OT - Prophets of Doom

[eridanus]

I had just watched this on the satellite

Prophets of Doom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gi53kq4vzY

comments welcome

[jillery]

Very interesting. What do you think about it?

[J. J. Lodder]

Very good, throw it right back.

Dumping youtube references on usenet is a crime,

Jan

[eridanus]

I have not any clear idea to comment. Some elements can be true, some
can be exaggerations. But I do not think it is absurd the idea that
one day, in a few decades, we will be confronted with some nasty
consequences related to the scarcity of oil. The pretext for a war
could be that Sadam have weapons of mass destructions, chemical arsenals,
or any other mortal enemy is building atomic bombs, or intercontinental
rockets to sent atomic bombs.
It is a little like the American civil war. Was it real that war was caused
because the people of the south has slaves? The reason could had been other, that the books of story do not tell.


I presented this video just to chat, as an entertainment to decide on
merits or demerits of video. I am proposing just a little brain teasing.
My doc had recommended me to this as a therapy to prevent the Alzheimer.

I suppose our neurons need some teasing, some exercises of reasoning to
stay healthy and strong.


Eridanus

[jillery]

Usenet recommendations don't bother me so much. Not saying why it's
recommended, or what it's about, or not watching it in the first
place, is a tad tacky.

[eridanus]

you mean the intentions?

I am moved by the curiosity. Is it true? It is it not? What part of
the video seems to have a merit? Which looks bunks? Can we argue a little
about about the content of the video? Or is it a worthless entertainment?

Eridanus

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 01:59:00 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>I am moved by the curiosity. Is it true? It is it not? What part of
>the video seems to have a merit? Which looks bunks? Can we argue a little
>about about the content of the video? Or is it a worthless entertainment?

Then you have no reason to be so shy about your opinions. As the OP,
you can start the ball rolling and be the first to answer those
questions. At the very least, you can say why you're recommending
that particular video.

[eridanus]

Ok, Jillery. It seems you want me to make some comments on this video.

First of all, I was not recommending this video. I just watched, and
even if most of the arguments used were known from me, from previous
readings, I was expecting someone would throw a pail of dirty water
at the main arguments.

I was watching the first 18 minutes of the video and making some notes,
as a guide to comment.
Michael Ruppert is a prophet of doom since some years ago. He comments
mostly about oil depletion. He was blaming our way of living as the
main target for the approaching of the crisis. The crisis of oil, of
course. He mentions the agriculture that is dependent on machines burning
fuels, the pesticides that come also from oil, and the nitrogen fertilizers
from ammonia (from natural gas). He mentions also the boom on population,
all too obvious for everybody who focus on this particular problem.

A little later he comments on failing infrastructures in the US, like
bridges, pipelines, sewers, water pipelines, etc. that most ruined cities
are unable to repair.

My comments are that the excessive sprawling of suburbia is in part the main
cause of these problems of infrastructure.
All the suburbia had been financed by banks and promoted by urban developers.
Then, it was mostly a question of earning profits for long years, without
loading those properties with taxes to provide for the maintenance of the services. But those works were a tremendous investment ¡n energy. In fact,
all metals and all cement to produce concrete needed a great amount of
energy to produce.

Summing up, the financial capital was growing too fast; growing exponentially
2 or 3% points over inflation. While the population and the salary mass
remained more or less stable, (with little growth) the financial capital
was growing much faster than the base. This idea was clear for many great
bankers that were so loaded of capital that the invested in poor countries
of Asia. But as Asia needed to re-pay the capital and the interest, they
pressured the congress to permit the more or less free entry of cheap goods
from Asia.
I am not criticizing to invest in poor countries. It is not decent. But
while importing goods from Asia, they were loosing those jobs in the US.

If I think about it, they had been doing something like a miracle, for the
present crisis do not compares well with the problem ahead that is much
bigger.

On the other hand, with the expected rising prices of oil, it was clear
that the US and EU were consuming a lot of foreign goods as well as
foreign oil. Then, perhaps the think tank in the FED were conscious of
the need to impoverish the nation in several steps, to prepare the people
for "next crisis", that had not arrived yet; it is probably hiding in the
next corner, not much farther than five years in the future.

The next question is...
How are we going to sell the people this prognosis?
How are we going to speak of the ominous future? It would scare voters
at a faster speed than Mach3

Then, what remains to consider is...
are these commentaries I had presented here, pure trash, and what are the
reasons to prove that I am being too pessimistic.

Now it is your turn to kick out the ball to my field.

Eridanus

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:48:30 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El viernes, 2 de noviembre de 2012 12:08:07 UTC, jillery escribió:
>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 01:59:00 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>>
>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> >I am moved by the curiosity. Is it true? It is it not? What part of
>>
>> >the video seems to have a merit? Which looks bunks? Can we argue a little
>>
>> >about about the content of the video? Or is it a worthless entertainment?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Then you have no reason to be so shy about your opinions. As the OP,
>>
>> you can start the ball rolling and be the first to answer those
>>
>> questions. At the very least, you can say why you're recommending
>>
>> that particular video.
>
>Ok, Jillery. It seems you want me to make some comments on this video.

You're half-right. ISTM a good idea for a poster to make some
comments as you describe *when* posting cites, especially when they
tend to not watch what they post. As well as after. This is not too
difficult a concept that you can blame not grasping it on language.
You keep losing your horses from your barn.


[...]

[Mike Painter]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:01:57 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>But I do not think it is absurd the idea that
>one day, in a few decades, we will be confronted with some nasty
>consequences related to the scarcity of oil.

I do.

There is already several branches of technology that would reduce our
need for oil to near zero.
Wind, solar, thermal, atomic, and even water(including tidal) can all
produce enough power for most, if not all of our needs.

Even with today's technology only about ten percent of Utah could
supply solar and electric power for the nation.

Emery storage devices are improving.

At some point oil will be more expensive than those resources and the
switch will be made.

Hopefully it will be done before we have to do what people did during
the war years when fuel was limited in many places - coal powered
cars.

And this all ignores the place of "ice that burns"
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/413730/mining-ice-that-burns/
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

[eridanus]

El viernes, 2 de noviembre de 2012 19:23:06 UTC, jillery escribió:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:48:30 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> >El viernes, 2 de noviembre de 2012 12:08:07 UTC, jillery escribi�:

>
> >> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 01:59:00 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> >>
>
> >> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >I am moved by the curiosity. Is it true? It is it not? What part of
>
> >>
>
> >> >the video seems to have a merit? Which looks bunks? Can we argue a little
>
> >>
>
> >> >about about the content of the video? Or is it a worthless entertainment?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Then you have no reason to be so shy about your opinions. As the OP,
>
> >>
>
> >> you can start the ball rolling and be the first to answer those
>
> >>
>
> >> questions. At the very least, you can say why you're recommending
>
> >>
>
> >> that particular video.
>
> >
>
> >Ok, Jillery. It seems you want me to make some comments on this video.
>
>
>
>
>
> You're half-right. ISTM a good idea for a poster to make some
>
> comments as you describe *when* posting cites, especially when they
>
> tend to not watch what they post. As well as after. This is not too
>
> difficult a concept that you can blame not grasping it on language.
>
> You keep losing your horses from your barn.
>
>
>
>
>
> [...]

ok, I accept the critic. I was thinking that people here would
had imagined that I would be presenting a video from someone
predicting the end of the world for November 2012

The video had to have some relation with the matters that worry me.
But I was not aware of the problem. Perhaps, next time I would try
to remember to tell something about the nature of the video.


Eridanus

[eridanus]

How can I argue against your arguments?
It is not the first time I heard them.
The general argument, all those "techniques" to collect the solar
energy in their different forms, heat, wind, waves, etc. I had heard
before.

There must exist a reason why they had not been used but as
examples that they could be made those artifacts.

The main question is not so much as that the oil is cheap.
The main question has to be other. The energy of the sun is spread
out over a great surface. At their maximum moment you have
about 1,000 watts per sq. meter. On average, during the hours
of shining it can be some of 500 watts/sq.m, and considering 8 hours
of sunlight this 4 Kw/per day. It is an approximate estimation to
have some idea.

The difference with coal and oil is that, the energy of the sun has
been accumulating in the same place during some millions of years.
Then, there is a great density of energy (mostly carbon) accumulated
in the same place in the form of oil, or in the form of coal.

In a kilo of coal, depending on its quality, produces by burning
some 15 to 27 Mega Joules. Just imagine 21 M Joules per Kilo
(a kilo is 2.2 pounds). Then, when compared with the energy
spread each day over the surface of the earth, if the sun give us
each day like 4 K joules of energy we have find the ratio in kilos
of coal equivalent per day.
we divide 4,000 joules over 21 mega joules of coal
4,000/21,000,000 = 1.9(10^-4) kg. per sq meter a day
that or 0.19 grams of coal per sq.m a day.
That means we should collect the equivalent of 190 mg. of
coal per sq meter and day.
That can give us some idea of the magnitude of collecting this
energy.

The average energy of the sun on the surface of the earth is
500 watts per sq. meter per second, during some time, like
by example 8 hours a day. That is 4 Kw/hour in total.
But silicon solar collectors take up 10% at most or 400 watts
a day.
The best collectors has to be mirror reflectors, concentrating
the heat in a ceramic oven to heat some fluid like water, and
transforming this energy into electricity. This energy had to
stored somewhat, to be used at the times more demanded.

Then, the combined efficiency of those reflectors can be as high
as 70% That means an energy 2.8 Kw a day per sq.m. collected.

What is the problem? The problem is not that the oil is very cheap.
Crude oil can have about 6.11 (10^9) joules per barrel.
As a barrel has some 159 liters of oil, then 38.4 M joules per liter.
At 100 dollars a barrel, it will cost 100/159=0.6 dollars per liter of crude.
1 Kw/hour is some 3.6 M joules. then 38.4/3.6=10.6 Kw/h per
liter.
If the gasoline in the pumps are at $3.8 a gallon it means, $ 0.84/liter

Then, I present you this data here, to show that I had been studying a
little this matters.

Then, if we say, when the oil would be much dear, we could change
to alternative energy collectors, or to atomic generators; or both.

the problem is not the price in itself. It is the amount of energy
required to produce a kilo of steel, to give some form, to assemble the
different parts and to transport it to the place to collect energy.
Then, you have to transport the energy in form of electricity to where
the consumers live.

All materials have a time to degrade and perish. They also need a
cost of repairing and maintenance.
The main problem is the cost in producing the devices in energetic
terms. How much energy have to be invested in produce an energy
collector and how long is his life.
For alternative collectors being productive, they have to give more
energy in their whole lives, than the energy invested in create
them and put in place.
Then, as all processes of collecting, transforming and transporting
have some loses, the average energy given can be as low as 50%
of the energy collected.

Then, it could not be any laughing stuff to invest so much energy
on collector devices that would pay off the investment after some
decades of being working.

We are consuming in the planet about 80 million barrels a day.
This is quite a lot of energy. Most of it is used in transportation
and working machines. But most of this energy used are mostly
in almost nonsense activities, like going from here to there driving
cars.

The average car in the US drives like 20 miles a day. At 25 mpg
it means that 8.9 km/liter Or 20 miles for 3 dollars a day.
There about 240 million cars in the US. That means an average
of 720 million dollars of gasoline consumed per day.

The statistics of gasoline consumption in US is some 130 billions
of gallons a year. Or some 356 million gallons a day. A little more
than a gallon per car a day. This can give us an idea of the magnitude
of the social problem created by the car manufacturers in the last
60 years.

The worse problem I see is both social and political. People in
industrialized nations could not believe that their wonderful way
of life would disappear for such a trifle thing as energy depletion.
Very few people can see farther ahead than the next six months.

You mentioned the methane as a source of energy. Other that it is not
concentrated but rather spread on the bottom of the sea and the
permafrost it would present quite a challenge to collect this methane.
Anyway, this same methane can be the indirect cause of our ruin
accelerating the global warming much faster.

The idea I have is that we are before a very serious problem.



Eridanus

[jillery]

On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 04:56:23 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El viernes, 2 de noviembre de 2012 19:53:05 UTC, Mike Painter escribió:

[...]

>> There is already several branches of technology that would reduce our
>> need for oil to near zero.
>> Wind, solar, thermal, atomic, and even water(including tidal) can all
>> produce enough power for most, if not all of our needs.
>>
>> Even with today's technology only about ten percent of Utah could
>> supply solar and electric power for the nation.
>>
>> Emery storage devices are improving.
>>
>> At some point oil will be more expensive than those resources and the
>> switch will be made.
>>
>> Hopefully it will be done before we have to do what people did during
>> the war years when fuel was limited in many places - coal powered
>> cars.
>>
>> And this all ignores the place of "ice that burns"
>>
>> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/413730/mining-ice-that-burns/
>>
>
>

Ok, you have done the easy part, to point out there is a problem.
You're not the first. You crunched some numbers to show that
alternative energy sources are more expensive than oil, and more
challenging to use. There is little disagreement about that. The
world has been hooked on oil for over 100 years. That it won't be
easy to shake off that habit is also well understood.

Now please move on, and help figure out some solutions. Or are you of
the opinion there are no solutions, and we should just sit on our
thumbs and wait for the end to fall upon us?

[eridanus]

El sábado, 3 de noviembre de 2012 19:58:03 UTC, jillery escribió:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 04:56:23 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> >El viernes, 2 de noviembre de 2012 19:53:05 UTC, Mike Painter escribiďż˝:

I will try to think about solutions. But mainly, I was hoping of someone
intelligent to tell me if there was any.

As for the alternatives to oil. It would be great if the only problem is
they are more expensive than oil. I have to crutch more numbers to see
if could install those alternatives and how much capital it would
be needed to do it.

Perhaps I am becoming a little too maniac. I beg your pardon.

Eridanus