medicines, herbicides, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers

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]
Sure, but at a higher price. The coal supply is limited too, you know.
And coal will get more expensive the more it is necessary to use it as
a substitute for oil.

[quote]
(those last three, together with petroleum-based mechanization of farming, are
what>s responsible for "proving" Malthus wrong via the green revolution),

Wrong again. The green revolution was also about plant breeding, not just about those last three.
[/quote]
Sure, in part it was about plant breeding too. The factors I mentioned
are those I deem to be most important, and those that are most
affected by peak oil, since that>s what we are discussing.

[quote]
In spades with GM.

and most other stuff we all used to be able to buy when oil was cheap.

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.
[/quote]
Those things are made out of oil, and they already are a significant
part of the farmers' budgets. And I think you do understand that as
demand for coal as substitute for oil increases, the price of coal
will rise too.

S.

PiAreNotSquare · Guest

On Jul 13, 3:26 pm, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Anthony Ferrante" <ferrante276-ngs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:37jk7458kn1cfogagjkif83ie0agg9r4tp@4ax.com...

I have been told by friends that the USA has vast amounts of oil
underground but the government keeps blocking all attempts to get at
it. Is this true and if so, why the opposition to getting it?

Anthony

It>s partially true. Much of the oil people talk about is in Anwar in
northern Alaska. It>s an environmentally sensitive area and drilling there
could harm wildlife on the refuge up there, to say nothing of oil spills and
damage to the permafrost, tundra. etc.

Oil companies claim they can drill cleanly, but so did Capt Hazelwood think
he could pilot the Exxon Valdez. The Oil industry does NOT have a very good
record with respect to the environment.

Add to that there is presently no way to get oil out of the Anwar region.
The aging Alaska pipe line is not up to the task and ships can>t operate in
the Arctic ocean so what do you do with the oil if you do drill it?

The oil companies have millions of acres under lease they have NOT drill on
for various reasons one being a shortage of rigs and equipment. Some say
they should exhaust the existing leases before getting new ones.

Then there is refining capacity. The US has done little to expand refining
capacity and new oil may not even find the pipelines, ships and refineries
to handle it.

Then there>s the economics of the situation. The oil companies are making
record profits without new oil, why would they want to increase supply?
They>re better off doing as little as possible and keeping supplies tight..
It>s simple economics. That>s one reason they don>t rush into all of their
present leases to say nothing of new ones.

Then we come to the basic idea that we MUST end the oil age sooner or later.
There>s the CO2 problem, smog and other pollution plus oil is finite.
Drilling may give us a few more years but at higher and higher prices and
our reserves are not nearly enough to keep us from importing all we need.
We really should bite the bullet now and get free of the stuff.
[/quote]
You assume that it is possible to replace oil with some other source.

jmfbahciv · Guest

Rod Speed wrote:
[quote]jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
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.
But that isnt the primary source of energy in the cheap energy
economys being discussed there.
There is never going to be "cheap" energy.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
[/quote]
Why do you think having cheap energy sources is possible?

/BAH

Rod Speed · Guest

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed wrote
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
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.

But that isnt the primary source of energy in the cheap energy economys being discussed there.

There is never going to be "cheap" energy.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Why do you think having cheap energy sources is possible?
[/quote]
YOU made that claim.

YOU get to substantiate that claim.

THATS how it works.

Rod Speed · Guest

Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
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.

Wrong. Its already high enough for that to happen.

It is? Really?
[/quote]
Yep.

[quote]So where is it happening now?
[/quote]
Didnt say it was. Read the next sentence.

[quote]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.

The rest (the majority) will have to do without cars, airplanes,
plastics, medicines, herbicides, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers

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.

Sure, but at a higher price.
[/quote]
Nope, not necessarily.

[quote]The coal supply is limited too, you know.
[/quote]
Not in any practical sense. There is plenty of coal for hundreds of years.

[quote]And coal will get more expensive the more it is necessary to use it as a substitute for oil.
[/quote]
Wrong again when the vast bulk of its used to power generation.

And if we do start to get short of coal, the obvious thing to do is
move power generation to nukes and to use the remaining coal for
plastics, medicines, herbicides, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers etc.

[quote](those last three, together with petroleum-based mechanization of farming,
are what>s responsible for "proving" Malthus wrong via the green revolution),

Wrong again. The green revolution was also about plant breeding, not just about those last three.

Sure, in part it was about plant breeding too.
[/quote]
A very large part in fact. That what turned wild grasses into viable crops like wheat etc.

[quote]The factors I mentioned are those I deem to be most important,
[/quote]
Then you are just plain wrong there.

[quote]and those that are most affected by peak oil, since that>s what we are discussing.
[/quote]
The point is that its perfectly possible to use plant breeding
and GM etc to reduce the dependance of crops on oil,
particularly on the herbicide and pesticide and fertilizer use.

And Malthus was just plain wrong in other areas too. It turns out that
once industrialisation occurred, we saw every single modern first world
country not even self replacing on population if you take out imigration.

[quote]In spades with GM.

and most other stuff we all used to be able to buy when oil was cheap.

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.

Those things are made out of oil,
[/quote]
But dont have to be if the oil starts to run out. Coal can be used instead.

[quote]and they already are a significant part of the farmers' budgets.
[/quote]
But very little of the price is due to the price of oil. The absolute vast bulk
of the retail price of those is due to the extensive processing involved in the
production of the final product, so even if the price of oil ends up at ten times
the current price, that wouldnt have much effect on the price of the end product.

[quote]And I think you do understand that as demand for coal
as substitute for oil increases, the price of coal will rise too.
[/quote]
Not necessarily when the absolute vast bulk of it is used for power generation and steelmaking.

The amount used for medicines, herbicides and pesticides is a tiny part of the total coal consumption.

Its a tiny part of the total oil consumption too.

Rob Dekker · Guest

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6epqpuF82hitU1@mid.individual.net...
[quote]Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
...
Oh.. that>s right, I forgot to mention that you call me "boy".

Still lying.

[/quote]
RD: > I gave the Hisrch report and the EWG report.
RS: "No news to me boy."

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

THATS how it works.

I posted the Hisrch report and EWG report

Neither of which claim that we will be out of oil in just 10 years.
[/quote]
Nobody claimed that we would be out of oil in just 10 years.

EWG and Hirsch report only mention that liquid fuel supply decline will be
3-5 % annually initially, more later.
That means a factor 0.73-0.6 after 10 years, or equivalent of 62 - 51
million bpd 10 years from now.
This while the world demands (with 1.5% annual growth) 16% more liquid fuel
10 years from now, or about 100 million bpd. So there is a discrepancy of
38-49 million bpd 10 years from now.
The 5 million bpd that we can make 10 years from now is not gonna make a
difference.
That>s disproving your 'coal can solve it' proposition.

[quote]
Neither of which claim that only hydrocarbons can be used as a transport
fuel.[/quote]

Nobody claimed that only hydrocarbons can be used as transport fuel.
You mentioned coal and nuclear. However, you gave no numbers to back this up
as a valid alternative.

[quote]You claimed we can postpone the peak with coal,

Of course the peak can be postponed by using other
sources of oil than just pumping crude oil out of the ground.
[/quote]
How ?

....
[quote]You did not show how this can be done,

You>re lying, again.

[/quote]
Did I miss something ? You gave no numbers at all. Anywhere.

[quote]what it costs

Irrelevant to whether its obviously possible.

and which time frame that takes.

I did say that that varys with how long the current price of crude remains
for.

[/quote]
Suppose price goes up every year from now on.
Suppose supply quantity of traditional oil goes down 3-5% annually from now
on.
Suppose the world demands 1.5% annual growth in liquid fuel.

How long does it take to get your additional supply in ? In which quantity ?
Can it postpone the peak (can we get to a total of more than 85 million bpd)
? How long can this supply be sustained ?

Then if you have that data, some more relevant questins : What does it cost
annually ? Over how long ? Who will pay that ?

......
[quote]Here is your coal solution that you think will last 100>s of years :

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2[/quote]
007ms.pdf
[quote]
...
Under business as usual, Coal will peak between 2020 and 2030.

Just some pig ignorant fool>s claim.
[/quote]
Ahum. Now EWG is a "pig ignorant fool" ?

As I said. You have a sick way of pissing people off.

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

I see you only make statements like "not a problem" and
"won>t be disruptive" and "this is bull shit" and statements like that.

You>re lying now.

Oh.. that>s right, I forgot to mention that you call me "boy".

Still lying.

RD: > I gave the Hisrch report and the EWG report.
RS: "No news to me boy."
[/quote]
I meant I said a hell of a lot more than you claimed, liar.

The ONLY in your original that you carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored is a bare faced lie, liar.

[quote]EWG and Hirsch report only mention that liquid fuel supply decline
will be 3-5 % annually initially, more later.
That means a factor 0.73-0.6 after 10 years, or equivalent of 62 - 51
million bpd 10 years from now.
This while the world demands (with 1.5% annual growth) 16% more
liquid fuel 10 years from now, or about 100 million bpd. So there is
a discrepancy of 38-49 million bpd 10 years from now.
The 5 million bpd that we can make 10 years from now is not gonna
make a difference.
[/quote]
Easy to claim it will only be 5Mbpd, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

[quote]That>s disproving your 'coal can solve it' proposition.
[/quote]
No it doesnt, because they just CLAIM that thats the result that will be seen.

[quote]Neither of which claim that only hydrocarbons can be used as a transport fuel.

Nobody claimed that only hydrocarbons can be used as transport fuel.
[/quote]
You ignored the non hydrocarbon fuels in the above. You cant do that with a proper analysis.

[quote]You mentioned coal and nuclear. However, you gave no numbers to back this up as a valid alternative.
[/quote]
There cant be any numbers when we dont know what the price of oil and coal will do in those 10 years.

[quote]You claimed we can postpone the peak with coal,

Of course the peak can be postponed by using other
sources of oil than just pumping crude oil out of the ground.

How ?
[/quote]
I told you how.

[quote]You did not show how this can be done,

You>re lying, again.

Did I miss something ? You gave no numbers at all. Anywhere.
[/quote]
Dont need numbers to show how that can be done. And the
numbers vary with what the price of oil and coal does in
those 10 years anyway and that is completely unpredictable.

And the numbers in the EWG and Hirsch report are just plucked out of someone>s arse anyway.

[quote]what it costs

Irrelevant to whether its obviously possible.

and which time frame that takes.

I did say that that varys with how long the current price of crude remains for.

Suppose price goes up every year from now on.
[/quote]
Its unlikely to do that.

[quote]Suppose supply quantity of traditional oil goes down 3-5% annually from now on.
[/quote]
Its unlikely to do that either.

[quote]Suppose the world demands 1.5% annual growth in liquid fuel.

How long does it take to get your additional supply in ?
[/quote]
Its completely pointless wanking with numbers plucked out of your arse.

[quote]In which quantity ?
[/quote]
See above.

[quote]Can it postpone the peak
[/quote]
Corse it can.

[quote](can we get to a total of more than 85 million bpd) ?
[/quote]
That number is just plucked out of your arse too.

[quote]How long can this supply be sustained ?
[/quote]
Depends entirely on when we choose to move to the use of hydrogen
from nukes because the price of oil makes that economic.

[quote]Then if you have that data,
[/quote]
That aint 'data', thats just number you wanked yourself blind with.

[quote]some more relevant questins : What does it cost annually ? Over how long ?
[/quote]
Depends entirely on what happens to the price of oil and coal, stupid.

[quote]Who will pay that ?
[/quote]
There is only one group that ever pays.

[quote]Here is your coal solution that you think will last 100>s of years :

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

Under business as usual, Coal will peak between 2020 and 2030.

Just some pig ignorant fool>s claim.

Ahum. Now EWG is a "pig ignorant fool" ?
[/quote]
That particular claim is just that. Have a look at Australia>s coal reserves some time.

It just happens to be one of the world>s biggest coal exporters.

[quote]As I said. You have a sick way of pissing people off.
[/quote]
Like it or lump it, child.

DB · Guest

Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote]"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6epqpuF82hitU1@mid.individual.net...
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
..
Oh.. that>s right, I forgot to mention that you call me "boy".
Still lying.

RD: > I gave the Hisrch report and the EWG report.
RS: "No news to me boy."

[/quote]
I have not been reading hear lately as it is mostly a Bret Cahill
feeding frenzy.

But just so you know, the Rod Speed guy is a lot like Bret. Full of
himself and unable to think critically.

I>m surprised he has not shifted into profane belligerence. It won>t be
long before he starts calling you names...

But, have fun.

Best, Dan.

Rob Dekker · Guest

"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote in message news:b68ik.1855$7g.26@fe109.usenetserver.com...
[quote]Rob Dekker wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6epqpuF82hitU1@mid.individual.net...
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
..
Oh.. that>s right, I forgot to mention that you call me "boy".
Still lying.

RD: > I gave the Hisrch report and the EWG report.
RS: "No news to me boy."

I have not been reading hear lately as it is mostly a Bret Cahill feeding frenzy.

But just so you know, the Rod Speed guy is a lot like Bret. Full of himself and unable to think critically.

I>m surprised he has not shifted into profane belligerence. It won>t be long before he starts calling you names...

But, have fun.

Best, Dan.
[/quote]
Thanks Dan,

Bret at least comes up with numbers, proposes things and he is full of ideas. Wacky, some crazy, some out of the box, but I like
that. And he makes good points sometimes.
As for Rod, he has nothing to contribute. I really tried to pick his brain, but there is not much there it seems.

Good to see you back.

Rob

Rod Speed · Guest

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:
[quote]"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote in message
news:b68ik.1855$7g.26@fe109.usenetserver.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6epqpuF82hitU1@mid.individual.net...
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
..
Oh.. that>s right, I forgot to mention that you call me "boy".
Still lying.

RD: > I gave the Hisrch report and the EWG report.
RS: "No news to me boy."

I have not been reading hear lately as it is mostly a Bret Cahill
feeding frenzy. But just so you know, the Rod Speed guy is a lot like Bret. Full of
himself and unable to think critically. I>m surprised he has not shifted into profane belligerence. It won>t
be long before he starts calling you names... But, have fun.

Best, Dan.

Thanks Dan,

Bret at least comes up with numbers, proposes things and he is full
of ideas. Wacky, some crazy, some out of the box, but I like that.
And he makes good points sometimes. As for Rod, he has nothing to contribute. I really tried to pick his
brain, but there is not much there it seems.
[/quote]
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

Rod Speed · Guest

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

Jim is wrong : energy is cheap. In fact, it>s FREE :

I know a fusion reactor which produces 3E26 Watt of power 24/7.
It radiates 174 PetaWatt of energy onto our planet 24/7.
All for FREE.

The trick is to collect it and apply it the way we want it.

And doing that isnt going to be free.

That>s right. And it ain>t gonna be cheap either.
[/quote]
Some of it is, most obviously with using it to grow sugar cane that used to produce ethanol.

Using it to grow slime for oil too.

Rob Dekker · Guest

"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48894b8e$0$7810$2318a52a@unlimited.newshosting.com...
....
[quote]The trick is to collect it and apply it the way we want it.

Rob

Okay. I have my bucket. What do I do?

[/quote]
Billiant :o)

Go to the gas station, fill it up.
Store it away for a year.
Then sell it for a 30% profit.
Or wait 10 years, sell it for more profit.
This stuff is liquid gold.

Rob

[quote]--
Les Cargill[/quote]

Rob Dekker · Guest

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6esvqlF8l2t5U1@mid.individual.net...
....
[quote]Jim is wrong : energy is cheap. In fact, it>s FREE :

I know a fusion reactor which produces 3E26 Watt of power 24/7.
It radiates 174 PetaWatt of energy onto our planet 24/7.
All for FREE.

The trick is to collect it and apply it the way we want it.

And doing that isnt going to be free.

[/quote]
That>s right. And it ain>t gonna be cheap either.

Les Cargill · Guest

Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote]"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6ervceF8jknsU1@mid.individual.net...
....
But that isnt the primary source of energy in the cheap energy economys being discussed there.
There is never going to be "cheap" energy.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Why do you think having cheap energy sources is possible?
YOU made that claim.

YOU get to substantiate that claim.

THATS how it works.

Jim is wrong : energy is cheap. In fact, it>s FREE :

I know a fusion reactor which produces 3E26 Watt of power 24/7.
It radiates 174 PetaWatt of energy onto our planet 24/7.
All for FREE.

The trick is to collect it and apply it the way we want it.

Rob

[/quote]
Okay. I have my bucket. What do I do?

--
Les Cargill

Rod Speed · Guest

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

But that isnt the primary source of energy in the cheap energy economys being discussed there.

There is never going to be "cheap" energy.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Why do you think having cheap energy sources is possible?

YOU made that claim.

YOU get to substantiate that claim.

THATS how it works.

Jim is wrong : energy is cheap. In fact, it>s FREE :

I know a fusion reactor which produces 3E26 Watt of power 24/7.
It radiates 174 PetaWatt of energy onto our planet 24/7.
All for FREE.

The trick is to collect it and apply it the way we want it.
[/quote]
And doing that isnt going to be free.


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 5 of 10