It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => TEOTWAWKI => Topic started by: trapeze on August 12, 2011, 09:10:35 AM
-
The mother of all world doom articles perhaps. (http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-04-29/time-wake-days-abundant-resources-and-falling-prices-are-over-forever)
Accelerated demand from developing countries, especially China, has caused an unprecedented shift in the price structure of resources: after 100 hundred years or more of price declines, they are now rising, and in the last 8 years have undone, remarkably, the effects of the last 100-year decline! Statistically, also, the level of price rises makes it extremely unlikely that the old trend is still in place. If I am right, we are now entering a period in which, like it or not, we must finally follow President Carter’s advice to develop a thoughtful energy policy and give up our carefree and careless ways with resources. The quicker we do this, the lower the cost will be. Any improvement at all in lifestyle for our grandchildren will take much more thoughtful behavior from political leaders and more restraint from everyone. Rapid growth is not ours by divine right; it is not even mathematically possible over a sustained period. Our goal should be to get everyone out of abject poverty, even if it necessitates some income redistribution. Because we have way overstepped sustainable levels, the greatest challenge will be in redesigning lifestyles to emphasize quality of life while quantitatively reducing our demand levels. A lower population would help.
Very, very long, very depressing article.
Historically, human population has been checked by war, famine and disease. We haven't had much of those lately. And yes, that does apply to war. We haven't had a total war that results in mass (near genocidal), near extinction levels of casualties in many decades.
Makes you wonder when the hammer is going to fall.
-
Methinks you have found a Luddite huckster.
...after 100 hundred years or more of price declines, they are now rising, and in the last 8 years have undone, remarkably, the effects of the last 100-year decline!
Yup, happens everytime the Marxists take over innovation and production.
-
There's a lot of Marxist trash to eliminate, the problem will thus resolve itself.
;)
-
On the other hand...we keep finding new sources of oil. (http://minx.cc/?post=320061) Darnedest thing, eh?
-
The Russians did some research in the 1950s on the possibility that oil is not necessarily a "fossil", but is in fact capable of being produced by an abiotic process deep within the Earth in a continuous cycle, not unlike the recycling of crust at subduction and eruption zones around the world. I don't know a great deal about what they discovered, but I think they were closer to truth than anything in the current dogma about "fossil fuels".
And even if it is due to an entirely biotic process, most of that biomatter was not dead dinosaurs or anything like that. Most of it is marine algae, diatoms, and single-cell organisms. I'm pretty sure trillions of those things have been living and dying ever since, so is it not reasonable that the process that turns them into oil has likewise been occurring on a continuous basis?
-
Years ago I heard Rush on his show speculate that perhaps the earth continually made oil and that the fear of running out was unfounded.
-
Years ago I heard Rush on his show speculate that perhaps the earth continually made oil and that the fear of running out was unfounded.
I would have to say no. Otherwise we could go back to old reservoirs and get more oil. From my experience, once they're depleted, that's it.
-
Years ago I heard Rush on his show speculate that perhaps the earth continually made oil and that the fear of running out was unfounded.
I would have to say no. Otherwise we could go back to old reservoirs and get more oil. From my experience, once they're depleted, that's it.
Really? All of them? Because it was from Rush that I heard too that in going back to the "depleted" wells, more oil was found.
-
I am no chemist and I'm not a biologist so what I am about to say here is pretty much almost worthless. It's based on my belief that man is basically a problem solver with nearly unlimited potential.
I am of the opinion that we can and will at some point in the future create fuel oil. I think that there is a potential in genetically engineering organisms to create it in mass quantities. And why not? Oil is, after all, organic.
Again, this thought is based on no scientific knowledge of these various disciplines...just the belief that humans always seem to find a way to solve any problem, to engineer solutions to life's issues.
-
Really? All of them? Because it was from Rush that I heard too that in going back to the "depleted" wells, more oil was found.
On the occasions they do go into an old well, it's USUALLY for a new zone (reservoir) that the casing and production string already run through. Sometimes, they pull the production string and sidetrack, or redrill, the well to a different location. Either way, the previous zone is depleted, empty, gone.
I'm NOT a petroleum engineer, so there may be cases where the zone was not economically feasible to produce, but technology has made it possible to produce today.
I can assure you, if oil reproduced fast enough, we'd have enough oil even with the drilling mandate in place. There are literally THOUSANDS of dried up wells in the shallow Gulf of Mexico.
-
Man has been working for better fuel since he understood fire. That we will achieve new better fuels is a certainty.
It is also a certainty man will achieve better fuel before we run out of oil, regardless of consumption.
-
I am no chemist and I'm not a biologist so what I am about to say here is pretty much almost worthless. It's based on my belief that man is basically a problem solver with nearly unlimited potential.
I am of the opinion that we can and will at some point in the future create fuel oil. I think that there is a potential in genetically engineering organisms to create it in mass quantities. And why not? Oil is, after all, organic.
Again, this thought is based on no scientific knowledge of these various disciplines...just the belief that humans always seem to find a way to solve any problem, to engineer solutions to life's issues.
There's no doubt about it. From a strictly technical standpoint, we're already capable of synthesizing a lot of useful chemicals, the challenge is often more economic than technical. A government throwing gravel in the gears doesn't help matters either. It's even possible to extract gold from seawater, it's just that the amount of energy required is more expensive than the gold they get. But it shows what we can do.
-
Really? All of them? Because it was from Rush that I heard too that in going back to the "depleted" wells, more oil was found.
I think it's more a case of what is economically feasible. The oil that's easiest to pump was pumped when prices were lower. At the time it didn't make economic sense to expend Herculean efforts to wring out every last drop from those wells. When the price of oil goes up, then those old wells are revisited and some more oil can be squeezed out with newer and more expensive technology. I think the same applies to gold mining.
-
Fracking those old wells too.
-
I am no chemist and I'm not a biologist so what I am about to say here is pretty much almost worthless. It's based on my belief that man is basically a problem solver with nearly unlimited potential.
I am of the opinion that we can and will at some point in the future create fuel oil. I think that there is a potential in genetically engineering organisms to create it in mass quantities. And why not? Oil is, after all, organic.
Again, this thought is based on no scientific knowledge of these various disciplines...just the belief that humans always seem to find a way to solve any problem, to engineer solutions to life's issues.
You're gonna love this!!!!!
Joule patents fuel made from water, sunlight, CO2
The mystery bug--a type of bacteria--behind intriguing biofuel start-up Joule Unlimited was revealed with the publication of a patent on Tuesday.
The Cambridge, Mass.-based start-up said that it has received Patent No. 7,794,969 for an engineered form of cynobacteria, or blue-green algae, which grows in water and is capable of secreting biodiesel fuel.
The company asserts that it can make diesel fuel directly using only sunlight and waste carbon dioxide in glass bioreactors for as little as $30 a barrel.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20016330-54.html#ixzz1V33v5vmq (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20016330-54.html#ixzz1V33v5vmq)
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20016330-54.html#ixzz1V33XsfY4 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20016330-54.html#ixzz1V33XsfY4)
-
Sounds good, but what kinf of scale are we talking about to be able to bring a significant market presence?
I wonder if they are underestimating the capital needed to make this relevant.
-
Sounds good, but what kinf of scale are we talking about to be able to bring a significant market presence?
I wonder if they are underestimating the capital needed to make this relevant.
Kind of what I was thinking. With our oil demand, we'd need to turn the Atlantic into an algae farm.
-
Sounds good, but what kinf of scale are we talking about to be able to bring a significant market presence?
I wonder if they are underestimating the capital needed to make this relevant.
I'm doing this from memory cause I had people in the damned house wanting to talk( I don't even like them)But From what I caught they had made a land purchase (1000 acres)I think in Arizona out in the desert and were starting a pilot plant to fine tune and then once that was up and running it's just a matter of time and they weren't talking that long.
What caught my attention was that the diesel they produced could just be mixed in the regular supply line and it just mixed in and no ill effects on the system or the engines at all.
I just suck at finding this stuff.
-
Officials with the Energy Information Administration report that diesel consumption in the United States has steadily risen in recent years. In 2005, 9.4 million barrels were used. In 2009, 1.04 billion barrels were consumed. In 2010, diesel supplied 5.9% of the U.S. energy needs.
Joule is taking the first big step toward commercialization, leasing more than 1,000 acres of land in Lea County, New Mexico. They hope to prove the organism can produce fuel quickly, on a large scale, nearly anywhere.
Sims believes the technology can revolutionize part of the fuel industry, meeting transportation needs virtually anywhere around the world.
"What this approach brings is not only environmentally friendly, but it also brings localization to the fuel business for the first time. It also provides for consistency of availability or supply and cost. None of this has ever been present in the oil business in the past," said Sims. "It brings energy security. It brings job creation."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/02/energy-in-america-new-diesel-biofuel-faster-more-efficient-to-produce-says/#ixzz1V3sSBRh7 (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/02/energy-in-america-new-diesel-biofuel-faster-more-efficient-to-produce-says/#ixzz1V3sSBRh7)
-
On the other hand...we keep finding new sources of oil. (http://minx.cc/?post=320061) Darnedest thing, eh?
Yea, but nothing that we are allowed to touch. Which brings up a question: If everywhere in the world gets the oil pumped out but the United states, will that cause the earth to get out of balance and develop a wobble? ::whatgives::
-
On the other hand...we keep finding new sources of oil. (http://minx.cc/?post=320061) Darnedest thing, eh?
Yea, but nothing that we are allowed to touch. Which brings up a question: If everywhere in the world gets the oil pumped out but the United states, will that cause the earth to get out of balance and develop a wobble? ::whatgives::
Righto. And then the tip-over. Which will put ours closer to the surface afterward, being on the top an' all.
-
Sure enough though, the massive dam being constructed in China (the Three Gorges Dam, I think) will impound so much water that it literally will shift the Earth's axis by a small amount. It's a telling comparison between us and them.
This water impoundment in China will also allow seagoing vessels to travel some 900 miles inland. Meanwhile we keep marking more of our resources off limits.
-
Sure enough though, the massive dam being constructed in China (the Aswan High Dam, I think) will impound so much water that it literally will shift the Earth's axis by a small amount. It's a telling comparison between us and them.
This water impoundment in China will also allow seagoing vessels to travel some 900 miles inland. Meanwhile we keep marking more of our resources off limits.
I've read that too, as well as the weight of all that water is crushing the earth beneath it and causing seismic disruptions. Those Chinese - always trying to make a big splash (OK that was really lame. Must be time for bed ;-)
-
Talk about Chinese water torture!
-
I think it's more a case of what is economically feasible. The oil that's easiest to pump was pumped when prices were lower. At the time it didn't make economic sense to expend Herculean efforts to wring out every last drop from those wells. When the price of oil goes up, then those old wells are revisited and some more oil can be squeezed out with newer and more expensive technology. I think the same applies to gold mining.
You have hit it on the head. There is no such thing as a "dry well" - only a well that is not longer feasible to operate at the current price of the product using current technology. The Ayn Rand character Ellis Wyatt invented a new means of extraction from "dry wells" -- peak Oil doesn't mean we run out, or that none will be produced, it means that it takes more units of energy to extract the resource than you can find a market willing to pay for. One can argue this has already happened with Uranium. The amount of energy used to power the machines used to pulverize and process entire mountains into usable fissionable fuel has begun to exceed that which is produced. If the form of energy gotten as output from this process is seen as less valuable than the energy input ( i.e., use that energy directly instead of refining Uranium) a "peak" has been produced.. until some clever monkey figures out a cheaper, more cost effective way of refining Uranium.
What most "peak" X proponents miss is that some forms of energy are more valuable because of their storage characteristics. Electric energy is useless if it isn't used, and coal powered plants waste a tremendous amount because they can't be easily adjusted to load. Wind Turbines are completely uncontrolled and you are hoping the wind blows when you happen to have a peak demand. Electrical energy storage tech SUCKS. Its awful. Its polluting. and even the best batteries, well maintained, will require replacement every 20 years (old style Edison batteries don't , but they need to be excessively large and heavy compared to modern equivalents- which are already excessively heavy.. ) and most battery tech will last 7-10 ( can't wait to hear the whining of the hybrid owners) Liquid (gasoline) or solid Fuels, once refined, store energy a long time, and therefore are more valuable - worth expending extra energy now to get it to store later. But at some point, that no longer makes economic sense given the inputs, and that is "peak" in reality. Its partially economic money-wise, but there is also a alternate uses component.. at what point to the alternat uses of the input energy become more valuable than the energy product they produce.
-
Weisshaupt, a very interesting commentary.
Re:
Electrical energy storage tech SUCKS. Its awful. Its polluting. and even the best batteries, well maintained, will require replacement every 20 years (old style Edison batteries don't , but they need to be excessively large and heavy compared to modern equivalents- which are already excessively heavy.. and most battery tech will last 7-10 ( can't wait to hear the whining of the hybrid owners)
My first thought was of them being pawned off to the poor; then, that they are too smart to buy them so they would go to the scrap yard but considering the EPA it wouldn't be cost efficient; therefore, I am left with the image of dead battery cars lining the roadsides.
-
My first thought was of them being pawned off to the poor; then, that they are too smart to buy them so they would go to the scrap yard but considering the EPA it wouldn't be cost efficient; therefore, I am left with the image of dead battery cars lining the roadsides.
As things get worse its possible, though like most subsidies, the incentives to buy hybrids helped rich people buy them, not the "poor." (the poor will now buy an even more expensive used vehicle now that cash for clunkers took so many off the road.) But as the batteries age, and these hybrid owners are suddenly stuck with a $6000 bill to replace the batteries, and probably another $1000 in environmentally safe disposal fees, they might realize that little Green Hybrid will never save them a dime, even if gas prices triple. Plus the range/gas mileage will decrease over time. You know that laptop battery you had that used to last 5 hours when it was new but now lasts 45 minutes if you are lucky? Yeah. But now its your car, and you can't plug it in while you are driving.. On the Gas powered hybrids, you just end up burning gas- I would expect some owners will start removing the batteries because that will reduce the weight of the vehicle and better the mileage. On the Plug-ins they will be turning off the radio and AC just to get a little farther. (Yeah, I would like to come over, but I won't make it tonight, using the headlamps consume too much juice) . A plug in is going to require you to buy the equivalent of a cheap used car every 7-10 years. And don't even get me started on how temperature changes Battery performance. Ever had a problem getting your car started on a cold day with on old battery? Imagine when that battery doesn't just have to turn the starter to unlock the chemically stored energy in gasoline, but has to actually make the car go! Wait till a plug in hybrid is filling up the right hand lane at 20 mph on a cold day. Keep in mind discharge matters too. Most batteries can't use all of the electricity they store. Discharge a regular car battery more than 20% and you start to destroy the plates. Discharge a "deep cycle" more than 50% the same thing happens. The best batts I found ( for Solar anyway) can be discharged to 80% - 2000 times. 2000 isn't a lot if you do that every day. If you have a 10 minute commute a plug in is fine. If you go farther, and go past what those batts can comfortably discharge, then you burn them up faster. Somehow, I haven't seen that in the sales literature.
There is some promising tech ( ultra capacitors etc) that might make (shorter term) electrical energy storage more viable, but right now, the chemical reactions we rely on in batteries wear out the batteries themselves - the only way to make them last longer is to build them bigger, making them heavier and thus requiring more power to even make the vehicle go. Its a loosing proposition all round because a internal combustion engine, properly maintained will last 100,000 miles or , and even then can be rebuilt and used for another 60-100K for about the same sum you will be sinking into your hybrid every 7-12. The Gas powered aren't so bad, because they can ensure your batts are not over discharged. ( I guess a plug in can too, but just not making that capacity available to you and leaving you stranded) but even if kept above the optimum discharge level, most bats won't handle more than 10 years of service.
-
Is there any (honest) studies on hybrid battery life? I know two deep cycle batteries in my boat last about two years...and the last 6 months of usage suck. I've went to AGM batteries, they are expensive, but power output does not diminish as the day progresses. Also, with the demands of todays electronics on bass boats, starter batteries are not reliable enough to last a year....I've went AGM there, too.
I know starter batteries in a car last much longer, but normally no more than 4-5 years. I see no reason to believe a hybrid battery will last any longer.
-
Is there any (honest) studies on hybrid battery life? I know two deep cycle batteries in my boat last about two years...and the last 6 months of usage suck. I've went to AGM batteries, they are expensive, but power output does not diminish as the day progresses. Also, with the demands of todays electronics on bass boats, starter batteries are not reliable enough to last a year....I've went AGM there, too.
I know starter batteries in a car last much longer, but normally no more than 4-5 years. I see no reason to believe a hybrid battery will last any longer.
Car batteries last depending on where you live. Here in Fl. I change batteries every three years.In Conn. I changed them every 5 years.The heat just kills them down here.
-
Is there any (honest) studies on hybrid battery life?
Different hybrids use different (proprietary) technologies - Most of my research has been for the Solar Photo-voltaic system I am installing. The best tech widely available is still watered lead/acid and then its really what size plates you are looking at as to how far you can discharge them and what temp ranges they can tolerate. AGM is really cool from that standpoint that they have high tolerances for heat/cold - decent discharge ( around 40%) and they are maintenance free. Even so, you can only expect 8-10 years of service from them, and they cost more than the equivalent Acid/Lead, and they astill age like any other cell, and are still affected by over-discharge and temperature... just not as much as Lead /Acid. I believe most Hybrids are using AGM cells or a proprietary variation thereof. Of course you need sealed batteries in marine applications ( acid, and seawater don't mix) and AGM is an excellent fit.
I spent a lot of money building very insulated shed to house the PV system battery bank because lead acid will loose 30-40% of their capacity if they get cold. They are killed dead if they are allowed to freeze. I looked long and hard at AGMs for that too.. I liked to zero maintenance aspect, but for the same price I get 20 years of service if I do monthly maintenance ( add distilled water) on lead acid, and only get 7-10 out of the AGMs, plus I have the ability to drain to 80% without damaging the batts, with AGM its only 40%. ( in a properly designed system, you are trying to go no lower than around 20% to increase the battery life..)
Bottom line, in many cases pumping water up a hill and using a hydro-electric dynamo when power is needed is on par with the efficiency of current battery systems.. that is how bad they are.
-
Is there any (honest) studies on hybrid battery life?
Different hybrids use different (proprietary) technologies - Most of my research has been for the Solar Photo-voltaic system I am installing. The best tech widely available is still watered lead/acid and then its really what size plates you are looking at as to how far you can discharge them and what temp ranges they can tolerate. AGM is really cool from that standpoint that they have high tolerances for heat/cold - decent discharge ( around 40%) and they are maintenance free. Even so, you can only expect 8-10 years of service from them, and they cost more than the equivalent Acid/Lead, and they astill age like any other cell, and are still affected by over-discharge and temperature... just not as much as Lead /Acid. I believe most Hybrids are using AGM cells or a proprietary variation thereof. Of course you need sealed batteries in marine applications ( acid, and seawater don't mix) and AGM is an excellent fit.
I spent a lot of money building very insulated shed to house the PV system battery bank because lead acid will loose 30-40% of their capacity if they get cold. They are killed dead if they are allowed to freeze. I looked long and hard at AGMs for that too.. I liked to zero maintenance aspect, but for the same price I get 20 years of service if I do monthly maintenance ( add distilled water) on lead acid, and only get 7-10 out of the AGMs, plus I have the ability to drain to 80% without damaging the batts, with AGM its only 40%. ( in a properly designed system, you are trying to go no lower than around 20% to increase the battery life..)
Bottom line, in many cases pumping water up a hill and using a hydro-electric dynamo when power is needed is on par with the efficiency of current battery systems.. that is how bad they are.
I never expect (or receive) more than a couple years out of a battery in my boat. I've only had the AGM's this year, but so far it is superior in regards to operating my trolling moter.....No loss of power as the day progresses. Same for the starting battery. I'm interested to see what type of life I receive.
I bought DEKA's, they are located here in Middle Tennessee.....They also build the Bass Pro models in thier stores if you ever go there to purchase a battery. I bought 2nds in the AGM's....90.00 each. They are sealed and most of the "damage" is cosmetic. Nothing wrong with the batteries.
Don't know where you are buying batteries, but if you can hook up with a manufacturer, like DECA, they can lead you thru the battery jargon and get you in product fitting your project.
-
You have hit it on the head. There is no such thing as a "dry well" - only a well that is not longer feasible to operate at the current price of the product using current technology.
I'm going to have to mostly disagree with this point. I say mostly because my oilfield experience is limited to the Gulf of Mexico. It may be entirely different on land based wells. A well is depleted in 1 of 2 ways. Either all of the hydrocarbons are depleted and all you get is saltwater or you have insufficient pressure to get the hydrocarbons out of the reservoir and to the surface. Normally, by the time the pressure drops too low to get the hydrocarbons out, there's very little left in the reservoir anyway. Even with the latest and greatest technology, the amount of residue left behind is not feasible to retrieve. Reservoirs only hold a finite amount of hydrocarbons, and when they're gone, they're gone.
-
You have hit it on the head. There is no such thing as a "dry well" - only a well that is not longer feasible to operate at the current price of the product using current technology.
I'm going to have to mostly disagree with this point. .. Even with the latest and greatest technology, the amount of residue left behind is not feasible to retrieve. Reservoirs only hold a finite amount of hydrocarbons, and when they're gone, they're gone.
I don't doubt that there is a finite amount in a reservoir, only that the humans are currently really getting anywhere near 100% of what is there. The point is that someone might come along with a cost-effective new process that allows you to grab that residue that is currently being left in the hole. So in 2011, that residue is unretrieveable and its a "dry hole" In 2125 we use star trek transporter tech to target and beam up individual hydrocarbon molecules scattered in wide areas of liquid and rock around the "dry hole". Maybe we find a cost effective method of speeding up hydrocarbon formation, and thus can fill the holes back up again. The key is that you can't discount future technology - it can and will change the rules and the economics.
Long before now people were predicting peak food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb) and somehow that didn't come to pass because new technology and methods changed the rules. There is a risk that someday the "where there is a will, there is a way" clever monkeys won't come through, and that will change the rules again, but it demonstrates the difficulty of predicting the peak in the production of anything based on finite resources.