Is the world's oil about to run out?
Alert
During the 1970s analysts realized that the oil would run out within
the next hundred years - sooner than previously expected.
The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
crunch:
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0423
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0500
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0459
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0449
In case you have not yet cottoned on, this is why the world's greatest
consumer of oil, the USA, invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia, yet
did not liberate Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Congo, etc:
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0501
Meanwhile, oil consumption is higher than ever before, and the rate of
increase in consumption is faster than ever before.
Tom
"Alert" <www_ins...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5b022599.0406...@posting.google.com...
> Is the world's oil about to run out?
>
No !
At $40 per barrel deep off-shore reserves and shale reserves become viable
for extraction. That gives an estimated further 250 years at current
consumption trends.
MrMoor
> >
>
> No !
The available oil may become almost impossible to access though through
conflict such as terrorism or civil war, the costs incurred may put it out
of the reach of ordinary people and as a result your grocery bill may
double, quadruple or more. Electricity blackouts and food shortages may be
somting to look forward to, not tomorrow but sometime in the next decade or
so.
We should not have made ourselves so dependent on the Middle East and that
lot over there.
abelard
typed:
you 'confidence' is touching...
now put some plausible numbers to your implausible claim
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >750,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
typed:
>Is the world's oil about to run out?
>
>During the 1970s analysts realized that the oil would run out within
>the next hundred years - sooner than previously expected.
>
>The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
>crunch:
>
>http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0423
>
>http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0500
>
>http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0459
>
>http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0449
>
>In case you have not yet cottoned on, this is why the world's greatest
>consumer of oil, the USA, invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia, yet
>did not liberate Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Congo, etc:
>
>http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0501
the above link is broke...
>Meanwhile, oil consumption is higher than ever before, and the rate of
>increase in consumption is faster than ever before.
>
>http://www.thedebate.org
--
ivan
"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:cvfmc0hgj401bi03k...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:26:55 +0100, "Tom" <t.sa...@nospambtinternet.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >"Alert" <www_ins...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:5b022599.0406...@posting.google.com...
> >> Is the world's oil about to run out?
> >>
> >
> >No !
> >
> >
> >At $40 per barrel deep off-shore reserves and shale reserves become
viable
> >for extraction. That gives an estimated further 250 years at current
> >consumption trends.
>
> you 'confidence' is touching...
> now put some plausible numbers to your implausible claim
>
>
and India alone (leaving all of the other emerging economies and population
increases out of the equation) creating a situation where demand is
beginning to outstrip supply, that statement alone tells me all I want to
know about his grasp of the subject.
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
Alert wrote:
>
> Is the world's oil about to run out?
>
> During the 1970s analysts realized that the oil would run out within
> the next hundred years - sooner than previously expected.
>
> The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
> crunch:
>
How many times have you loons claimed this?
--
"By the life of God, it doth even take my wits from me to think on it!
Here is such controversy between the sailors and the gentlemen, and such
stomaching between the gentlemen and sailors, that it doth even make me
mad to hear it. But, my masters, I must have it left. For I must have
the gentlemen to haul and draw with the mariner and the mariner with the
gentlemen. What! Let us show ourselves all to be of a company and let us
not give occasion to the enemy to rejoice at our decay and overthrow. I
would know him, that would refuse to set his hand to a rope, but I know
there is not any such here." -+Sir Frances Drake
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
MrMoor wrote:
>
> > > Is the world's oil about to run out?
> > >
> >
> > No !
>
> The available oil may become almost impossible to access though through
> conflict such as terrorism or civil war,
>
How many civil wars are there in the deep ocean?
> the costs incurred may put it out
> of the reach of ordinary people and as a result your grocery bill may
> double, quadruple or more.
>
The market will work its magic and provide the lowest cost means of
getting food.
> Electricity blackouts and food shortages may be
> somting to look forward to, not tomorrow but sometime in the next decade or
> so.
> We should not have made ourselves so dependent on the Middle East and that
> lot over there.
>
The US has coal reserves for centuries. Gasification techniques can be
used to reduce the level of pollution. Our buying Middle East oil isn't
what causes terrorism. If we stopped buying it, then you wait to see
what happens. Then they will *really* get mad.
ivan
"Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the
deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:40CB6412...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> MrMoor wrote:
> >
> > > > Is the world's oil about to run out?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No !
> >
> > The available oil may become almost impossible to access though through
> > conflict such as terrorism or civil war,
> >
> How many civil wars are there in the deep ocean?
>
>
> > the costs incurred may put it out
> > of the reach of ordinary people and as a result your grocery bill may
> > double, quadruple or more.
> >
> The market will work its magic and provide the lowest cost means of
> getting food.
>
>
> > Electricity blackouts and food shortages may be
> > somting to look forward to, not tomorrow but sometime in the next decade
or
> > so.
> > We should not have made ourselves so dependent on the Middle East and
that
> > lot over there.
> >
> The US has coal reserves for centuries. Gasification techniques can be
> used to reduce the level of pollution. Our buying Middle East oil isn't
> what causes terrorism. If we stopped buying it, then you wait to see
> what happens. Then they will *really* get mad.
>
If it's all as simple as you say, why haven't you already done it, or are in
the process of doing it?
After all being totally energy independent would appear to make a great deal
of sense, especially in view of the fact that it would absolve the US of the
the very dangerous consequences of having to involve itself in future world
conflicts.
Damot
Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>> The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
>> crunch:
>>
>How many times have you loons claimed this?
LOL! Loads of times eh?! The last time they really pushed this "within twenty
years" rubbish was the 70s.
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>Alert wrote:
>>
>> Is the world's oil about to run out?
>>
>> During the 1970s analysts realized that the oil would run out within
>> the next hundred years - sooner than previously expected.
>>
>> The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
>> crunch:
>>
>How many times have you loons claimed this?
not only are you clearly totally ignorant of the realities....
(you even suffer from the religion known as 'market fundamentalism')
you also continue to use a broken news reader.....and then modify
headers in such a manner as to invoke the error in your newsreader....
if you can't be bothered to correct the second...i shall,
with regret, kill file you.
abelard
typed:
>
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:cvfmc0hgj401bi03k...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:26:55 +0100, "Tom" <t.sa...@nospambtinternet.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >
>> >"Alert" <www_ins...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:5b022599.0406...@posting.google.com...
>> >> Is the world's oil about to run out?
>> >>
>> >
>> >No !
>> >
>> >
>> >At $40 per barrel deep off-shore reserves and shale reserves become
>viable
>> >for extraction. That gives an estimated further 250 years at current
>> >consumption trends.
>>
>> you 'confidence' is touching...
>> now put some plausible numbers to your implausible claim
>"at current consumption trends"... with the ever escalating demands of China
>and India alone (leaving all of the other emerging economies and population
>increases out of the equation) creating a situation where demand is
>beginning to outstrip supply, that statement alone tells me all I want to
>know about his grasp of the subject.
sure...but i'd prefer these dedicated ostriches learnt...
they are, after all, a considerable part of the problem
regards..
abelard
typed:
in the 70s it was rubbish...
your problem will be to use real data to show it is 'rubbish' some
30 years later....
i await your efforts with interest....but not much expectation...
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
abelard wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:41:40 +0000 (UTC), Damot <no...@none.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:10:59 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St.
> >Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
> >>> crunch:
> >>>
> >>How many times have you loons claimed this?
> >
> >LOL! Loads of times eh?! The last time they really pushed this "within twenty
> >years" rubbish was the 70s.
>
> in the 70s it was rubbish...
> your problem will be to use real data to show it is 'rubbish' some
> 30 years later....
>
What are you going to do if we decide to build nuclear power plants or
gasify our huge coal reserves?
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
abelard wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:10:59 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >Alert wrote:
> >>
> >> Is the world's oil about to run out?
> >>
> >> During the 1970s analysts realized that the oil would run out within
> >> the next hundred years - sooner than previously expected.
> >>
> >> The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
> >> crunch:
> >>
> >How many times have you loons claimed this?
>
> not only are you clearly totally ignorant of the realities....
> (you even suffer from the religion known as 'market fundamentalism')
>
> you also continue to use a broken news reader.....and then modify
> headers in such a manner as to invoke the error in your newsreader....
>
> if you can't be bothered to correct the second...i shall,
> with regret, kill file you.
>
What are you talking about?
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
What is the incentive to not use oil when it's the cheapest, easiest
source of energy?
> After all being totally energy independent would appear to make a great deal
> of sense, especially in view of the fact that it would absolve the US of the
> the very dangerous consequences of having to involve itself in future world
> conflicts.
>
Where did you get that bizarre notion? The 9/11 terrorists, for example,
didn't attack the US because it was buying oil from the Middle East.
Damot
>>LOL! Loads of times eh?! The last time they really pushed this "within twenty
>>years" rubbish was the 70s.
>
>in the 70s it was rubbish...
>your problem will be to use real data to show it is 'rubbish' some
> 30 years later....
"
Bullshit. The data in the 70s is just as valid for then as todays is for now. In
30 years time just perhaps"in the 00s it was rubbish".
ivan
"Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the
deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
No, but 'were' allegedly instigated by Osama bin Laden for US involvement in
Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, ultimately to protect your own vested
interest in oil, a reason that would never have existed had you been self
sufficient in energy. Why have you gotten yourself involved in the quagmire
that is Iraq?.. after all the links with 9/11 are to say the least very
tenuous, if non-existent.
J&KCopeland
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:41:40 +0000 (UTC), Damot <no...@none.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:10:59 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
the St.
> >Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
> >>> crunch:
> >>>
> >>How many times have you loons claimed this?
> >
> >LOL! Loads of times eh?! The last time they really pushed this "within
twenty
> >years" rubbish was the 70s.
>
> in the 70s it was rubbish...
> your problem will be to use real data to show it is 'rubbish' some
> 30 years later....
>
> i await your efforts with interest....but not much expectation...
>
abelard, you know, or you should know that making a high-value prediction,
good or bad, is neigh on to impossible. The single most important variable,
i.e. how much oil is left in the ground is unknowable, and therefore any
random number will yield mathematically valid (yet completely erroneous)
results. All we have is "proven reserves", and even then, that's little
more than an educated guess. One large "discovery" in Siberia, and the
"proven reserves" could skyrocket, overnight. One technological innovation
could completely change the formula for pumpable oil of known reserves.
(I found the posting pointing to a non-organic basis for the origin of
petroleum to be fascinating. I, personally, cannot follow the chemistry, so
I have no idea if there is any validity to the theory or not.)
Therefore....
I predict that there will be significant finds of new sources of petroleum
in the future. (When, where and how much is open to speculation. Thank
God, the Europeans didn't panic when someone suggested deep-water drilling
in the North Sea.)
I predict that there will be significant technological innovations that will
allow for the more efficient and economical extraction of current sources of
petroleum. (As I pointed out in a previous post, genetically modified
bacteria are most promising and already patented.)
I predict that there will be significant technological innovations that will
allow for the more efficient utilization of current known resources.
(Hybrid vehicles, come to mind.)
I predict that there will be another Ice Age (When, where and how severe is
open to speculation)
I predict that there will be continued unrest in the Middle East (Can 6,000
years of history be ignored?)
I predict that the sun will rise in the east, tomorrow. (If it doesn't,
forget all the rest. They're meaningless. Come to think of it, they are,
anyway. However, the one indisputable fact is that they're as good as
anyone's.)
Asimov's Rules of Prediction.
If it happened before, it'll happen again.
Always predict the obvious.
Programming Axiom.
Garbage in, Garbage out.
James....
A member of the most pathetically incompetent empire in all of recorded
history.
"America can choke on a gnat but swallow tigers whole." Adlai Stevenson
Cassandra didn't get half of what she deserved." Robert Heinlein
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
So you would say that the US should've let Saddam have Kuwait? This
becomes not about oil but about who gets to decide borders, aggressors
like Saddam or the rule of law.
> ultimately to protect your own vested
> interest in oil, a reason that would never have existed had you been self
> sufficient in energy.
>
Oil is vital to the petrochemical industry so even if we had other
sources of energy, we do, we'd still want oil.
> Why have you gotten yourself involved in the quagmire
> that is Iraq?..
>
To remake the Middle East as a region with governments more
representative of the people, funnelling their money to improving the
peoples' lives and not so much into making endless war.
> after all the links with 9/11 are to say the least very
> tenuous, if non-existent.
>
Irrelevant.
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:41:40 +0000 (UTC), Damot <no...@none.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:10:59 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St.
>> >Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
>> >>> crunch:
>> >>>
>> >>How many times have you loons claimed this?
>> >
>> >LOL! Loads of times eh?! The last time they really pushed this "within twenty
>> >years" rubbish was the 70s.
>>
>> in the 70s it was rubbish...
>> your problem will be to use real data to show it is 'rubbish' some
>> 30 years later....
>>
>What are you going to do if we decide to build nuclear power plants or
>gasify our huge coal reserves?
i will be most delighted if you intend to start a massive nuclear build...
that is an important part of what you should be doing right now
as far as i am concerned....
as for gassifying your coal reserves the technology has still not been
used on any large scale and at this moment i am far from convinced
that it will not be mightily polluting...
what is vital is that you plan ahead...not await market forces....by the
time market forces signal you have serious problem your oil bank
account is liable to be under severe strain....
ie....imv you should be using cheap oil to bootstrap yourself into
replacement mode...
abelard
typed:
>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:14:11 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
don't be ridiculous...use numbers and stop waving your arms around...
or else concede the obvious...you don't have a clue what you are
babbling about.
Praetorian
In a single word ... no.
There is more coal reserve inside the contigious U.S. of A. than centuries
of oil. Dirty?! You bet. But, no moreso than oil. Just a matter of the
citizenry smacking the arrogant oil industry into the middle of next week,
and solar cars would suddenly sprout on the highways like dandelions
on a spring lawn. Affect our grocery bill costs? Not likely; you forget
that
congressmen and senators got to eat, too.
abelard
typed:
that is close to the well known ostrich position...sommat may turn up...
you hope...
you are now pumping at considerably faster than you are finding new
reserves....that has been the case for several years....
the technology is advanced to the point that many in the industry
believe they know where serious reserves exist....
then you still have the filth to consider....
>(I found the posting pointing to a non-organic basis for the origin of
>petroleum to be fascinating. I, personally, cannot follow the chemistry, so
>I have no idea if there is any validity to the theory or not.)
>
>Therefore....
>I predict that there will be significant finds of new sources of petroleum
>in the future. (When, where and how much is open to speculation. Thank
>God, the Europeans didn't panic when someone suggested deep-water drilling
>in the North Sea.)
>I predict that there will be significant technological innovations that will
>allow for the more efficient and economical extraction of current sources of
>petroleum.
i want more than 'a prediction' unaccompanied by reasoning....
i hereby predict that limpalongthreelegs is a ded cert for the
three o'clock....such comments will not do....
> (As I pointed out in a previous post, genetically modified
>bacteria are most promising and already patented.)
that route certainly looks possible to me....
however, any such system requires energy to drive it....where do you
propose this energy is going to originate? the sun is the only
reasonable long term certainty....
how then do you propose these bugs are laid out in the sun and then
harvested and processed...(more energy required of course)...
what scale is this production....
your government is already trying this with corn oil...it's being claimed
that this process takes more energy than it produces....not exactly
a going concern....
>I predict that there will be significant technological innovations that will
>allow for the more efficient utilization of current known resources.
arm waving...
>(Hybrid vehicles, come to mind.)
i'm sure they do...you still need fuel....including fuel to manufacture
them....
>I predict that there will be another Ice Age (When, where and how severe is
>open to speculation)
one problem at a time....
the *general view atm is that global warming will/is countering any such
ice age....
any idiot can make these vague pub prognostications.....
>I predict that there will be continued unrest in the Middle East (Can 6,000
>years of history be ignored?)
so what?
>I predict that the sun will rise in the east, tomorrow.
you know full well 'predictions' are normally associated with probability
numbers...none of the above is so associated...
the probability that the sun will rise will have a radically different
value than the possibility of this pollyanna sky blue technology that
is just around the corner....from the pub....
> (If it doesn't,
>forget all the rest. They're meaningless. Come to think of it, they are,
>anyway. However, the one indisputable fact is that they're as good as
>anyone's.)
they are not 'as good as anyones'....the diagnosis of a surgeon of a
medical condition is expected to be far more reliable than the
'prediction' of mystic meg or jo sixpak....
>Asimov's Rules of Prediction.
>If it happened before, it'll happen again.
>Always predict the obvious.
>
>Programming Axiom.
>Garbage in, Garbage out.
>
>James....
>A member of the most pathetically incompetent empire in all of recorded
>history.
>
>"America can choke on a gnat but swallow tigers whole." Adlai Stevenson
>
>Cassandra didn't get half of what she deserved." Robert Heinlein
regards.
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:10:59 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
>> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Alert wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is the world's oil about to run out?
>> >>
>> >> During the 1970s analysts realized that the oil would run out within
>> >> the next hundred years - sooner than previously expected.
>> >>
>> >> The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
>> >> crunch:
>> >>
>> >How many times have you loons claimed this?
>>
>> not only are you clearly totally ignorant of the realities....
>> (you even suffer from the religion known as 'market fundamentalism')
>>
>> you also continue to use a broken news reader.....and then modify
>> headers in such a manner as to invoke the error in your newsreader....
>>
>> if you can't be bothered to correct the second...i shall,
>> with regret, kill file you.
>>
>What are you talking about?
you are using a netscape derived browser for your postings...
it has a known (and highly annoying bug)....
it sticks extra spaces in when headers are above ~66 characters....
this causes it to start a new thread every time you reply to a post
with a header of more than ~66 characters....
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
abelard wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:29:34 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >abelard wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:41:40 +0000 (UTC), Damot <no...@none.com>
> >>
> >> typed:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:10:59 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St.
> >> >Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
> >> >>> crunch:
> >> >>>
> >> >>How many times have you loons claimed this?
> >> >
> >> >LOL! Loads of times eh?! The last time they really pushed this "within twenty
> >> >years" rubbish was the 70s.
> >>
> >> in the 70s it was rubbish...
> >> your problem will be to use real data to show it is 'rubbish' some
> >> 30 years later....
> >>
> >What are you going to do if we decide to build nuclear power plants or
> >gasify our huge coal reserves?
>
> i will be most delighted if you intend to start a massive nuclear build...
> that is an important part of what you should be doing right now
> as far as i am concerned....
>
How about putting out those coal wildfires? They seem pretty stupid to
just let burn and then complain about too much CO2.
> as for gassifying your coal reserves the technology has still not been
> used on any large scale and at this moment i am far from convinced
> that it will not be mightily polluting...
>
I don't know, there was some promising stuff out of Australia.
> what is vital is that you plan ahead...not await market forces....by the
> time market forces signal you have serious problem your oil bank
> account is liable to be under severe strain....
> ie....imv you should be using cheap oil to bootstrap yourself into
> replacement mode...
>
Except that we are learning how to make alternative energy schemes more
and more effective. For example, if you buy a wind turbine today, you
are likely to have a much lower maintenance cost. Just building a lot of
the old turbines that break down a lot wouldn't get us anywhere fast.
More than moving away from oil as fast as possible, we need to learn how
to move passed oil when that is needed.
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
Praetorian wrote:
>
> In a single word ... no.
>
> There is more coal reserve inside the contigious U.S. of A. than centuries
> of oil. Dirty?! You bet. But, no moreso than oil. Just a matter of the
> citizenry smacking the arrogant oil industry into the middle of next week,
> and solar cars would suddenly sprout on the highways
>
Solar cars?
J&KCopeland
Nope. Not true.
> you are now pumping at considerably faster than you are finding new
> reserves....that has been the case for several years....
Correction. Under CURRENT economic conditions, we are pumping oil faster
than new fields are found. However, there are literally hundreds of
thousands of capped off wells that were producing oil, the day they were
capped. A low-volumn well, say two or three barrels per day, will not cover
expenses at current price levels. At some point, hmmm, about $60 a barrel
(as a WAG), they can and will be brought back into production.
> the technology is advanced to the point that many in the industry
> believe they know where serious reserves exist....
>
> then you still have the filth to consider....
>
> >(I found the posting pointing to a non-organic basis for the origin of
> >petroleum to be fascinating. I, personally, cannot follow the chemistry,
so
> >I have no idea if there is any validity to the theory or not.)
> >
> >Therefore....
> >I predict that there will be significant finds of new sources of
petroleum
> >in the future. (When, where and how much is open to speculation. Thank
> >God, the Europeans didn't panic when someone suggested deep-water
drilling
> >in the North Sea.)
> >I predict that there will be significant technological innovations that
will
> >allow for the more efficient and economical extraction of current sources
of
> >petroleum.
>
> i want more than 'a prediction' unaccompanied by reasoning....
> i hereby predict that limpalongthreelegs is a ded cert for the
> three o'clock....such comments will not do....
That's the blanky-blank point. (American English needs a word like "bloody"
"Fucking" is overkill too much of the time)
> > (As I pointed out in a previous post, genetically modified
> >bacteria are most promising and already patented.)
>
> that route certainly looks possible to me....
> however, any such system requires energy to drive it....where do you
> propose this energy is going to originate? the sun is the only
> reasonable long term certainty....
> how then do you propose these bugs are laid out in the sun and then
> harvested and processed...(more energy required of course)...
> what scale is this production....
Bacteria????? Stopping their reproduction, not encouraging it, is the most
common problem.
>
> your government is already trying this with corn oil...it's being claimed
> that this process takes more energy than it produces....not exactly
> a going concern....
Corn does take more energy. In addition, corn is a high-value food crop,
but is demanding on soil nuterients, year after year.
Of course, IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO GROW ANY CROP THAN IS DERIVED FROM THE
CROP. If someone ever figures out how to tax the sun's output, we're in big
trouble.
Of course, if it comes down to distilling corn crops into a vehicle fuel, or
walking, I think the US will just have to cut back on it's corn export.
>
> >I predict that there will be significant technological innovations that
will
> >allow for the more efficient utilization of current known resources.
>
> arm waving...
Short, yet dismissive. Not bad. Not at all productive, but not bad.
In 1972, a gloomy prediction of massive oil shortages by 1990, was
perfectly reasonable. Of course, by 1992, known oil reserves dwarfed even
the most optomistic 72 projections.
>
> >(Hybrid vehicles, come to mind.)
>
> i'm sure they do...you still need fuel....including fuel to manufacture
> them....
Okay. And?
>
> >I predict that there will be another Ice Age (When, where and how severe
is
> >open to speculation)
>
> one problem at a time....
> the *general view atm is that global warming will/is countering any such
> ice age....
And I think that the Europeans and British, by burning, harvesting and
otherwise destroying the massive forests that covered allmost all of Europe
may very well have reversed the effects of The Little Ice Age.
>
> any idiot can make these vague pub prognostications.....
Of course. Just like any idiot can say the sky is falling.
>
> >I predict that there will be continued unrest in the Middle East (Can
6,000
> >years of history be ignored?)
>
> so what?
>
> >I predict that the sun will rise in the east, tomorrow.
>
> you know full well 'predictions' are normally associated with probability
> numbers...none of the above is so associated...
> the probability that the sun will rise will have a radically different
> value than the possibility of this pollyanna sky blue technology that
> is just around the corner....from the pub....
>
> > (If it doesn't,
> >forget all the rest. They're meaningless. Come to think of it, they
are,
> >anyway. However, the one indisputable fact is that they're as good as
> >anyone's.)
>
> they are not 'as good as anyones'....the diagnosis of a surgeon of a
> medical condition is expected to be far more reliable than the
> 'prediction' of mystic meg or jo sixpak....
Don't be defensive. But the sheer reality is, my guesses are as good as
anyone else's on this NG. The only thing that I would conclude with some
certainly, is that given the wild extremes of guesses, and everything in
between, someone may be close.
There are two concepts that are almost impossible for the human mind to
fully grasp. One is infinity. The second is random numbers. (Studies have
shown that almost all people, shown large groups of random numbers, will
being to see patterns in those numbers, where none exisit.
Thus, although there certainly is a finite amount of petroleum in the earth,
the total amount, at this point, we can conclude total petroleum available
is a wild excentric variable.
abelard
typed:
>
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:sh5nc01ar57gonbjr...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:58:33 -0500, "J&KCopeland" <jckc...@kc.rr.com>
>> you are now pumping at considerably faster than you are finding new
>> reserves....that has been the case for several years....
>
>Correction. Under CURRENT economic conditions, we are pumping oil faster
>than new fields are found. However, there are literally hundreds of
>thousands of capped off wells that were producing oil, the day they were
>capped. A low-volumn well, say two or three barrels per day, will not cover
>expenses at current price levels. At some point, hmmm, about $60 a barrel
>(as a WAG), they can and will be brought back into production.
100,000 x 2 is 200,000 barrels.....
1tonne ~7.2 barrels.....
current world consumption...
3,500,000,000 tonnes i.e.....25,200,000,000 barrels
america ~20% of this figure....say
700,000,000 tonnes ie...5,040,000,000 barrels....
rate of increase 2% per annum....
14,000,000 tonnes for america alone....100,800,000
your 100,000 wells is a piffling drop in the bucket....
it is 1/5000th part of the *rise* in oil consumption in the usa in one
year....
you are hand waving until you get some slight notion of the sheer
*scale* of the problems facing you.....
>> i want more than 'a prediction' unaccompanied by reasoning....
>> i hereby predict that limpalongthreelegs is a ded cert for the
>> three o'clock....such comments will not do....
>
>That's the blanky-blank point. (American English needs a word like "bloody"
>"Fucking" is overkill too much of the time)
your semantic analysis is not comprehended.....
>> > (As I pointed out in a previous post, genetically modified
>> >bacteria are most promising and already patented.)
>>
>> that route certainly looks possible to me....
>> however, any such system requires energy to drive it....where do you
>> propose this energy is going to originate? the sun is the only
>> reasonable long term certainty....
>
>> how then do you propose these bugs are laid out in the sun and then
>> harvested and processed...(more energy required of course)...
>> what scale is this production....
>
>Bacteria????? Stopping their reproduction, not encouraging it, is the most
>common problem.
you don't seem to understand....bacteria die out when they run out
of an energy source....
this is not petri dish scales you are dealing with....
>> your government is already trying this with corn oil...it's being claimed
>> that this process takes more energy than it produces....not exactly
>> a going concern....
>
>Corn does take more energy. In addition, corn is a high-value food crop,
>but is demanding on soil nuterients, year after year.
>
>Of course, IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO GROW ANY CROP THAN IS DERIVED FROM THE
>CROP. If someone ever figures out how to tax the sun's output, we're in big
>trouble.
>
>Of course, if it comes down to distilling corn crops into a vehicle fuel, or
>walking, I think the US will just have to cut back on it's corn export.
you still don't get it....
if it costs you more energy to grow the corn...than you can extract from
that corn....
where are you proposing to get the energy with which to grow the corn?
if you get that energy, don't you think it rather foolish to use that
energy to produce less energy than you put in?
btw...that is what your government appears to be doing at present
with your taxes....
not smart...
>> >I predict that there will be significant technological innovations that
>will
>> >allow for the more efficient utilization of current known resources.
>>
>> arm waving...
>
>Short, yet dismissive. Not bad. Not at all productive, but not bad.
>
>In 1972, a gloomy prediction of massive oil shortages by 1990, was
>perfectly reasonable. Of course, by 1992, known oil reserves dwarfed even
>the most optomistic 72 projections.
this is not 1972!
you have been using oil in increasing quantities ever since then...
you are using it in increasing quantities at present...year by year.....
in the 70s you embarked on a massive conservation programme....
then you forgot....
much of what slowed your problems after the 70s was that conservation
programme....you have now wasted that opportunity.....
the train is coming down the tracks....your ass is in the air....and your
head is buried deep in the sand.....
do the numbers and stop arm waving...
>> >(Hybrid vehicles, come to mind.)
>>
>> i'm sure they do...you still need fuel....including fuel to manufacture
>> them....
>
>Okay. And?
where you gonna get it bozo?
>> >I predict that there will be another Ice Age (When, where and how severe
>is
>> >open to speculation)
>>
>> one problem at a time....
>> the *general view atm is that global warming will/is countering any such
>> ice age....
>
>And I think that the Europeans and British, by burning, harvesting and
>otherwise destroying the massive forests that covered allmost all of Europe
>may very well have reversed the effects of The Little Ice Age.
i don't have sufficient data.....
>> any idiot can make these vague pub prognostications.....
>
>Of course. Just like any idiot can say the sky is falling.
you are still avoiding numbers....
you show the sky is not falling....all you have to do is make a case....
by saying just where you'll get this energy that you hope will 'just turn
up'
not vague hand waving....
>> > (If it doesn't,
>> >forget all the rest. They're meaningless. Come to think of it, they
>are,
>> >anyway. However, the one indisputable fact is that they're as good as
>> >anyone's.)
>>
>> they are not 'as good as anyones'....the diagnosis of a surgeon of a
>> medical condition is expected to be far more reliable than the
>> 'prediction' of mystic meg or jo sixpak....
>
>Don't be defensive. But the sheer reality is, my guesses are as good as
>anyone else's on this NG.
i'm looking for numbers...not uninformed guesses....
> The only thing that I would conclude with some
>certainly, is that given the wild extremes of guesses, and everything in
>between, someone may be close.
numbers please...not rhetoric....
>There are two concepts that are almost impossible for the human mind to
>fully grasp. One is infinity. The second is random numbers. (Studies have
>shown that almost all people, shown large groups of random numbers, will
>being to see patterns in those numbers, where none exisit.
fine....but where is the relevance....i am not talking about random
numbers....
once you had so much oil you couldn't give it away....literaly.....
now you are reaching for 1/5000th of the annual rise in american
consumption....
>Thus, although there certainly is a finite amount of petroleum in the earth,
>the total amount, at this point, we can conclude total petroleum available
>is a wild excentric variable.
i see no reason to accept that view.....
most of the planet has been surveyed.....
the pockets found are increasingly small.....
extracting that oil is getting increasing expensive...and energy
expensive.
regards....
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>> i will be most delighted if you intend to start a massive nuclear build...
>> that is an important part of what you should be doing right now
>> as far as i am concerned....
>>
>How about putting out those coal wildfires? They seem pretty stupid to
>just let burn and then complain about too much CO2.
which fires...where? how much filth are they currently exuding
relative to the deliberate usage burning?
>> as for gassifying your coal reserves the technology has still not been
>> used on any large scale and at this moment i am far from convinced
>> that it will not be mightily polluting...
>>
>I don't know, there was some promising stuff out of Australia.
certainly....
i am assuming you don't mean coal at this point....
please understand...i don't think you cannot cope...if you act now.....
if you sit around waiting for something to turn up ....you may well
be digging yourself one terrible hole.....
>> what is vital is that you plan ahead...not await market forces....by the
>> time market forces signal you have serious problem your oil bank
>> account is liable to be under severe strain....
>> ie....imv you should be using cheap oil to bootstrap yourself into
>> replacement mode...
>>
>Except that we are learning how to make alternative energy schemes more
>and more effective. For example, if you buy a wind turbine today, you
>are likely to have a much lower maintenance cost. Just building a lot of
>the old turbines that break down a lot wouldn't get us anywhere fast.
>More than moving away from oil as fast as possible, we need to learn how
>to move passed oil when that is needed.
fully agreed....and it is (imv) vital ...you put very high priority on
preparing right now.....
not a $billion of small change....but around 1% of your gnp each
and every year....ie in the case of the usa ~$100billion each
year.....
into conservation, nuclear build etc....quite apart from research....
you are being fed bullshit regarding a hydrogen economy....
you are being fed bullshit by oil man bush......
hydrogen is not a fuel and it not currently a great prospect.....
and the $billion 'promised' is absolute chicken feed.....
just more corporate socialism.....
regards....
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>Praetorian wrote:
>>
>> In a single word ... no.
>>
>> There is more coal reserve inside the contigious U.S. of A. than centuries
>> of oil. Dirty?! You bet. But, no moreso than oil. Just a matter of the
>> citizenry smacking the arrogant oil industry into the middle of next week,
>> and solar cars would suddenly sprout on the highways
>>
>Solar cars?
not enuf energy in the area of the car roof.....not anywhere near enuf....
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>What is the incentive to not use oil when it's the cheapest, easiest
>source of energy?
the cheapness of oil is a major part of your problems
>> After all being totally energy independent would appear to make a great deal
>> of sense, especially in view of the fact that it would absolve the US of the
>> the very dangerous consequences of having to involve itself in future world
>> conflicts.
>>
>Where did you get that bizarre notion? The 9/11 terrorists, for example,
>didn't attack the US because it was buying oil from the Middle East.
do you think there was no connection?
the m.e. has for ever been resentful and ever sought to grab more
income from 'their' oil.....
many of these areas have obtained huge rents...much of which
they have spent (squandered) on weapons....and much more
on dole for idle and growing populations.....
they want what you have......
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>ivan wrote:
>> No, but 'were' allegedly instigated by Osama bin Laden for US involvement in
>> Saudi Arabia and the Middle East,
>>
>So you would say that the US should've let Saddam have Kuwait? This
>becomes not about oil but about who gets to decide borders, aggressors
>like Saddam or the rule of law.
much of it is about who controls the oil fields.....
the rulers of those states are of marginal legitimacy.....
>> ultimately to protect your own vested
>> interest in oil, a reason that would never have existed had you been self
>> sufficient in energy.
>>
>Oil is vital to the petrochemical industry so even if we had other
>sources of energy, we do, we'd still want oil.
you can obtain oil if you have energy from air and water......
>> Why have you gotten yourself involved in the quagmire
>> that is Iraq?..
>>
>To remake the Middle East as a region with governments more
>representative of the people, funnelling their money to improving the
>peoples' lives and not so much into making endless war.
just so...and about time too.....
>> after all the links with 9/11 are to say the least very
>> tenuous, if non-existent.
>>
>Irrelevant.
don't bet short odds on that.....
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
abelard wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:01:54 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >Praetorian wrote:
> >>
> >> In a single word ... no.
> >>
> >> There is more coal reserve inside the contigious U.S. of A. than centuries
> >> of oil. Dirty?! You bet. But, no moreso than oil. Just a matter of the
> >> citizenry smacking the arrogant oil industry into the middle of next week,
> >> and solar cars would suddenly sprout on the highways
> >>
> >Solar cars?
>
> not enuf energy in the area of the car roof.....not anywhere near enuf....
>
Not for the sort of car that people want to drive. What if the entire
car was a solar cell and it stored power in some sort of flywheel?
Thought about that?
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
abelard wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:29:36 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >ivan wrote:
>
> >> No, but 'were' allegedly instigated by Osama bin Laden for US involvement in
> >> Saudi Arabia and the Middle East,
> >>
> >So you would say that the US should've let Saddam have Kuwait? This
> >becomes not about oil but about who gets to decide borders, aggressors
> >like Saddam or the rule of law.
>
> much of it is about who controls the oil fields.....
> the rulers of those states are of marginal legitimacy.....
>
Anyone who isn't elected democratically is of marginal legitimacy. The
problem in the Middle East is that America is blamed for those
governments. It's not fair, but it's what has been stamped to our
foreheads.
> >> ultimately to protect your own vested
> >> interest in oil, a reason that would never have existed had you been self
> >> sufficient in energy.
> >>
> >Oil is vital to the petrochemical industry so even if we had other
> >sources of energy, we do, we'd still want oil.
>
> you can obtain oil if you have energy from air and water......
>
Oil is more valuable to the petrochemical industry than to the energy
generation industry. I mean if the price goes up, the first to seek
alternatives will be the energy generation sector.
> >> Why have you gotten yourself involved in the quagmire
> >> that is Iraq?..
> >>
> >To remake the Middle East as a region with governments more
> >representative of the people, funnelling their money to improving the
> >peoples' lives and not so much into making endless war.
>
> just so...and about time too.....
>
Without doing something real proactive, and invading Iraq is that, many
more years of the status quo in the Middle East was likely to result.
Not good if we want to get passed this war on terrorism.
> >> after all the links with 9/11 are to say the least very
> >> tenuous, if non-existent.
> >>
> >Irrelevant.
>
> don't bet short odds on that.....
>
It doesn't matter whether Iraq was involved or not in 9/11. What matters
is that we have to push along changes in the Middle East and we can't do
that without dealing with Iraq.
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
abelard wrote:
>
> the m.e. has for ever been resentful and ever sought to grab more
> income from 'their' oil.....
>
The oil is an accident of nature. The Arabs have gotten billions for it
just because they were lucky. If they are angry about that, then they
are nuts. What they are angry about is that they are getting all that
money and the people aren't really seeing it. It is wasted on wars and
palaces and other nonsense.
> many of these areas have obtained huge rents...much of which
> they have spent (squandered) on weapons....and much more
> on dole for idle and growing populations.....
>
> they want what you have......
>
We are agreeing on this, at least. Plainly paying Saddam more money
wasn't going to give Iraqis what the West had.
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
abelard wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:37:00 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >abelard wrote:
>
> >> i will be most delighted if you intend to start a massive nuclear build...
> >> that is an important part of what you should be doing right now
> >> as far as i am concerned....
> >>
> >How about putting out those coal wildfires? They seem pretty stupid to
> >just let burn and then complain about too much CO2.
>
> which fires...where? how much filth are they currently exuding
> relative to the deliberate usage burning?
>
The article claimed the amounts were similar to those emitted by
vehicles in the US.
> >> as for gassifying your coal reserves the technology has still not been
> >> used on any large scale and at this moment i am far from convinced
> >> that it will not be mightily polluting...
> >>
> >I don't know, there was some promising stuff out of Australia.
>
> certainly....
> i am assuming you don't mean coal at this point....
>
Coal gasification. Australia has huge reserves. Here's a cite on the
subject: http://www.nrme.qld.gov.au/mines/coal/walloon_trial.html
> please understand...i don't think you cannot cope...if you act now.....
> if you sit around waiting for something to turn up ....you may well
> be digging yourself one terrible hole.....
>
People are very creative when they have to be. Look at WWII. People
gasified biomass in little ovens on the backs of their cars and stored
the gas in bladders on the roof. Here's an example of a bus running on
natural gas in present day China:
http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Excursions/Zigong-gas-bus.html
> >> what is vital is that you plan ahead...not await market forces....by the
> >> time market forces signal you have serious problem your oil bank
> >> account is liable to be under severe strain....
> >> ie....imv you should be using cheap oil to bootstrap yourself into
> >> replacement mode...
> >>
> >Except that we are learning how to make alternative energy schemes more
> >and more effective. For example, if you buy a wind turbine today, you
> >are likely to have a much lower maintenance cost. Just building a lot of
> >the old turbines that break down a lot wouldn't get us anywhere fast.
> >More than moving away from oil as fast as possible, we need to learn how
> >to move passed oil when that is needed.
>
> fully agreed....and it is (imv) vital ...you put very high priority on
> preparing right now.....
> not a $billion of small change....but around 1% of your gnp each
> and every year....ie in the case of the usa ~$100billion each
> year.....
> into conservation, nuclear build etc....quite apart from research....
>
I think you are blowing this out of proportion. The market will provide
the solutions as it always has.
> you are being fed bullshit regarding a hydrogen economy....
> you are being fed bullshit by oil man bush......
>
> hydrogen is not a fuel and it not currently a great prospect.....
>
Hydrogen, in whatever form, is a way to transport energy. We can get
that energy from nuclear power plants, coal gasification, wind turbines,
etc.
> and the $billion 'promised' is absolute chicken feed.....
> just more corporate socialism.....
>
You want to spend $100 billion and you don't call that corporate
socialism.
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:01:54 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
>> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>> >Praetorian wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In a single word ... no.
>> >>
>> >> There is more coal reserve inside the contigious U.S. of A. than centuries
>> >> of oil. Dirty?! You bet. But, no moreso than oil. Just a matter of the
>> >> citizenry smacking the arrogant oil industry into the middle of next week,
>> >> and solar cars would suddenly sprout on the highways
>> >>
>> >Solar cars?
>>
>> not enuf energy in the area of the car roof.....not anywhere near enuf....
>>
>Not for the sort of car that people want to drive. What if the entire
>car was a solar cell and it stored power in some sort of flywheel?
>Thought about that?
i've told you....the area of any realistic car could not collect
sufficient power....
they do run a race for extremely light weight 'cars' across australia
(partly to develop technology)....
australia because there's lots of sun....
you could look it up if it interests you
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:29:36 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
>> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>> >ivan wrote:
>>
>> >> No, but 'were' allegedly instigated by Osama bin Laden for US involvement in
>> >> Saudi Arabia and the Middle East,
>> >>
>> >So you would say that the US should've let Saddam have Kuwait? This
>> >becomes not about oil but about who gets to decide borders, aggressors
>> >like Saddam or the rule of law.
>>
>> much of it is about who controls the oil fields.....
>> the rulers of those states are of marginal legitimacy.....
>>
>Anyone who isn't elected democratically is of marginal legitimacy. The
>problem in the Middle East is that America is blamed for those
>governments. It's not fair, but it's what has been stamped to our
>foreheads.
as far as i'm concerned....it doesn't much matter....we are where we are..
that's what we have to handle....them also
>> >> ultimately to protect your own vested
>> >> interest in oil, a reason that would never have existed had you been self
>> >> sufficient in energy.
>> >>
>> >Oil is vital to the petrochemical industry so even if we had other
>> >sources of energy, we do, we'd still want oil.
>>
>> you can obtain oil if you have energy from air and water......
>>
>Oil is more valuable to the petrochemical industry than to the energy
>generation industry. I mean if the price goes up, the first to seek
>alternatives will be the energy generation sector.
the problem is where from...when....
>> >> Why have you gotten yourself involved in the quagmire
>> >> that is Iraq?..
>> >>
>> >To remake the Middle East as a region with governments more
>> >representative of the people, funnelling their money to improving the
>> >peoples' lives and not so much into making endless war.
>>
>> just so...and about time too.....
>>
>Without doing something real proactive, and invading Iraq is that, many
>more years of the status quo in the Middle East was likely to result.
>Not good if we want to get passed this war on terrorism.
sure...irak was necessary...very necessary
>> >> after all the links with 9/11 are to say the least very
>> >> tenuous, if non-existent.
>> >>
>> >Irrelevant.
>>
>> don't bet short odds on that.....
>>
>It doesn't matter whether Iraq was involved or not in 9/11. What matters
>is that we have to push along changes in the Middle East and we can't do
>that without dealing with Iraq.
pretty well fully agreed....
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>>
>
>> the m.e. has for ever been resentful and ever sought to grab more
>> income from 'their' oil.....
>>
>The oil is an accident of nature. The Arabs have gotten billions for it
>just because they were lucky. If they are angry about that, then they
>are nuts. What they are angry about is that they are getting all that
>money and the people aren't really seeing it. It is wasted on wars and
>palaces and other nonsense.
pretty well accepted....
>> many of these areas have obtained huge rents...much of which
>> they have spent (squandered) on weapons....and much more
>> on dole for idle and growing populations.....
>>
>> they want what you have......
>>
>We are agreeing on this, at least. Plainly paying Saddam more money
>wasn't going to give Iraqis what the West had.
indeed....
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:37:00 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
>> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>> >abelard wrote:
>>
>> >> i will be most delighted if you intend to start a massive nuclear build...
>> >> that is an important part of what you should be doing right now
>> >> as far as i am concerned....
>> >>
>> >How about putting out those coal wildfires? They seem pretty stupid to
>> >just let burn and then complain about too much CO2.
>>
>> which fires...where? how much filth are they currently exuding
>> relative to the deliberate usage burning?
>>
>The article claimed the amounts were similar to those emitted by
>vehicles in the US.
i'd need details and data....if you can...give a link....
>> >> as for gassifying your coal reserves the technology has still not been
>> >> used on any large scale and at this moment i am far from convinced
>> >> that it will not be mightily polluting...
>> >>
>> >I don't know, there was some promising stuff out of Australia.
>>
>> certainly....
>> i am assuming you don't mean coal at this point....
>>
>Coal gasification. Australia has huge reserves. Here's a cite on the
>subject: http://www.nrme.qld.gov.au/mines/coal/walloon_trial.html
i will examine it in more detail later....
note that it is as yet small scale...there is no large scale work in
this area as far as i know....
the biggest in the past and now has been in russia....
>> please understand...i don't think you cannot cope...if you act now.....
>> if you sit around waiting for something to turn up ....you may well
>> be digging yourself one terrible hole.....
>>
>People are very creative when they have to be. Look at WWII. People
>gasified biomass in little ovens on the backs of their cars and stored
>the gas in bladders on the roof. Here's an example of a bus running on
>natural gas in present day China:
>http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Excursions/Zigong-gas-bus.html
in london by 1950 the air was so bad that at times you *literally* could
not see the ground through the fog (smog)....the last big smog caused
around 4000 deaths if i recall and resulted in clean air acts....
primarily stopping the burning of coal.....
in the 1700s the filth was so great in charcoal burning areas that washing
got filthy as it dried....
i want clean energy....
there is a huge difference between a few experimental cars of this
type...and millions....
it is very important...as i have replied to another poster....to try to
grasp the *scale* issues in energy production.....
>> >> what is vital is that you plan ahead...not await market forces....by the
>> >> time market forces signal you have serious problem your oil bank
>> >> account is liable to be under severe strain....
>> >> ie....imv you should be using cheap oil to bootstrap yourself into
>> >> replacement mode...
>> >>
>> >Except that we are learning how to make alternative energy schemes more
>> >and more effective. For example, if you buy a wind turbine today, you
>> >are likely to have a much lower maintenance cost. Just building a lot of
>> >the old turbines that break down a lot wouldn't get us anywhere fast.
>> >More than moving away from oil as fast as possible, we need to learn how
>> >to move passed oil when that is needed.
>>
>> fully agreed....and it is (imv) vital ...you put very high priority on
>> preparing right now.....
>> not a $billion of small change....but around 1% of your gnp each
>> and every year....ie in the case of the usa ~$100billion each
>> year.....
>> into conservation, nuclear build etc....quite apart from research....
>>
>I think you are blowing this out of proportion. The market will provide
>the solutions as it always has.
i think you are over confident.....
>> you are being fed bullshit regarding a hydrogen economy....
>> you are being fed bullshit by oil man bush......
>>
>> hydrogen is not a fuel and it not currently a great prospect.....
>>
>Hydrogen, in whatever form, is a way to transport energy. We can get
>that energy from nuclear power plants, coal gasification, wind turbines,
>etc.
that accords with my view....
though i am yet to be convinced coal gasification is desirable or
necessary
>> and the $billion 'promised' is absolute chicken feed.....
>> just more corporate socialism.....
>>
>You want to spend $100 billion and you don't call that corporate
>socialism.
i think that it what you are faced with if you are to secure a reasonable
future....
i think that is what you are faced with if you wish to lower your need
to occupy the middle east for decades.....
The important thing for Government is not to do things which individuals
are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but
to do those things which at present are not done at all. 1926 keynes
do you comprehend tragedy of the commons (totc)...if not bone up on
it...eg...
http://www.abelard.org/ethics.htm#link-e-tr
market fundamentalism does not work in totc situations....
market fundamentalism does not account for externalised costs....
it doesn't cost resource depletion or destruction.....
the 'economics' taught in unis and hacked out by the scribblers
of the wonderful media is often unalloyed crap.....
Damot
>>>in the 70s it was rubbish...
>>>your problem will be to use real data to show it is 'rubbish' some
>>> 30 years later....
>>
>>"
>>Bullshit. The data in the 70s is just as valid for then as todays is for now. In
>>30 years time just perhaps"in the 00s it was rubbish".
>
>don't be ridiculous...use numbers and stop waving your arms around...
>or else concede the obvious...you don't have a clue what you are
> babbling about.
Come back when you've learnt something about life, and statistics in particular.
Damot
>>What are you talking about?
>
>you are using a netscape derived browser for your postings...
>it has a known (and highly annoying bug)....
>it sticks extra spaces in when headers are above ~66 characters....
>
>this causes it to start a new thread every time you reply to a post
> with a header of more than ~66 characters....
No it doesn't. Must be your system. Again you're making assumptions.
Mel Rowing
prediction,
> >good or bad, is neigh on to impossible. The single most important
variable,
> >i.e. how much oil is left in the ground is unknowable, and therefore any
> >random number will yield mathematically valid (yet completely erroneous)
> >results. All we have is "proven reserves", and even then, that's little
> >more than an educated guess. One large "discovery" in Siberia, and the
> >"proven reserves" could skyrocket, overnight. One technological
innovation
> >could completely change the formula for pumpable oil of known reserves.
>
> that is close to the well known ostrich position...sommat may turn up...
> you hope...
> you are now pumping at considerably faster than you are finding new
> reserves....that has been the case for several years....
> the technology is advanced to the point that many in the industry
> believe they know where serious reserves exist....
Nothing will turn up unless it is sought.
I fear Abe that you confuse oil reserves with oil resources. When an oil
extractor talks of 'proved reserves' he refers to the total quantity he
feels he is able to pump over time at the current price. We all know of
course that current prices are in no way permanent in either possible
direction and this is why such reserves go up and down. If we look at the
picture in terms of resources then is is much more rosy.
> then you still have the filth to consider....
>
> >(I found the posting pointing to a non-organic basis for the origin of
> >petroleum to be fascinating. I, personally, cannot follow the chemistry,
so
> >I have no idea if there is any validity to the theory or not.)
> >
> >Therefore....
> >I predict that there will be significant finds of new sources of
petroleum
> >in the future. (When, where and how much is open to speculation. Thank
> >God, the Europeans didn't panic when someone suggested deep-water
drilling
> >in the North Sea.)
> >I predict that there will be significant technological innovations that
will
> >allow for the more efficient and economical extraction of current sources
of
> >petroleum.
>
> i want more than 'a prediction' unaccompanied by reasoning....
> i hereby predict that limpalongthreelegs is a ded cert for the
> three o'clock....such comments will not do....
The pont of the reference to the work of Thomas Gold is that it suggests
that conventional theories regarding the origin of petroleum might have
blinkered petrolem geologists in their search for the stuff.
Towards that end I refer you to:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html
particularly the latter half of the page that follws a conversation with
Gold that in my view raises some valid questions.
> > (As I pointed out in a previous post, genetically modified
> >bacteria are most promising and already patented.)
>
> that route certainly looks possible to me....
> however, any such system requires energy to drive it....where do you
> propose this energy is going to originate? the sun is the only
> reasonable long term certainty....
> how then do you propose these bugs are laid out in the sun and then
> harvested and processed...(more energy required of course)...
> what scale is this production....
Why should one devise ingenious ways of harnessing the energy of the sun
when nature already does the task for us?
The weather/hydrological system represents a vast solar driven engine.
Energy is transferable from one form to another despite inherrent
inefficiencies in so doing. My point is that whether there is an oil crisis
in the offing or not, there certainly is no energy crisis. There are
abundant sources iof primary energy all around us, always will be and always
must be.
> your government is already trying this with corn oil...it's being claimed
> that this process takes more energy than it produces....not exactly
> a going concern....
All conversions of energy from one form to another 'take more energy than is
produced' A power station does exactly the same. The importance of oil is
that it represents, like all other fuels, a very portable form of heat
energy. The energy expended in extracting and refining it represents its
cost. At present such costs a relatively low. Depletion will no doubt give
rise to rising costs which will translate into reduced supply and/or rising
prices the latter attenuating demand. Rising prices will also increase
viable oil reserves, increase the attractiveness of conservation procedures
and the search for increased efficiency, induce the development of presently
less viable alternatives.
It is the price of oil that will bring about more widespread development of
shale oil resources (incidentally Estonia has been virtually self sufficient
as the result of such resources for years). It is the price of oil that will
eventually lead to the development of methane and methane hydrate resources.
It's the price of oil that will draw the hydrogen economy closer. It's the
price of oil that will render a new nuclear and even nuclear fusion age
inevitable.
It is an oft quoted saying that the stone age didn't come to an end because
of the shortage of stone. The wind and water mills didn't fall into
obsolescence through a shortage of wind or flowing water. The coal age did
not come to an end through a shortage of coal. Rest assured the oil age will
not come to an end through a shortage of oil.
It's all down to price. One day, today's less viable alternatives will be
brought into viability through rising price.
Mel Rowing
The Ghost In The Machine
<abe...@abelard.org>
wrote
on Sun, 13 Jun 2004 06:33:15 +0200
<b3mnc05gou6lpmm47...@4ax.com>:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:28:43 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>
>>
>>abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:01:54 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
>>> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
>>> >Praetorian wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> In a single word ... no.
>>> >>
>>> >> There is more coal reserve inside the contigious U.S. of A. than centuries
>>> >> of oil. Dirty?! You bet. But, no moreso than oil. Just a matter of the
>>> >> citizenry smacking the arrogant oil industry into the middle of next week,
>>> >> and solar cars would suddenly sprout on the highways
>>> >>
>>> >Solar cars?
>>>
>>> not enuf energy in the area of the car roof.....not anywhere near enuf....
>>>
>>Not for the sort of car that people want to drive. What if the entire
>>car was a solar cell and it stored power in some sort of flywheel?
>>Thought about that?
>
> i've told you....the area of any realistic car could not collect
> sufficient power....
> they do run a race for extremely light weight 'cars' across australia
> (partly to develop technology)....
> australia because there's lots of sun....
>
> you could look it up if it interests you
>
It may not matter *how* big the roof is. If one wants an efficient
car one doesn't waste energy (ahem) on moving the power collection
equipment around -- even if it's as light as 1 gm. (Admittedly,
that's a bit ridiculous, as even a power jack might weigh that.
But solar cells certainly need to be lighter than they are now.)
For every kg of extra weight one needs 420.5 J to get it up to
65 mph (= 29 m/s, roughly).
If there is a solar power cell one hopes it doubles as a skin covering,
because that's the only way this sort of thing will fly -- and only
on sunny days and only if one keeps the car washed.
As for the Aussie race -- the "cars" are little more than bicycles
covered in cells, and maybe a backup battery. They'd be blown over
by a good breeze. ;-) And batteries are dead weight, too.
A gallon of gas or diesel remains the most efficient
way of moving power around, per gallon, absent advances
in technology allowing fission or fusion power to be
transportable. (If one goes per kg, hydrogen gets the
nod, as it's very light. Trouble is, it's also very hard
to handle, not only because it's a gas but also because,
after exposure to hydrogen for some time, many parts become
rather brittle.)
Of course we can do better; apparently the hybrids get considerably
more efficient fuel mileage than a standard gasoline-powered auto,
apparently because the smaller engine charging the batteries runs
more efficiently than the standard-sized one. A little surprising
to me personally, as they've got batteries and electric motors --
either dead weight or additional weight for the engine/drivetrain.
_The Cool War_ suggested charcoal burning cabs. An interesting idea,
although I've no idea how well it will work given current technology.
It also suggested a solar-collection facility using a UV hologram
and modified flowers, and I've no idea how well *that* will work,
either -- mostly because UV holograms aren't possible, though a
workable modification might be to radio instructions to the "flowers",
which would contain an embedded radio chip.
Flywheels are essentially batteries. I'm not sure how well they
work compared to standard lead-acid or nickel-hydrides, though
bearing technology is such that they can lose less than 2% of
their energy a day, which is rather impressive.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
abelard
typed:
>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 02:07:03 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
again you are talking through your arse...your posts are a waste of space.
so probably are you....
i see no point responding to your further...you're a registered idiot.
abelard
<notf...@anytime.com>
typed:
i am unconvinced as yet by this argument...
1)very great numbers of wells in the usa have been abandoned....yet
during parts of that time oil prices have been relatively high.....
in fact there were projects aimed at shale/sand oil during such periods...
shale/sand sources have a *far* worse eireo then pumpable oil.....
it would make no sense to go after depleted shale/tar if depleted
sources were worth a light...
there is a distinct limit to what can be squeezed from a well even with
modern methods (some of these methods have other problems also...
like breakdown of the integrity of the oil catchment....
2)you refer to money as many people expecting market solutions do....
market is *irrelevant* at the point where the eroei becomes untenable...
3)you refer to the great amounts of energy 'out there' and seem to confuse
this with 'available'
eroei is critical.....you have to be able to collect (and concentrate
the energy...2nd law)
thus a windmill can *only* collect from the wind passing the blades...
and that only when the wind is blowing at appropriate speeds...and
with efficiency losses.....
for an energy process to be viable it is necessary to have enuf energy
from that windmill to build its replacement....*before* you even start
to make an *energy* profit....
all the money in the world does not effect that reality!
i cannot emphasise strongly enuf....this is *not* a money issue!!
the energy in the pumpable oil has been laid down (concentrated) over
millions of years....as such resources reduce we are limited to
1)incoming energy
2)energy economic harvesting
i fully agree that we may well find options from dna manipulation...by
understanding the nature of matter better and so on....
but these are hope and speculation....not currently available resources...
naturally we should put effort into such objectives...but we would be
foolish and remiss to rely upon them.....
imv sanity is to prepare on the basis of what we do know.....
that means heavy conservation programs and nuclear development
+ every eroei viable method we have available.....
beyond this....we have the filth of fossil fuels and the geo-political
hassle of the m.e to consider.....
iow please make a more tight argument that you have done in this
post if you are to progress in convincing me further....
much regards....
--
abelard
<ew...@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net>
typed:
>It may not matter *how* big the roof is. If one wants an efficient
>car one doesn't waste energy (ahem) on moving the power collection
>equipment around -- even if it's as light as 1 gm. (Admittedly,
>that's a bit ridiculous, as even a power jack might weigh that.
>But solar cells certainly need to be lighter than they are now.)
>For every kg of extra weight one needs 420.5 J to get it up to
>65 mph (= 29 m/s, roughly).
first thank you for you interesting post....
clearly you are talking sense.....
>If there is a solar power cell one hopes it doubles as a skin covering,
>because that's the only way this sort of thing will fly -- and only
>on sunny days and only if one keeps the car washed.
seems reasonable....you may be aware of new experimental claims
of greater efficiency methods up to a theoretical 50%
see link here
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fossil_fuel_replacements.htm#photovolvaic
>As for the Aussie race -- the "cars" are little more than bicycles
>covered in cells, and maybe a backup battery. They'd be blown over
>by a good breeze. ;-) And batteries are dead weight, too.
indeed...i merely pointed to that effort to give some idea of the
difficulties in the ops suggestion....
>A gallon of gas or diesel remains the most efficient
>way of moving power around, per gallon, absent advances
>in technology allowing fission or fusion power to be
>transportable. (If one goes per kg, hydrogen gets the
>nod, as it's very light. Trouble is, it's also very hard
>to handle, not only because it's a gas but also because,
>after exposure to hydrogen for some time, many parts become
>rather brittle.)
indeed...again no problems with your comments....
there are of course also pressure...and therefore weight...problems
>Of course we can do better; apparently the hybrids get considerably
>more efficient fuel mileage than a standard gasoline-powered auto,
>apparently because the smaller engine charging the batteries runs
>more efficiently than the standard-sized one. A little surprising
>to me personally, as they've got batteries and electric motors --
>either dead weight or additional weight for the engine/drivetrain.
yes....it seems a major gain is in quick acceleration/efficiency via the
electric motor at *low* speeds...
i have also seen claims that they are far less efficient at winter
temperatures....the also currently cost more in energy and materials
to build in the first place....
(btw my interest is more in the macro problems than the details of
engineering...so you input is helpful to me)
>_The Cool War_ suggested charcoal burning cabs. An interesting idea,
>although I've no idea how well it will work given current technology.
the scale won't work at present because of the vast quantities of
wood involved...charcoal burning is also a very filthy business...
or was last i looked!
>It also suggested a solar-collection facility using a UV hologram
>and modified flowers, and I've no idea how well *that* will work,
>either -- mostly because UV holograms aren't possible, though a
>workable modification might be to radio instructions to the "flowers",
>which would contain an embedded radio chip.
this of course has manufacturing and maintenance issues.....
also very large areas of cells will be required....
i'm not convinced this is out the window...but it's no walk in the
park....a very great deal of the problem is associated with the
sheer *scale* of the problems with replacing fossil fuels
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/replacing_fossil_fuels.htm
small scale solutions for a few vehicles are totally unrealistic....
>Flywheels are essentially batteries. I'm not sure how well they
>work compared to standard lead-acid or nickel-hydrides, though
>bearing technology is such that they can lose less than 2% of
>their energy a day, which is rather impressive.
if they were developed to a sufficient degree i would expect the
battery industry to be in decline....which it is not.....
i would also expect the weight again to be a problem....
regards.....
Greg Hennessy
>
>Flywheels are essentially batteries.
I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a road accident involving vehicles
containing several hundred KG each or more of flywheels.
greg
--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
abelard wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:10:09 +0000 (UTC), Damot <no...@none.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 02:07:03 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
> >
> >>>What are you talking about?
> >>
> >>you are using a netscape derived browser for your postings...
> >>it has a known (and highly annoying bug)....
> >>it sticks extra spaces in when headers are above ~66 characters....
> >>
> >>this causes it to start a new thread every time you reply to a post
> >> with a header of more than ~66 characters....
>
> >No it doesn't. Must be your system. Again you're making assumptions.
>
> again you are talking through your arse...your posts are a waste of space.
> so probably are you....
>
> i see no point responding to your further...you're a registered idiot.
>
From what I've seen, the supposed 'new thread' is really caused by a bug
on google and a switch in some newsreaders which starts a new thread
when the subject line is changed in any way.
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
abelard wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:28:43 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >abelard wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:01:54 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
> >> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> >> >Praetorian wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In a single word ... no.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is more coal reserve inside the contigious U.S. of A. than centuries
> >> >> of oil. Dirty?! You bet. But, no moreso than oil. Just a matter of the
> >> >> citizenry smacking the arrogant oil industry into the middle of next week,
> >> >> and solar cars would suddenly sprout on the highways
> >> >>
> >> >Solar cars?
> >>
> >> not enuf energy in the area of the car roof.....not anywhere near enuf....
> >>
> >Not for the sort of car that people want to drive. What if the entire
> >car was a solar cell and it stored power in some sort of flywheel?
> >Thought about that?
>
> i've told you....the area of any realistic car could not collect
> sufficient power....
>
What do you mean that you told me?
> they do run a race for extremely light weight 'cars' across australia
> (partly to develop technology)....
> australia because there's lots of sun....
>
> you could look it up if it interests you
>
Of course I'm aware of the race. If the entire surface area of the car
were to be solar cells and if the power were then stored in some sort of
flywheel system, perhaps in-town solar powered cars would be practical.
If you think about it, an electric car would be nicer if it had some way
to recharge itself over time if you managed to get someplace away for
electrical power. I mean, after all, you aren't likely to find a current
bush everywhere you look.
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
Greg Hennessy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Flywheels are essentially batteries.
>
> I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a road accident involving vehicles
> containing several hundred KG each or more of flywheels.
>
I recall seeing some articles on carbon fibre flywheels that fail
gracefully in a tangle of twisted twine like material. No bomb like
effect.
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:10:09 +0000 (UTC), Damot <no...@none.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 02:07:03 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>What are you talking about?
>> >>
>> >>you are using a netscape derived browser for your postings...
>> >>it has a known (and highly annoying bug)....
>> >>it sticks extra spaces in when headers are above ~66 characters....
>> >>
>> >>this causes it to start a new thread every time you reply to a post
>> >> with a header of more than ~66 characters....
>>
>> >No it doesn't. Must be your system. Again you're making assumptions.
>>
>> again you are talking through your arse...your posts are a waste of space.
>> so probably are you....
>>
>> i see no point responding to your further...you're a registered idiot.
>>
>From what I've seen, the supposed 'new thread' is really caused by a bug
>on google and a switch in some newsreaders which starts a new thread
>when the subject line is changed in any way.
if google is using netscape derived newsreader...that is possible...
i don't use google for posting...i don't know therefore if you have
options to netscape readers (like mozilla which you appear to
be using)....when you post via google....
as for the switch you refer to 'in some readers'.....
that switch allows newsreaders (people) an option to treat new titles
as new threads....or to ignore title changes if the thread name
changes....
the bug which adds the extra space has the effect of a title change....
clear yet?
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:28:43 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
>> >Not for the sort of car that people want to drive. What if the entire
>> >car was a solar cell and it stored power in some sort of flywheel?
>> >Thought about that?
>>
>> i've told you....the area of any realistic car could not collect
>> sufficient power....
>>
>What do you mean that you told me?
in another post...it is of no matter....
>> they do run a race for extremely light weight 'cars' across australia
>> (partly to develop technology)....
>> australia because there's lots of sun....
>>
>> you could look it up if it interests you
>>
>Of course I'm aware of the race. If the entire surface area of the car
>were to be solar cells and if the power were then stored in some sort of
>flywheel system, perhaps in-town solar powered cars would be practical.
>If you think about it, an electric car would be nicer if it had some way
>to recharge itself over time if you managed to get someplace away for
>electrical power. I mean, after all, you aren't likely to find a current
>bush everywhere you look.
with a normal weight car....or anything close....
i don't even know if it could build up enuf charge over time...without
battery leakage....to ever drive the car....
my expectation would be that at best you would be waiting weeks
for each possible trip.....
the local weather would also of course be relevant.....
but these questions are better asked of those who can (or have done)
relevant calculations....
iow...yes it would be nice....but i doubt considerably that it comes close
to practical mechanics....
perhaps someone else can answer this with better detail....
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
abelard wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:06:54 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >abelard wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:37:00 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed
> >> the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> >> >abelard wrote:
> >>
> >> >> i will be most delighted if you intend to start a massive nuclear build...
> >> >> that is an important part of what you should be doing right now
> >> >> as far as i am concerned....
> >> >>
> >> >How about putting out those coal wildfires? They seem pretty stupid to
> >> >just let burn and then complain about too much CO2.
> >>
> >> which fires...where? how much filth are they currently exuding
> >> relative to the deliberate usage burning?
> >>
> >The article claimed the amounts were similar to those emitted by
> >vehicles in the US.
>
> i'd need details and data....if you can...give a link....
>
It's been posted twice now:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993390
> >> >> as for gassifying your coal reserves the technology has still not been
> >> >> used on any large scale and at this moment i am far from convinced
> >> >> that it will not be mightily polluting...
> >> >>
> >> >I don't know, there was some promising stuff out of Australia.
> >>
> >> certainly....
> >> i am assuming you don't mean coal at this point....
> >>
> >Coal gasification. Australia has huge reserves. Here's a cite on the
> >subject: http://www.nrme.qld.gov.au/mines/coal/walloon_trial.html
>
> i will examine it in more detail later....
> note that it is as yet small scale...there is no large scale work in
> this area as far as i know....
> the biggest in the past and now has been in russia....
>
I said some promising stuff out of Australia.
> >> please understand...i don't think you cannot cope...if you act now.....
> >> if you sit around waiting for something to turn up ....you may well
> >> be digging yourself one terrible hole.....
> >>
> >People are very creative when they have to be. Look at WWII. People
> >gasified biomass in little ovens on the backs of their cars and stored
> >the gas in bladders on the roof. Here's an example of a bus running on
> >natural gas in present day China:
> >http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Excursions/Zigong-gas-bus.html
>
> in london by 1950 the air was so bad that at times you *literally* could
> not see the ground through the fog (smog)....the last big smog caused
> around 4000 deaths if i recall and resulted in clean air acts....
> primarily stopping the burning of coal.....
>
It depends on *how* you burn the coal.
> in the 1700s the filth was so great in charcoal burning areas that washing
> got filthy as it dried....
>
> i want clean energy....
>
That's nice but those Tarm gasifiers are clean.
> there is a huge difference between a few experimental cars of this
> type...and millions....
>
I'm responding to different claims on your part. When you say that our
economy will die when the oil runs out, I point out that there are
alternatives like even using biomass gasified right at the car that uses
it, that this was done back in WWII. GM even made commercial products to
do this. Now whether this is practical and clean enough for replacing
all vehicles is another question.
> it is very important...as i have replied to another poster....to try to
> grasp the *scale* issues in energy production.....
>
I understand the scale of the oil industry. The reason that it has not
been replaced so far is because there are no other price competitive
solutions (other than nuclear power which is ignored for other reasons).
> >> >> what is vital is that you plan ahead...not await market forces....by the
> >> >> time market forces signal you have serious problem your oil bank
> >> >> account is liable to be under severe strain....
> >> >> ie....imv you should be using cheap oil to bootstrap yourself into
> >> >> replacement mode...
> >> >>
> >> >Except that we are learning how to make alternative energy schemes more
> >> >and more effective. For example, if you buy a wind turbine today, you
> >> >are likely to have a much lower maintenance cost. Just building a lot of
> >> >the old turbines that break down a lot wouldn't get us anywhere fast.
> >> >More than moving away from oil as fast as possible, we need to learn how
> >> >to move passed oil when that is needed.
> >>
> >> fully agreed....and it is (imv) vital ...you put very high priority on
> >> preparing right now.....
> >> not a $billion of small change....but around 1% of your gnp each
> >> and every year....ie in the case of the usa ~$100billion each
> >> year.....
> >> into conservation, nuclear build etc....quite apart from research....
> >>
> >I think you are blowing this out of proportion. The market will provide
> >the solutions as it always has.
>
> i think you are over confident.....
>
Not really. It has happened too many times in the past to be some sort
of accident.
> >> you are being fed bullshit regarding a hydrogen economy....
> >> you are being fed bullshit by oil man bush......
> >>
> >> hydrogen is not a fuel and it not currently a great prospect.....
> >>
> >Hydrogen, in whatever form, is a way to transport energy. We can get
> >that energy from nuclear power plants, coal gasification, wind turbines,
> >etc.
>
> that accords with my view....
>
So what are we arguing about?
> though i am yet to be convinced coal gasification is desirable or
> necessary
>
It's not a state run economy. We should let the market decide what is
best. Obviously coal gasification can extend the natural gas supplies,
something that you should support given your fear that the market won't
be ready with other alternatives in time.
> >> and the $billion 'promised' is absolute chicken feed.....
> >> just more corporate socialism.....
> >>
> >You want to spend $100 billion and you don't call that corporate
> >socialism.
>
> i think that it what you are faced with if you are to secure a reasonable
> future....
>
I'm not really worried about energy in the long term or even the midterm
future. I'm worried more about al Qaeda and genetic engineered WMDs. I
can just imagine how mad the Arabs are going to be when the world stops
sending them the billions of dollars a year they have been getting for
their oil.
> i think that is what you are faced with if you wish to lower your need
> to occupy the middle east for decades.....
>
As I said, the oil isn't really the issue.
> The important thing for Government is not to do things which individuals
> are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but
> to do those things which at present are not done at all. 1926 keynes
>
> do you comprehend tragedy of the commons (totc)...if not bone up on
> it...eg...
>
How does this apply to alternative energy?
> http://www.abelard.org/ethics.htm#link-e-tr
> market fundamentalism does not work in totc situations....
> market fundamentalism does not account for externalised costs....
> it doesn't cost resource depletion or destruction.....
>
> the 'economics' taught in unis and hacked out by the scribblers
> of the wonderful media is often unalloyed crap.....
>
It's funny because the unis were teaching more socialist ideas.
Greg Hennessy
St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>>
>I recall seeing some articles on carbon fibre flywheels that fail
>gracefully in a tangle of twisted twine like material. No bomb like
>effect.
Would you want one under your drivers seat ?
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>It's been posted twice now:
what of it...i haven't seen it posted....though i vaguely remember
scanning it....probably when published...
why are you so itchy....
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993390
in view of this...
These fires can rage both above and below ground and may contribute more
than three per cent of the world's annual carbon dioxide emissions, which
are thought to be causing global warming.
this seems a bit inconsistent....
"Estimates for the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere from underground
fires in China are equivalent to the emissions from all motor vehicles in
the US," Stracher told delegates at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science conference in Denver.
but many new scientist 'reports' are dubious and sloppy....
obviously every little helps
>> >> >> as for gassifying your coal reserves the technology has still not been
>> >> >> used on any large scale and at this moment i am far from convinced
>> >> >> that it will not be mightily polluting...
>> >> >>
>> >> >I don't know, there was some promising stuff out of Australia.
>> >>
>> >> certainly....
>> >> i am assuming you don't mean coal at this point....
>> >>
>> >Coal gasification. Australia has huge reserves. Here's a cite on the
>> >subject: http://www.nrme.qld.gov.au/mines/coal/walloon_trial.html
>>
>> i will examine it in more detail later....
>> note that it is as yet small scale...there is no large scale work in
>> this area as far as i know....
>> the biggest in the past and now has been in russia....
>>
>I said some promising stuff out of Australia.
indeed you did...i wasn't clear whether you meant re coal...or in general.
>> >> please understand...i don't think you cannot cope...if you act now.....
>> >> if you sit around waiting for something to turn up ....you may well
>> >> be digging yourself one terrible hole.....
>> >>
>> >People are very creative when they have to be. Look at WWII. People
>> >gasified biomass in little ovens on the backs of their cars and stored
>> >the gas in bladders on the roof. Here's an example of a bus running on
>> >natural gas in present day China:
>> >http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Excursions/Zigong-gas-bus.html
>>
>> in london by 1950 the air was so bad that at times you *literally* could
>> not see the ground through the fog (smog)....the last big smog caused
>> around 4000 deaths if i recall and resulted in clean air acts....
>> primarily stopping the burning of coal.....
>>
>It depends on *how* you burn the coal.
very likely....
and i don't know how cleanly it is possible to burn coal....
i do see many reports out of the states (among other sources) that
continually say the technology is not being installed even despite
'regulations'....i s'pose that means the companies don't like the
expense....
even these reports look to improvements....not more....
>> in the 1700s the filth was so great in charcoal burning areas that washing
>> got filthy as it dried....
>>
>> i want clean energy....
>>
>That's nice but those Tarm gasifiers are clean.
which are they?...how clean?
>> there is a huge difference between a few experimental cars of this
>> type...and millions....
>>
>I'm responding to different claims on your part. When you say that our
>economy will die when the oil runs out, I point out that there are
>alternatives like even using biomass gasified right at the car that uses
>it, that this was done back in WWII. GM even made commercial products to
>do this. Now whether this is practical and clean enough for replacing
>all vehicles is another question.
ok....
my interest is in *practical* replacements....
>> it is very important...as i have replied to another poster....to try to
>> grasp the *scale* issues in energy production.....
>>
>I understand the scale of the oil industry. The reason that it has not
>been replaced so far is because there are no other price competitive
>solutions (other than nuclear power which is ignored for other reasons).
ok....for the mo'
>> >> fully agreed....and it is (imv) vital ...you put very high priority on
>> >> preparing right now.....
>> >> not a $billion of small change....but around 1% of your gnp each
>> >> and every year....ie in the case of the usa ~$100billion each
>> >> year.....
>> >> into conservation, nuclear build etc....quite apart from research....
>> >>
>> >I think you are blowing this out of proportion. The market will provide
>> >the solutions as it always has.
>>
>> i think you are over confident.....
>>
>Not really. It has happened too many times in the past to be some sort
>of accident.
that sounds like magical 'thinking' to me...
civilisations have also dies out as they ran out of resorces....it is also
common among other animal populations
>> >> you are being fed bullshit regarding a hydrogen economy....
>> >> you are being fed bullshit by oil man bush......
>> >>
>> >> hydrogen is not a fuel and it not currently a great prospect.....
>> >>
>> >Hydrogen, in whatever form, is a way to transport energy. We can get
>> >that energy from nuclear power plants, coal gasification, wind turbines,
>> >etc.
>>
>> that accords with my view....
>>
>So what are we arguing about?
i was unaware that 'we' were 'arguing'....
i am certainly not....
1)i am simply seeking other views to check my own understanding...
2)i am intending political pressure is brought to bear on short sighted
and venal politicians
'argument' is for idiots....sane people determine and examine facts....
>> though i am yet to be convinced coal gasification is desirable or
>> necessary
>>
>It's not a state run economy. We should let the market decide what is
>best. Obviously coal gasification can extend the natural gas supplies,
>something that you should support given your fear that the market won't
>be ready with other alternatives in time.
i would prefer nuclear and conservation actions....i think they will
be both cleaner and more reliable....
much of the problem with oil is that it is *far* too cheap.....
oil is also a geopolotical power issue....
>> >> and the $billion 'promised' is absolute chicken feed.....
>> >> just more corporate socialism.....
>> >>
>> >You want to spend $100 billion and you don't call that corporate
>> >socialism.
>>
>> i think that it what you are faced with if you are to secure a reasonable
>> future....
>>
>I'm not really worried about energy in the long term or even the midterm
>future. I'm worried more about al Qaeda and genetic engineered WMDs. I
>can just imagine how mad the Arabs are going to be when the world stops
>sending them the billions of dollars a year they have been getting for
>their oil.
i have a much more hard headed attitude to primitives and theocrats
than appears common....
i do not regard sending billions to theocrats to build bombs as sane....
>> i think that is what you are faced with if you wish to lower your need
>> to occupy the middle east for decades.....
>>
>As I said, the oil isn't really the issue.
i don't regard the world in terms od a single 'the issue'.....
>> The important thing for Government is not to do things which individuals
>> are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but
>> to do those things which at present are not done at all. 1926 keynes
>>
>> do you comprehend tragedy of the commons (totc)...if not bone up on
>> it...eg...
>>
>How does this apply to alternative energy?
i think government are going to have to curb the oil industry and force
alternatives....
among other things that means stopping subsidising the oil complex....
it means licencing and encouraging nuclear and other alternatives....
once these things are established then the free markets can return
to action.....
oil/car industry subsidy and pandering will not change the situation....
your politicians are not representing the commons...they are representing
the interests of large corporations.....
the market is not only not 'free'....it is being subsidised in a damaging
direction....
i want carbon polluting taxed....i want oil rationed....with a trading
market in allocations...
>> http://www.abelard.org/ethics.htm#link-e-tr
>> market fundamentalism does not work in totc situations....
>> market fundamentalism does not account for externalised costs....
>> it doesn't cost resource depletion or destruction.....
>>
>> the 'economics' taught in unis and hacked out by the scribblers
>> of the wonderful media is often unalloyed crap.....
>>
>It's funny because the unis were teaching more socialist ideas.
very likely....but you live in an innumerate society....
a society that confuses formulae with reality....
socialist are dim by necessity....otherwise they wouldn't be socialists...
socialism is a religion....the dogma takes precedence over reality....
socialists cannot generally be expected to be able to count....most
of the right wind can't...let alone socialists...
much of their dogma is seriously nutz...facts are irrelevant to them.
regards...
J&KCopeland
Some coal-fired power plants were "grandfathered" in the Clean Air Act
regulations. Using some loopholes, they've been dancing around for almost
three decades, but time is slipping away.
Any new plants are required to me very stringent regulations. That's one
reason why natural gas has been the fuel of choice for almost 20 years now.
It's much easier (i.e. cheaper) to clean up the pollutants....
James....
J&KCopeland
The Future of Oil
George Will
June 13, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Oil produced the modern world -- its ways of work, warfare and
recreation -- and soon, we are told, the end of cheap oil will produce
abrupt, wrenching changes in the way we live. Changes, certainly, but not
convulsions, because the modern world responds to price signals.
That is why U.S. energy efficiency -- energy consumed to produce a dollar of
GDP -- has roughly doubled since the oil shocks of the 1970s. America's less
than 5 percent of the world population consumes more than 20 percent of all
oil. Surging demand by India and especially China will cause prices to rise.
And terrorists, or chaos in Venezuela -- America's fourth-largest supplier,
behind Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico -- or Nigeria, the fifth-largest,
could cause prices to soar.
However, in 1920 the inflation-adjusted price of gasoline was twice today's.
To match 1981 prices, a gallon of gasoline today would have to be $3.50.
Inexpensive gasoline is one reason why since 1988 the average gas mileage of
U.S. passenger vehicles has declined, and why in the 2003 model year, for
the first time since the mid-1970s, the average weight of a new car or light
truck was more than two tons (4,021 pounds).
In 1977 President Carter said we ``could use up all the proven reserves of
oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.'' But today known
reserves are larger than ever. Reserves and production outside the Middle
East are larger than they were 31 years ago, when a State Department report
was titled ``The Oil Crisis: This Time the Wolf is Here.''
In 1971, a year before Texas output passed its peak, U.S. production was
more than two-thirds of the nation's needs. Today the nation imports 54
percent of the oil it uses. M.A. Adelman of MIT notes that in 1971 non-OPEC
countries had about 200 billion barrels of proven reserves. In the next 33
years they produced 460 billion ``and now have 209 billion `remaining.'''
Note Adelman's quotation marks. To predict actual reserves would require
predicting future exploration and development technologies.
However, the rate of discovery has been declining for several decades. Of
course, oil supplies are, as some people say with a sense of profound
discovery, ``finite.'' But that distinguishes oil not at all from land,
water or pistachio nuts.
Russell Roberts, an economist, says: Imagine that you love pistachio nuts
and are given a room filled 5 feet deep with them. But you must eat them in
the room and must leave the shells. When will you have eaten them all?
Never. Because as it becomes increasingly difficult to find nuts amidst the
shells, the cost of the nuts, in time and effort, will become too high. You
will seek a substitute -- pistachios from a store, or another snack.
Oil over $40 a barrel accelerates exploration for new fields, and
development of known but technologically inaccessible fields, including some
fields four miles below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, where there may
be at least 25 billion barrels. High prices may also prompt development of
hitherto economically unfeasible sources, such as U.S. oil shale and
Canadian tar sands. Tim Appenzeller, writing in National Geographic, says
tar-sand deposits in Alberta ``hold the equivalent of more than 1.6 trillion
barrels of oil -- an amount that may exceed the world's remaining reserves
of ordinary crude.'' Alberta, a future Saudi Arabia? Perhaps. Full-throttle
production of oil from tar sand is not economical. So far.
John Kerry, whose idea of the future extends only to Nov. 2, says we should
use less oil, but gasoline should be cheaper, so President Bush should stop
filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But that is taking just 0.2 percent
of the oil in the world market. Were Bush to stop topping off the reserve,
as President Clinton did to help Al Gore's 2000 campaign, Kerry would accuse
Bush of manipulating prices for political advantage.
The futures market is wagering that oil in the summer of 2005 will be about
$35. The more distant future will be shaped by how much various nations have
inflated estimates of their reserves. But, then, Alaska may have three times
more reserves than originally estimated.
MIT's Adelman notes that even before 1800 -- before the coal-fired
industrial revolution -- Europeans worried about exhausting coal supplies.
``European production actually did peak in 1913 and is nearly negligible
today.'' Billions of tons remain beneath European soil but are uneconomical
to remove. So far.
abelard
typed:
>Some coal-fired power plants were "grandfathered" in the Clean Air Act
>regulations. Using some loopholes, they've been dancing around for almost
>three decades, but time is slipping away.
are you hinting they are finally going to get pinned to the wall?
>Any new plants are required to me very stringent regulations. That's one
>reason why natural gas has been the fuel of choice for almost 20 years now.
>It's much easier (i.e. cheaper) to clean up the pollutants....
seems sense....of course gas supplies also look like set to become a
problem.
what then, throw away the regs and go back to coal...yuk....
that's the sort of possibility that disturbs my peace...
i just don't trust the bastards...
regards....
J&KCopeland
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:09:01 -0500, "J&KCopeland" <jckc...@kc.rr.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >Some coal-fired power plants were "grandfathered" in the Clean Air Act
> >regulations. Using some loopholes, they've been dancing around for
almost
> >three decades, but time is slipping away.
>
> are you hinting they are finally going to get pinned to the wall?
Yes. The Bush Administration, gave them a temporary reprieve, however,
everyone knows it was a delaying action, not a permanent injunction.
The energy guys were delaying implementation as long as possible for purely
economic reasons. The power plants were all very old to begin with and
they've been expanding capacity incrementally under the guise of
"maintenance". Now most of them have simply reached the end of their
productivity and will have to be replaced. The energy guys didn't want to
sink immense sums in them when they knew that the technology would get
better, would get cheaper, and they wouldn't be able to pay off the capitol
improvements before they'd have to replace it, anyway.
>
> >Any new plants are required to me very stringent regulations. That's one
> >reason why natural gas has been the fuel of choice for almost 20 years
now.
> >It's much easier (i.e. cheaper) to clean up the pollutants....
>
> seems sense....of course gas supplies also look like set to become a
> problem.
> what then, throw away the regs and go back to coal...yuk...
NEW coal fired plants, with their sulfur scrubbers (the most annoying
pollutant from coal), simply put, rival natural gas. The coal is pulverized
and injected under high pressure in a closed system.
> that's the sort of possibility that disturbs my peace...
> i just don't trust the bastards...
>
> regards....
>
Uranium isn't exactly commonplace, either.
abelard
typed:
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040613.shtml
>
>The Future of Oil
>George Will
>June 13, 2004
i shall respond to this as if you posted it...naturally i realise
it's quoted..
>WASHINGTON -- Oil produced the modern world -- its ways of work, warfare and
>recreation -- and soon, we are told, the end of cheap oil will produce
>abrupt, wrenching changes in the way we live. Changes, certainly, but not
>convulsions, because the modern world responds to price signals.
>
>That is why U.S. energy efficiency -- energy consumed to produce a dollar of
>GDP -- has roughly doubled since the oil shocks of the 1970s. America's less
>than 5 percent of the world population consumes more than 20 percent of all
>oil. Surging demand by India and especially China will cause prices to rise.
>And terrorists, or chaos in Venezuela -- America's fourth-largest supplier,
>behind Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico -- or Nigeria, the fifth-largest,
>could cause prices to soar.
>
>However, in 1920 the inflation-adjusted price of gasoline was twice today's.
and at times you couldn't give it away...such tales are irrelevant to
serious analysis....
>To match 1981 prices, a gallon of gasoline today would have to be $3.50.
>Inexpensive gasoline is one reason why since 1988 the average gas mileage of
>U.S. passenger vehicles has declined, and why in the 2003 model year, for
>the first time since the mid-1970s, the average weight of a new car or light
>truck was more than two tons (4,021 pounds).
>
>In 1977 President Carter said we ``could use up all the proven reserves of
>oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.'' But today known
>reserves are larger than ever. Reserves and production outside the Middle
>East are larger than they were 31 years ago, when a State Department report
>was titled ``The Oil Crisis: This Time the Wolf is Here.''
>
>In 1971, a year before Texas output passed its peak, U.S. production was
>more than two-thirds of the nation's needs. Today the nation imports 54
>percent of the oil it uses. M.A. Adelman of MIT notes that in 1971 non-OPEC
meanwhile around 60% and rising is in the m.e......
>countries had about 200 billion barrels of proven reserves. In the next 33
>years they produced 460 billion ``and now have 209 billion `remaining.'''
>Note Adelman's quotation marks. To predict actual reserves would require
>predicting future exploration and development technologies.
they also require trusting people who have strong motives for
exaggerating their reserves....shell is currently in serious problems
over false over reporting.....suspicion is they are not alone....
opec countries probably exaggerate to up their quotas.....
>However, the rate of discovery has been declining for several decades. Of
>course, oil supplies are, as some people say with a sense of profound
>discovery, ``finite.'' But that distinguishes oil not at all from land,
>water or pistachio nuts.
neither pistachios nuts nor water are finite in anything like the sense
of oil..
>Russell Roberts, an economist, says: Imagine that you love pistachio nuts
>and are given a room filled 5 feet deep with them. But you must eat them in
>the room and must leave the shells. When will you have eaten them all?
>Never. Because as it becomes increasingly difficult to find nuts amidst the
>shells, the cost of the nuts, in time and effort, will become too high. You
>will seek a substitute -- pistachios from a store, or another snack.
>Oil over $40 a barrel accelerates exploration for new fields, and
>development of known but technologically inaccessible fields, including some
>fields four miles below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, where there may
>be at least 25 billion barrels.
this is typical of the pollyanna writing of many apologists...these are
small fields and are small relative to consumption....they are also
harder to access, therefore have a worse eroei....
consumption which is expected to grow at 2% p/a....and that figure
looks conservative to me...
> High prices may also prompt development of
>hitherto economically unfeasible sources,
back to arm waving...
> such as U.S. oil shale and
>Canadian tar sands.
*much* worse eroei...
> Tim Appenzeller, writing in National Geographic, says
>tar-sand deposits in Alberta ``hold the equivalent of more than 1.6 trillion
>barrels of oil -- an amount that may exceed the world's remaining reserves
>of ordinary crude.'' Alberta, a future Saudi Arabia? Perhaps. Full-throttle
>production of oil from tar sand is not economical. So far.
and the same article also points to the vast environmental consequences...
it is also a water intensive activity in an area with limited water
supplies....
look also at the extraction rates....
it is quite pointless to take writers like this seriously....
of course tar sands will contribute....but it is no dream solution...
there are only two routes available at present which will make
contributions at anything like the required scale...conservation and
nuclear....
the rest is mostly (very useful) dribs and drabs
if you think you know better...use figures....
>John Kerry, whose idea of the future extends only to Nov. 2, says we should
>use less oil, but gasoline should be cheaper,
indeed...he is talking cobblers...just like just about every politician...
after all...how can you tell the spoilt adult kids the truth....and get
voted in....
>so President Bush should stop
>filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But that is taking just 0.2 percent
>of the oil in the world market. Were Bush to stop topping off the reserve,
>as President Clinton did to help Al Gore's 2000 campaign, Kerry would accuse
>Bush of manipulating prices for political advantage.
aye...they're al bullshitting....
unfortunately so is the writer....
these people are mostly political shills and innumerates....
>The futures market is wagering that oil in the summer of 2005 will be about
>$35.
the price is set by supply and demand and the cartels...
such 'forecasts' are virtually worthless....and that's only a year
ahead...
what is expected....another year of fiddling while the future burns?
and another year....and another year....
>The more distant future will be shaped by how much various nations have
>inflated estimates of their reserves. But, then, Alaska may have three times
>more reserves than originally estimated.
see above....
>MIT's Adelman notes that even before 1800 -- before the coal-fired
>industrial revolution -- Europeans worried about exhausting coal supplies.
so what...that was then....this is now....
knowledge is far more advanced now....
to use such stts as if they are honest argument is either naive or venal..
>``European production actually did peak in 1913 and is nearly negligible
>today.'' Billions of tons remain beneath European soil but are uneconomical
>to remove. So far.
so, back to filthy coal? at *much* higher prices?
i'm seeing articles like this almost everyday...some of them better
written....they are not seeking objectivity....
they are seeking the ostrich position....
dubiously honest distraction while avoiding the difficult questions...
bland reassurances based on irrelevancies regarding 1971 or 1913..or 1800
abelard
typed:
>
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:6ropc01a1sfnr2vtk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:09:01 -0500, "J&KCopeland" <jckc...@kc.rr.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >Some coal-fired power plants were "grandfathered" in the Clean Air Act
>> >regulations. Using some loopholes, they've been dancing around for
>almost
>> >three decades, but time is slipping away.
>>
>> are you hinting they are finally going to get pinned to the wall?
>
>Yes. The Bush Administration, gave them a temporary reprieve, however,
>everyone knows it was a delaying action, not a permanent injunction.
>
>The energy guys were delaying implementation as long as possible for purely
>economic reasons. The power plants were all very old to begin with and
>they've been expanding capacity incrementally under the guise of
>"maintenance". Now most of them have simply reached the end of their
>productivity and will have to be replaced. The energy guys didn't want to
>sink immense sums in them when they knew that the technology would get
>better, would get cheaper, and they wouldn't be able to pay off the capitol
>improvements before they'd have to replace it, anyway.
seems reasonable
>> >Any new plants are required to me very stringent regulations. That's one
>> >reason why natural gas has been the fuel of choice for almost 20 years
>now.
>> >It's much easier (i.e. cheaper) to clean up the pollutants....
>>
>> seems sense....of course gas supplies also look like set to become a
>> problem.
>> what then, throw away the regs and go back to coal...yuk...
>
>NEW coal fired plants, with their sulfur scrubbers (the most annoying
>pollutant from coal), simply put, rival natural gas. The coal is pulverized
>and injected under high pressure in a closed system.
ok....can you site relative figures.....
be aware, while i don't like the filth....and i do believe we have
problems with the atmosphere....i think we are in a better position
to cope with that as long as the pressure remains on....
the energy problem i regard as being treated from a foolish, cavalier
ostrich stance...
i do think the energy problems can be tackled....that they must be
tackled starting right now....i regard delay as dangerous....
i regard the current response as total irresponsible unrealism....
>> that's the sort of possibility that disturbs my peace...
>> i just don't trust the bastards...
>Uranium isn't exactly commonplace, either.
true....
regards...
abelard
typed:
various...
a link for you...
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/01/01_203.html
it too far the other way afaiac....but it may give you useful attitude!
regards...
J&KCopeland
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:53:53 -0500, "J&KCopeland" <jckc...@kc.rr.com>
>
> typed:
>
>
> various...
> a link for you...
> http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/01/01_203.html
> it too far the other way afaiac....but it may give you useful attitude!
>
> regards...
>
From what I've read, there's somewhere around 100 coal-fired plants in the
works, mostly in the western US. The EPA is scheduled to implement some new
mercury regulations and rumor has it that various players are trying to get
their permits issued before the regs go into effect, but none of them have
reached the public comment stage, so even the total number is subject to
speculation.
BTW, I read the Mother Jones article and as far as I'm concerned....I don't
give a good healthy crap what they use as long as I GET ALL THE POWER I
WANT.
The nuclear industry is dead meat in the US. There are no new nuclear
plants in the works. The anti-nuke crowd killed that issue about twenty
years, ago.
Even the much bally-hewed wind generation has some significant problems in
some circles. The towers are unsightly, interfere with bird migration
patterns, create potential public danger in high winds, yada, yada, yada.
And I've yet to see anyone, (including the article) that actually says wind
generation could ever do more than replace a small fraction of current power
requirements.
My suggestion. Watch southern California. Those people, and there's
millions of them, after decades of agendas, spin, corruption, mismanagement,
and raw bullshit, are getting to the point where SOMETHING productive, has
to be done, and done right now. New residential development is grinding to
a halt. Economic growth is faltering, poverty rates are on the rise, and of
course, with poverty, comes....chaos and increases in death rates.
James...
Mel Rowing
> >I fear Abe that you confuse oil reserves with oil resources. When an oil
> >extractor talks of 'proved reserves' he refers to the total quantity he
> >feels he is able to pump over time at the current price. We all know of
> >course that current prices are in no way permanent in either possible
> >direction and this is why such reserves go up and down. If we look at the
> >picture in terms of resources then is is much more rosy.
>
> i am unconvinced as yet by this argument...
> 1)very great numbers of wells in the usa have been abandoned....yet
> during parts of that time oil prices have been relatively high.....
Indeed!
Oil prices may well on occasions have been high but crucially not
consistantly high. In fact in real terms the price of energy in general has
fallen over the years.
Take the present situation.
We are told that the reason why oil has so recently gone over the $40 pbl
mark is due to two factors. The first of these is growing demand in China
and the latest episode of instability in the M.E.
I think we can dismiss the first of these almost on the nod since it seems
difficult to beleive that sophisticated oil traders have until recently been
totally unaware of the growth of the Chinese economy and the consequences of
this for world oil demand.
The second factor has absolutely nothing to do with depletion of resources
at all but simply a question as to the ability of ME countries to meet the
undertakings with respect to supply that they themselves have set through
OPEC.
Whatever the case note that the declaration by OPEC to increase supply
brought world prices a tumbling to well below the $40 mark. Of course these
declarations in themselves don't make it any easier for ME members of OPEC
to meet their targets. If they can't meet their orginal targets it's not at
all likely that they will meet higher ones. However, what their action does
do is manage to instill a sense of increased danger in the minds of refiners
that they might in the future be pumping some very expensive oil into their
storage tanks and thus provoke a scramble to off load some of it on to
others.
When we talk of the $40 barrel of oil we aren't quoting a free market
price in the classical sense at all. If all extractors were allowed to pump
to their hearts content, then the price of oil on a truly free market would
fall since the refiners would have the market advantage. Once they have
their tanks full and perhaps are scratching around for extra storage
capacity they have no incentive other than to bid the price of oil down.
There is no purpose to be served by buying oil that they can't process at
any price. This is the reason OPEC exists.
However, it is on these highly artificial prices that oil reserves are
assessed. By definition reserves are the amount of oil that can be viably
pumped from the earth. Viability is assessed on current prices. Thus one
might ask if, under the scenario I have just described, oil prices fell
would that affect the amount of oil left in the earth change by as much as
one
litre? Of course not! However, by definition oil reserves would fall.
Alternatively if oil prices were to rise, would that increase the amount
remaining? Not by one drop! However, by definition oil reserves would rise!
> in fact there were projects aimed at shale/sand oil during such
periods...
> shale/sand sources have a *far* worse eireo then pumpable oil.....
> it would make no sense to go after depleted shale/tar if depleted
> sources were worth a light...
I've had a look at your web site and take on board what you say. However, I
suggest you read too much into the concept of EIREO. The major weakness of
your argument is that you seem to equate all forms of energy as being of
equal value. Thus you make no recognisance of the idea that it is possible
to add value to energy by changing its form. In this particular instance I
would suggest that consumers are prepared to pay a substantial premium on
motor fuel.
Already both you and I are perfectly willing to pay upwards of
£500 /kWh for electricity produced by a battery by virtue of the convenience
of this implement and the fact that we use so little of this form of energy.
BTW this electricity has an EIREO of far less than 1! Similarly I pay 7.5p /
kWh for the electricity I use around my home. If I were a major user I would
pay considerably less. A back of the fag packet calculation shows I pay 16p
/kWh for the energy that drives my car. Would I be prepared to pay twice as
much? Probably. Would I be prepared 4x as much? To some extent yes!
The fact is that different forms of energy do have different values. Certain
forms have no value in the sense that it is thrown away. You look at any
petroleum installation and you will see a flare burning off unwanted gases.
You look at a power station and you will find that a significan proportion
of its cost is employed in dissipating unwanted heat. All this is energy
which by definition can be used for useful work which could include pumping
oil or distilling oil shale. With respect to the latter, it is as you
suggest at present in most cases probably outside the margin of viability
but that only remains the case at current prices.
> there is a distinct limit to what can be squeezed from a well even with
> modern methods (some of these methods have other problems also...
> like breakdown of the integrity of the oil catchment....
The only limit is the physical quantity of the oil there. Beyond that it is
cost. If I may quote a source I have come across but forgotten. "If the
price were there we could pump a well right down to its smell"
> 2)you refer to money as many people expecting market solutions do....
> market is *irrelevant* at the point where the eroei becomes untenable...
Subject to the reservations I make above.
> 3)you refer to the great amounts of energy 'out there' and seem to confuse
> this with 'available'
> eroei is critical.....you have to be able to collect (and concentrate
> the energy...2nd law)
> thus a windmill can *only* collect from the wind passing the blades...
> and that only when the wind is blowing at appropriate speeds...and
> with efficiency losses.....
> for an energy process to be viable it is necessary to have enuf energy
> from that windmill to build its replacement....*before* you even start
> to make an *energy* profit....
> all the money in the world does not effect that reality!
> i cannot emphasise strongly enuf....this is *not* a money issue!!
Why is it when people talk of energy they can only speak of windmills and
covering the earth with wafers of silicon. I think you are awre of my
feelings on windmills! I was thinking in terms of hydroenergy, geothermal
energy, tidal energy, nuclear energy and perhaps eventually methane
(hydrate) and fusion energy. All but the last of these are currently being
utilised and are dreadfully underexploited. The reason for this under
exploitation is, put very simply, cost. However, depletion of other sources
inevitably bring about eventual cost increases when their day will come.
The other drawback is that none of these with the possible exception of the
methane will directly provide a means of propulsion for vehicles a portable
fuel or energy carrier in other words. As I have already stated, mobility is
valued by u and so there would be a premium market for this facility I would
wager.
> imv sanity is to prepare on the basis of what we do know.....
> that means heavy conservation programs and nuclear development
> + every eroei viable method we have available.....
Most of what I say here is known the rest is not too highly speculative.
> beyond this....we have the filth of fossil fuels and the geo-political
> hassle of the m.e to consider.....
These are side issues.
> iow please make a more tight argument that you have done in this
> post if you are to progress in convincing me further....
I continue to do my best :>)
Mel Rowing
ivan
"J&KCopeland" <jckc...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ql8zc.7347$WX1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
'There's no such thing as a free meal'
>
J&KCopeland
"ivan" <Ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2j5gr5F...@uni-berlin.de...
Oh, I'm an optimist. After all, the telegraph company, after figuring out
that for the telephone to work, at least one wire would have to be strung to
every home, apartment, village and hamlet, felt themselves immune from
competition.
I read (somewhere) that when the first cell phone call was made in Chicago,
circa 1980, that the "experts" believed that there might be a market for up
to a million cell phones by the year 2000.....worldwide. All those towers
would have to be built, there was a severe privacy question and the
reception was spotty at best. Now, there's what (????) two billion cell
phones, and in the US, you have to really work at finding someplace without
reception.
Simply put, history is littered with the shattered predictions of experts.
Hydrogen fuel cells may have their problems, but if petroleum based fuels do
start climbing in price (and I see no reason why they won't) and someone
figures out a way to make fuel cells profitable, (and I have every reason to
believe that they will), then fuel cells will become commonplace. I'd
guess, that there's going to be an explosion of alternative fuels in the
next two decades. Alternate technologies have been floating around since
the 60's. And the petroleum-based companies will lead the charge! They
have the money, they have the resources and if they see the "handwriting on
the wall", they'll get something done rather than face extinction.
Nuclear power is "dead", but not really. If people start freezing to death
from lack of power, it'll miraculously rise from the dead in a big hurry.
And it won't take five years just to get the permits approved, either.
It doesn't take much of a futurist to figure out that eventually,
fusion-based power systems will eventually be the key. Progress on fusion
power has been spotty at best, but there has been progress.
Even the population-bomb proponents admit that education is the best form of
birth-control. Education levels go up, birth rates go down. That's not to
say there isn't a price to pay.
I ask, (because I have no real idea), just how unstable is Europe becoming?
Whatever is the current reasonable assessment, I predict it will rise as
demographics collide with reality. BTW, US instability will rise, also. No
one is immune in transitions.
James...
A member of the most pathetically incompetent empire in all of recorded
history.
abelard
<notf...@anytime.com>
typed:
>
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:hs1pc0detbup63qcp...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 10:15:24 +0000 (UTC), "Mel Rowing"
>> <notf...@anytime.com>
>
>> >I fear Abe that you confuse oil reserves with oil resources. When an oil
>> >extractor talks of 'proved reserves' he refers to the total quantity he
>> >feels he is able to pump over time at the current price. We all know of
>> >course that current prices are in no way permanent in either possible
>> >direction and this is why such reserves go up and down. If we look at the
>> >picture in terms of resources then is is much more rosy.
>>
>> i am unconvinced as yet by this argument...
>
>> 1)very great numbers of wells in the usa have been abandoned....yet
>> during parts of that time oil prices have been relatively high.....
>
>Indeed!
did you see the numbers i did for jc?
>Oil prices may well on occasions have been high but crucially not
>consistantly high. In fact in real terms the price of energy in general has
>fallen over the years.
http://www.abelard.org/news/oil040530.asp
the supplies are under increasing pressure...there is also growing
suspicion that saudi hasn't as much spare capacity as is claimed....
>Take the present situation.
>
>We are told that the reason why oil has so recently gone over the $40 pbl
>mark is due to two factors. The first of these is growing demand in China
>and the latest episode of instability in the M.E.
>
>I think we can dismiss the first of these almost on the nod since it seems
>difficult to beleive that sophisticated oil traders have until recently been
>totally unaware of the growth of the Chinese economy and the consequences of
>this for world oil demand.
>
>The second factor has absolutely nothing to do with depletion of resources
>at all but simply a question as to the ability of ME countries to meet the
>undertakings with respect to supply that they themselves have set through
>OPEC.
>
>Whatever the case note that the declaration by OPEC to increase supply
>brought world prices a tumbling to well below the $40 mark. Of course these
>declarations in themselves don't make it any easier for ME members of OPEC
>to meet their targets. If they can't meet their orginal targets it's not at
>all likely that they will meet higher ones. However, what their action does
>do is manage to instill a sense of increased danger in the minds of refiners
>that they might in the future be pumping some very expensive oil into their
>storage tanks and thus provoke a scramble to off load some of it on to
>others.
1)a major objective of opec has been to keep the price *below* the price
at which competitive methods would grow.....
2)the opec country's economies are very dependent on oil revenues....
they can't just stop the pumping....
3)many of them have populations growing out of control.
> When we talk of the $40 barrel of oil we aren't quoting a free market
>price in the classical sense at all. If all extractors were allowed to pump
>to their hearts content, then the price of oil on a truly free market would
>fall since the refiners would have the market advantage. Once they have
>their tanks full and perhaps are scratching around for extra storage
>capacity they have no incentive other than to bid the price of oil down.
>There is no purpose to be served by buying oil that they can't process at
>any price. This is the reason OPEC exists.
>
>However, it is on these highly artificial prices that oil reserves are
>assessed. By definition reserves are the amount of oil that can be viably
>pumped from the earth. Viability is assessed on current prices. Thus one
>might ask if, under the scenario I have just described, oil prices fell
>would that affect the amount of oil left in the earth change by as much as
>one litre? Of course not! However, by definition oil reserves would fall.
>Alternatively if oil prices were to rise, would that increase the amount
>remaining? Not by one drop! However, by definition oil reserves would rise!
i have no problems with your comments on markets.....
i do have some problems with your 'complacency' that it is mostly a matter
of price where oil is concerned...
>> in fact there were projects aimed at shale/sand oil during such
>>periods...
>> shale/sand sources have a *far* worse eireo then pumpable oil.....
>> it would make no sense to go after depleted shale/tar if depleted
>> sources were worth a light...
>
>I've had a look at your web site and take on board what you say. However, I
>suggest you read too much into the concept of EIREO. The major weakness of
>your argument is that you seem to equate all forms of energy as being of
>equal value. Thus you make no recognisance of the idea that it is possible
>to add value to energy by changing its form. In this particular instance I
>would suggest that consumers are prepared to pay a substantial premium on
>motor fuel.
again i have no problems with any of this...i am not concerned with
secondary energy sources and their market valuation...
only the availability of primary energy....
i am rather loathe to put stuff on secondary energy use on my documents
in fear it will confuse the message
this is a subsidiary issue that could as easily be applied to using oil to
produce electricity...
>Already both you and I are perfectly willing to pay upwards of
>£500 /kWh for electricity produced by a battery by virtue of the convenience
>of this implement and the fact that we use so little of this form of energy.
>BTW this electricity has an EIREO of far less than 1! Similarly I pay 7.5p /
>kWh for the electricity I use around my home. If I were a major user I would
>pay considerably less. A back of the fag packet calculation shows I pay 16p
>/kWh for the energy that drives my car. Would I be prepared to pay twice as
>much? Probably. Would I be prepared 4x as much? To some extent yes!
yes, the demand is not as elastic as another barbie doll for candice....
but it is obviously not near to completely inelastic either.....
as above...i have little problem with your comments on markets....
but i do dissent from market fundamentalism....
>The fact is that different forms of energy do have different values. Certain
>forms have no value in the sense that it is thrown away. You look at any
>petroleum installation and you will see a flare burning off unwanted gases.
>You look at a power station and you will find that a significan proportion
>of its cost is employed in dissipating unwanted heat. All this is energy
>which by definition can be used for useful work which could include pumping
>oil or distilling oil shale. With respect to the latter, it is as you
>suggest at present in most cases probably outside the margin of viability
>but that only remains the case at current prices.
>> there is a distinct limit to what can be squeezed from a well even with
>> modern methods (some of these methods have other problems also...
>> like breakdown of the integrity of the oil catchment....
>
>The only limit is the physical quantity of the oil there. Beyond that it is
>cost. If I may quote a source I have come across but forgotten. "If the
>price were there we could pump a well right down to its smell"
not once the eroei goes negative....
>> 2)you refer to money as many people expecting market solutions do....
>> market is *irrelevant* at the point where the eroei becomes untenable...
>
>Subject to the reservations I make above.
ok..i think!
>> 3)you refer to the great amounts of energy 'out there' and seem to confuse
>> this with 'available'
>> eroei is critical.....you have to be able to collect (and concentrate
>> the energy...2nd law)
>> thus a windmill can *only* collect from the wind passing the blades...
>> and that only when the wind is blowing at appropriate speeds...and
>> with efficiency losses.....
>> for an energy process to be viable it is necessary to have enuf energy
>> from that windmill to build its replacement....*before* you even start
>> to make an *energy* profit....
>> all the money in the world does not effect that reality!
>> i cannot emphasise strongly enuf....this is *not* a money issue!!
>
>Why is it when people talk of energy they can only speak of windmills
i am merely using windmills as a clear illustrator for eroei.....
a windmill is an easy object to grasp....tar sands is more complicated
and more messy....in more ways than one....
but the fundamentals of the energy analysis are reasonably analogous....
> and
>covering the earth with wafers of silicon. I think you are awre of my
>feelings on windmills! I was thinking in terms of hydroenergy, geothermal
>energy, tidal energy, nuclear energy and perhaps eventually methane
>(hydrate) and fusion energy. All but the last of these are currently being
>utilised and are dreadfully underexploited. The reason for this under
>exploitation is, put very simply, cost.
agreed....but it is a poor analysis of cost...it ignores externalisation
of filth....it ignores geopolitical consequences...it ignores
depletion...
this is economic 'theory' totally detached from reality/realism.....
> However, depletion of other sources
>inevitably bring about eventual cost increases when their day will come.
a level playing field is argued to put alternatives on a much better
footing....
oil industry subsidy...especially in the usa....is encouraging massive
waste....and slowing change...
>The other drawback is that none of these with the possible exception of the
>methane will directly provide a means of propulsion for vehicles a portable
>fuel or energy carrier in other words. As I have already stated, mobility is
>valued by u and so there would be a premium market for this facility I would
>wager.
sure...but the energy still has to be obtained...but you know that....
>> imv sanity is to prepare on the basis of what we do know.....
>> that means heavy conservation programs and nuclear development
>> + every eroei viable method we have available.....
>
>Most of what I say here is known the rest is not too highly speculative.
nuclear and conservation are not speculative...maybe i'm being confused
by your layout or emphasis...
>> beyond this....we have the filth of fossil fuels and the geo-political
>> hassle of the m.e to consider.....
>
>These are side issues.
'wars' cost a great deal of energy.....
energy access has been absolutely critical in all the major conflicts
of the last century....
>> iow please make a more tight argument that you have done in this
>> post if you are to progress in convincing me further....
>
>I continue to do my best :>)
you do fine...you are also one of the few posters who often increase
my knowledge
regards...
Dave Morrison
http://www.nypress.com/17/22/news&columns/AaronNaparstek.cfm
abelard
typed:
>A great article on Peak Oil:
>
>http://www.nypress.com/17/22/news&columns/AaronNaparstek.cfm
yes, that's not at all bad...
increasingly the pols and the empty heads are becoming the problem.....
btw...this is a one page link rather than the 6 page link you are using
http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=10329
you will normally find such a link by clicking on 'print version'....
regards...and thanx for the link....
Alert
> "Alert" <www_ins...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5b022599.0406...@posting.google.com...
> > Is the world's oil about to run out?
> >
>
> No !
>
Yes.
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0423
>
> At $40 per barrel deep off-shore reserves and shale reserves become viable
Current reserve estimates include deep off-shore reserves. All sources
of of the oil which are viable with current technologies are being
used.
Oil extraction from shale uses half of the energy yield in the oil, so
you need twice as much energy and the energy gets used up twice as
fast. Deep offshore extraction is associated with similar problems of
inefficiency.
The only practical solution for the largest oil consumers is to secure
additional supplies in suitable locations (Chechnia, Iraq, etc) and
this is indeed what is happening:
Alert
> On 12 Jun 2004 04:25:53 -0700, www_ins...@postmaster.co.uk (Alert)
>
> typed:
>
> >Is the world's oil about to run out?
> >
> >the next hundred years - sooner than previously expected.
> >
> >The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
> >crunch:
> >
> >http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0423
> >
> >http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0500
> >
> >http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0459
> >
> >http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0449
> >
> >In case you have not yet cottoned on, this is why the world's greatest
> >consumer of oil, the USA, invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia, yet
> >did not liberate Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Congo, etc:
> >
> >http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0501
>
> the above link is broke...
>
Try again
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0501
> >Meanwhile, oil consumption is higher than ever before, and the rate of
> >increase in consumption is faster than ever before.
> >
> >http://www.thedebate.org
Alert
> Alert wrote:
> >
> > Is the world's oil about to run out?
> >
> > During the 1970s analysts realized that the oil would run out within
> > the next hundred years - sooner than previously expected.
> >
> > The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
> > crunch:
> >
>
Which loons are you referring to? The scientists or the mainstream
outlets that publish their work? We don't invent these conclusions, we
just point to the original work.
If you have any questions, I suggest that you take them up directly
with the scientists.
Alert
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:10:59 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St.
> Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> >> The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
> >> crunch:
> >>
> >How many times have you loons claimed this?
>
> years" rubbish was the 70s.
No, during the 70s the world's leading experts reported that the oil
would begin to run out during the next century. They were right, and
the latest figures show that it will run out sooner - within 20 years.
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
I'm talking about going to google to search for posts. Try reading a
thread with someone like Kurt Lochner in it. He changes the subject to
insults and people often change them back or insult him in the subject
line. This, at least it did, breaks the threads into new threads every
single time the subject line changes. This means if you change the
subject to something other than his personal insults and reply
countering his claims in the body of the message, it isn't connected on
google. He surely knows this and does it on purpose.
> as for the switch you refer to 'in some readers'.....
> that switch allows newsreaders (people) an option to treat new titles
> as new threads....or to ignore title changes if the thread name
> changes....
> the bug which adds the extra space has the effect of a title change....
>
> clear yet?
>
I know there's a bug that adds extra white space to the subject line but
this just causes the newsreaders that are set to pretend that a subject
line change is a new thread to internally start a new thread.
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
Alert wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<40CB6353...@backpacker.com>...
> > Alert wrote:
> > >
> > > Is the world's oil about to run out?
> > >
> > > During the 1970s analysts realized that the oil would run out within
> > > the next hundred years - sooner than previously expected.
> > >
> > > The latest figures show that we have less than twenty years until the
> > > crunch:
> > >
> > How many times have you loons claimed this?
> >
>
> Which loons are you referring to? The scientists or the mainstream
> outlets that publish their work? We don't invent these conclusions, we
> just point to the original work.
>
The claim that the world will run out of oil in a decade has been made
every decade for decades. Isn't this called "crying wolf"?
> If you have any questions, I suggest that you take them up directly
> with the scientists.
>
I suggest you not use appeal to authority fallacies.
Mel Rowing
No!
> >Oil prices may well on occasions have been high but crucially not
> >consistantly high. In fact in real terms the price of energy in general
has
> >fallen over the years.
>
> http://www.abelard.org/news/oil040530.asp
> the supplies are under increasing pressure...there is also growing
> suspicion that saudi hasn't as much spare capacity as is claimed....
Capacity relates to ability to pump not to the size of the resource. I am
sure that the general consensus is that that particular regio stands on a
virtual sea of oil. Should demand outstrip capacity to pump of cpourse
prices would rise. This would inspire the intallation of more capacity just
as if say transport structure were found wanting similar effects and
consequences would ensue. The total physical volume of oil existing on this
planet would not be affected by one drop.
> 1)a major objective of opec has been to keep the price *below* the price
> at which competitive methods would grow.....
> 2)the opec country's economies are very dependent on oil revenues....
> they can't just stop the pumping....
When OPEC was founded back in the 70's it was as a response to the notion
that the Arab countries were being ripped off by the oil consuming western
nations playing one producing state against the other. The net result of
this was a sudden significant and permanent rise in oil prices that plunged
the west in recession. The "never had it so good" 60's were over for ever.
Seemingly overnight the image of the oil sheik came into prominence. The
countries of the the ME became very rich indeed. Most of them still are with
per capita GDP's that should have we in the West green with envy. This
wealth has to go somewhere. There is a limit to the number of limosines,
yachts, palaces and the other impedimenta of wealth that one can enjoy and
so the bulk of it ended up as investments in the various Western economies.
There si an obvious difficulty here. If the oil sheiks continued to screw
the west for every spare dollar they could as it seemed at one time they
were intent on doing, it could only be at the expense of the very economies
in which their wealth was invested. They would not only be killing off the
goose that laid the golden eggs but also that which would lay golden eggs
for a very long time to come. They would soon be left with oceans of oil,
bankrupt customers, little income and depleted commercial assets. They there
for embarked upon a policy that has served them well, that of target
pricing.
The target price is in fact a band of prices outside which the price of ME
oil is not allowed to venture. The target price is intended to maximise
income whilst at the same time not to place undue burden upon economies
which by now they have a large vested interest.
> 3)many of them have populations growing out of control.
I can interpet this two ways. Physically? or in terms of political
stability?
> i have no problems with your comments on markets.....
> i do have some problems with your 'complacency' that it is mostly a matter
> of price where oil is concerned...
There is no complacency let me assure you. There was a world before oil and
there will be a world after it. The story of the world ever since the
Renaissance has been one not only of progress but also of accelerating
progress. Oil is having its day just as coal had its day. When that day is
over other energy should then have their day. I have seen no convincing
argumet to suggest anything to the contrary.
> >I've had a look at your web site and take on board what you say. However,
I
> >suggest you read too much into the concept of EIREO. The major weakness
of
> >your argument is that you seem to equate all forms of energy as being of
> >equal value. Thus you make no recognisance of the idea that it is
possible
> >to add value to energy by changing its form. In this particular instance
I
> >would suggest that consumers are prepared to pay a substantial premium on
> >motor fuel.
>
> again i have no problems with any of this...i am not concerned with
> secondary energy sources and their market valuation...
> only the availability of primary energy....
Secondary energy comes out of primary energy. We has humans use our
ingenuity to convert forms of energy into either more convenient or
appropriate forms. In so doing an energy cost is always involved. I simply
do not understand your idea that the utility value of oil is limited to the
amount of energy used in extracting it.
> this is a subsidiary issue that could as easily be applied to using oil to
> produce electricity...
This is the issue. You can use energy to extract oil. You might not be able
to use the same energy to drive a motor car. Look at oil if you like as
partly an energy carrier as opposed to asource.
Of course the oil that is cheapest in energy terms will be the earliest
exploited. This applies to coal or any other resource even land. Were it not
the fertile crescents the first to be exploited for agriculture? This did
not prevent the eventual exploitation of the less atrractive uplands and
even arid regions where EIREO's were considerably reduced. It amounts to
the same thing!
> yes, the demand is not as elastic as another barbie doll for candice....
> but it is obviously not near to completely inelastic either.....
> as above...i have little problem with your comments on markets....
> but i do dissent from market fundamentalism....
Market price is the quantity that will efficiently take into account all the
factors, dynamics and variables you yourself identitfy. It is prices that
will determine whether a well is pumped or capped. whether a new respource
is developed or put on hold and so on.
> >I think you are aware of my
> >feelings on windmills! I was thinking in terms of hydroenergy, geothermal
> >energy, tidal energy, nuclear energy and perhaps eventually methane
> >(hydrate) and fusion energy. All but the last of these are currently
being
> >utilised and are dreadfully underexploited. The reason for this under
> >exploitation is, put very simply, cost.
>
> agreed....but it is a poor analysis of cost...it ignores externalisation
> of filth....it ignores geopolitical consequences...it ignores
> depletion...
> this is economic 'theory' totally detached from reality/realism.....
Not completely. In terms of filth, the most polluting source of energy is
the old low temperature romantic log fire puthering out unburned carcogenic
distillates. This is the only source of energy of most of the people on
this planet. Coal is not as polluting as wood since its carbon:tar ratio is
higher and it burns at a higher temperature. Hydrocarbons are not so
polluting as coal since the C-H bond yields in addition to carbon dioxide
totally non-noxious water upon combustion. natural gas (methane) is the
cleanest of all the hydrocarbons having the lowest possible C : H ratio.
Added to that we've had technological innovation. Catalytic conversion
removes the most noxious pollutants. Electrostatic filtration removes
particulates. Electronic ignition management systems ensure that fuels are
carburetted properly (no longer any need for the 'mechanics ear') and that
the mixture is ignited precisely at the most appropriate time so that not
only are less pollutants produced in the first place but we get the maximum
possible energy from our fuel.
When people talk to me about pollution they're talking to a guy who was
brought up in the shadow of an aerial flight that tipped coal mine spoil
onto a tip12 hours a day. When the wind was in the right direction we all
got a little bit. More colliery waste was discharged from railway wagons
(hauled by steam locomotives) onto a tip just behind us. A third older tip
was just half a mile away. This was on fire continuously for years. I often
went to school in winter through yellow smog. They don't know what pollution
is! People would just not stand for these things today and quite right too!
I left that address in 1959 for ever. It's still there. Now it's beautiful
in comparison. My point is that things have come on leaps and bounds since
the times about which I write.
> 'wars' cost a great deal of energy.....
> energy access has been absolutely critical in all the major conflicts
> of the last century....
Indeed they do. However, so far man has not yet discovered a way of avoiding
war entirely. Perhps the path to perpetual peace is as eleusive as the path
to alternative energy. Even here though I would suggest that progress has
been made
> >> iow please make a more tight argument that you have done in this
> >> post if you are to progress in convincing me further....
> >
> >I continue to do my best :>)
>
> you do fine...you are also one of the few posters who often increase
> my knowledge
Thank you kind Sir!
Mel Rowing
abelard
typed:
a very different issue....you have the option of kill filing him
if he's a waster....
or even if his posts are useless to you....
>> as for the switch you refer to 'in some readers'.....
>> that switch allows newsreaders (people) an option to treat new titles
>> as new threads....or to ignore title changes if the thread name
>> changes....
>> the bug which adds the extra space has the effect of a title change....
>>
>> clear yet?
>>
>I know there's a bug that adds extra white space to the subject line but
>this just causes the newsreaders that are set to pretend that a subject
>line change is a new thread to internally start a new thread.
it isn't a matter of 'pretend'...it's a matter of options....
the bug removes that choice....
the reader may *choose* which way to treat subject changes....
an white space is a new title as far as any computer is concerned....
computers are *far* more intelligent than wet bags of chemical....
for one, they don't try to read minds....
they act precisely on what they are fed....
if you feed in garbage...you get garbage out....
this is known to analysts and programmers...and even to able
psychologists as....gigo....garbage in...garbage out.....
your newsreader is taking legitimate thread titles and altering them....
it is inserting garbage....the newsreader is broken for the purpose....
you say you realise it is a bug....
why not just get sommat that works correctly....
agent is widely regarded as the best.....
some like other readers.....but please ditch your broken reader....
regards.....
abelard
<notf...@anytime.com>
typed:
>
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:j8frc0t30s838i0d3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:29:53 +0000 (UTC), "Mel Rowing"
>> <notf...@anytime.com>
>>
>> did you see the numbers i did for jc?
>
>No!
>
>> >Oil prices may well on occasions have been high but crucially not
>> >consistantly high. In fact in real terms the price of energy in general
>has
>> >fallen over the years.
>>
>> http://www.abelard.org/news/oil040530.asp
>> the supplies are under increasing pressure...there is also growing
>> suspicion that saudi hasn't as much spare capacity as is claimed....
>
>Capacity relates to ability to pump not to the size of the resource. I am
>sure that the general consensus is that that particular regio stands on a
>virtual sea of oil. Should demand outstrip capacity to pump of cpourse
>prices would rise. This would inspire the intallation of more capacity just
>as if say transport structure were found wanting similar effects and
>consequences would ensue. The total physical volume of oil existing on this
>planet would not be affected by one drop.
i'm unsure you are making sense at this point....the best technology for
raising oil is widely known....this does not stop there being a point
at which no more oil can be pumped at market prices....and eventually
at negative eroei....
all this is fine of course....however, one of the considerations as i have
just stated...was also to stop competitive form of supply growing...
another means of screwing the greedy satraps was inflation.....
the massive inflation in the early 70s i am convinced was in part
engineered to undermined the transfer of capital....
next....gdp in saudi is currently reported at $11,400 ppp
bahrain $15,100 iran $6,800 even kuwait is 'only' $17,500
many of these states have pissed away their earnings on
armaments and follies, dole, imported servants and toys....but
above all on out of control population growth.....
this is common with oil wealth and even the uk has done far too
much of it....
the oil states are no longer seriously wealthy....
>> 3)many of them have populations growing out of control.
>
>I can interpet this two ways. Physically? or in terms of political
>stability?
in terms of their ability to keep their population at a reasonable
standard of living (much of which is in the form of dole....not
productivity)...they have vast numbers of young people who
think the world owes them a living.....who any useful regard
work as beneath them.....who are bored...who are being
indoctrinated with medieval nonsense.....
who are being taught by their politicians that the fault in with the
westerners....not their own disgraceful 'leaders'.....
>> i have no problems with your comments on markets.....
>> i do have some problems with your 'complacency' that it is mostly a matter
>> of price where oil is concerned...
>
>There is no complacency let me assure you. There was a world before oil and
>there will be a world after it. The story of the world ever since the
>Renaissance has been one not only of progress but also of accelerating
>progress. Oil is having its day just as coal had its day. When that day is
>over other energy should then have their day. I have seen no convincing
>argumet to suggest anything to the contrary.
because you have vast populations with damned near free lunch oil....
it is asserted that the oil effectively give each american 2000 slaves....
iir the overall ave current figure is around 500 for the planet....
that is achieved by drawing on the bank account....new oil is not of
course being laid down on any meaningful time scale....
it is thinkable those slaves are going to disappear...and you'll then
have to live on your income.....
>> >I've had a look at your web site and take on board what you say. However,
>I
>> >suggest you read too much into the concept of EIREO. The major weakness
>of
>> >your argument is that you seem to equate all forms of energy as being of
>> >equal value. Thus you make no recognisance of the idea that it is
>possible
>> >to add value to energy by changing its form. In this particular instance
>I
>> >would suggest that consumers are prepared to pay a substantial premium on
>> >motor fuel.
>>
>> again i have no problems with any of this...i am not concerned with
>> secondary energy sources and their market valuation...
>> only the availability of primary energy....
>
>Secondary energy comes out of primary energy. We has humans use our
>ingenuity to convert forms of energy into either more convenient or
>appropriate forms. In so doing an energy cost is always involved. I simply
>do not understand your idea that the utility value of oil is limited to the
>amount of energy used in extracting it.
i don't see why you don't follow.....
if it cost you the equivalent of 2 barrels of oil to get every barrel of
oil into the place you wished to use it.....
then how are you going to get the two barrels out of the ground in
the first place?
this is reality....not some magical 'theory'!!
see if this works for you....
you are starving to death on an island....but *if* you were totally fit
you know you could swim to another island 5 miles away where there is
plentiful food to give you the strength to swim to that second island..
no other variable.....you *will* die!!!.....'if' won't hack it!!!!
>> this is a subsidiary issue that could as easily be applied to using oil to
>> produce electricity...
>
>This is the issue. You can use energy to extract oil. You might not be able
>to use the same energy to drive a motor car.
forgive my picky nature....but to keep things clear....you can only use
the fuel *once*
>Look at oil if you like as
>partly an energy carrier as opposed to asource.
that bit's fine...
>Of course the oil that is cheapest in energy terms will be the earliest
>exploited. This applies to coal or any other resource even land. Were it not
>the fertile crescents the first to be exploited for agriculture? This did
>not prevent the eventual exploitation of the less atrractive uplands and
>even arid regions where EIREO's were considerably reduced. It amounts to
>the same thing!
again, no problem....but you must also be aware the eroei can sink below
1:1!...at which point you fecked :-)
>> yes, the demand is not as elastic as another barbie doll for candice....
>> but it is obviously not near to completely inelastic either.....
>> as above...i have little problem with your comments on markets....
>> but i do dissent from market fundamentalism....
>
>Market price is the quantity that will efficiently take into account all the
>factors, dynamics and variables you yourself identitfy. It is prices that
>will determine whether a well is pumped or capped. whether a new respource
>is developed or put on hold and so on.
that is only *one* consideration....return to go...you're starving on an
island....
to repeat...civilisations have collapsed....in nature this is *common*,
possibly universal until a creature learns to control their own
fecundity relative to the available energy...
>> >I think you are aware of my
>> >feelings on windmills! I was thinking in terms of hydroenergy, geothermal
>> >energy, tidal energy, nuclear energy and perhaps eventually methane
>> >(hydrate) and fusion energy. All but the last of these are currently
>being
>> >utilised and are dreadfully underexploited. The reason for this under
>> >exploitation is, put very simply, cost.
>>
>> agreed....but it is a poor analysis of cost...it ignores externalisation
>> of filth....it ignores geopolitical consequences...it ignores
>> depletion...
>> this is economic 'theory' totally detached from reality/realism.....
>
>Not completely. In terms of filth, the most polluting source of energy is
>the old low temperature romantic log fire puthering out unburned carcogenic
>distillates. This is the only source of energy of most of the people on
>this planet. Coal is not as polluting as wood since its carbon:tar ratio is
>higher and it burns at a higher temperature. Hydrocarbons are not so
>polluting as coal since the C-H bond yields in addition to carbon dioxide
>totally non-noxious water upon combustion. natural gas (methane) is the
>cleanest of all the hydrocarbons having the lowest possible C : H ratio.
no dissent or problem....
but do not ignore carrying capacity! populations expend on increases
of available energy inputs
your populations have been built on the back of free oil....
if your bank account runs dry without ordered replacement....
you *will* die by the billion....
>Added to that we've had technological innovation. Catalytic conversion
>removes the most noxious pollutants. Electrostatic filtration removes
>particulates. Electronic ignition management systems ensure that fuels are
>carburetted properly (no longer any need for the 'mechanics ear') and that
>the mixture is ignited precisely at the most appropriate time so that not
>only are less pollutants produced in the first place but we get the maximum
>possible energy from our fuel.
>
>When people talk to me about pollution they're talking to a guy who was
>brought up in the shadow of an aerial flight that tipped coal mine spoil
>onto a tip12 hours a day. When the wind was in the right direction we all
>got a little bit. More colliery waste was discharged from railway wagons
>(hauled by steam locomotives) onto a tip just behind us. A third older tip
>was just half a mile away. This was on fire continuously for years. I often
>went to school in winter through yellow smog. They don't know what pollution
>is! People would just not stand for these things today and quite right too!
>
>I left that address in 1959 for ever. It's still there. Now it's beautiful
>in comparison. My point is that things have come on leaps and bounds since
>the times about which I write.
no dissent with any of this at any point...
>> 'wars' cost a great deal of energy.....
>> energy access has been absolutely critical in all the major conflicts
>> of the last century....
>
>Indeed they do. However, so far man has not yet discovered a way of avoiding
>war entirely. Perhps the path to perpetual peace is as eleusive as the path
>to alternative energy. Even here though I would suggest that progress has
>been made
again fully agreed....i also think most of 'war' can in due course be
eliminated...but it will require cultural change on the *whole*
planet...
>> >> iow please make a more tight argument that you have done in this
>> >> post if you are to progress in convincing me further....
>> >
>> >I continue to do my best :>)
>>
>> you do fine...you are also one of the few posters who often increase
>> my knowledge
>
>Thank you kind Sir!
regards...
Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )
That doesn't stop him from lying about me, it just stops me from seeing
him lying about me.
> >> as for the switch you refer to 'in some readers'.....
> >> that switch allows newsreaders (people) an option to treat new titles
> >> as new threads....or to ignore title changes if the thread name
> >> changes....
> >> the bug which adds the extra space has the effect of a title change....
> >>
> >> clear yet?
> >>
> >I know there's a bug that adds extra white space to the subject line but
> >this just causes the newsreaders that are set to pretend that a subject
> >line change is a new thread to internally start a new thread.
>
> it isn't a matter of 'pretend'...it's a matter of options....
> the bug removes that choice....
>
Does a subject line change cause a new thread? No.
> the reader may *choose* which way to treat subject changes....
> an white space is a new title as far as any computer is concerned....
> computers are *far* more intelligent than wet bags of chemical....
> for one, they don't try to read minds....
> they act precisely on what they are fed....
> if you feed in garbage...you get garbage out....
> this is known to analysts and programmers...and even to able
> psychologists as....gigo....garbage in...garbage out.....
>
> your newsreader is taking legitimate thread titles and altering them....
>
Only if someone makes the subject line too long. Don' do that.
> it is inserting garbage....the newsreader is broken for the purpose....
> you say you realise it is a bug....
> why not just get sommat that works correctly....
>
Since there isn't anything free that works as nicely as the Netscape
newsreader, I use the Netscape newsreader.
> agent is widely regarded as the best.....
> some like other readers.....but please ditch your broken reader....
>
Usenet is a free country and people are free to use whatever newsreader
they want. Netscape 4.7x is one of the best free newsreaders out there.
abelard
the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
typed:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>> a very different issue....you have the option of kill filing him
>> if he's a waster....
>> or even if his posts are useless to you....
>>
>That doesn't stop him from lying about me, it just stops me from seeing
>him lying about me.
so what...there are a surfeit of liars to various degrees around the
planet....
post consistently and honurably....and only morons will not notice
in another poster lies about you.....
and who cares what morons 'think'....even assuming they ever do
you worry too much
>> it isn't a matter of 'pretend'...it's a matter of options....
>> the bug removes that choice....
>>
>Does a subject line change cause a new thread? No.
simply, yes....but it may be over-ridden....
>> your newsreader is taking legitimate thread titles and altering them....
>>
>Only if someone makes the subject line too long. Don' do that.
don't get silly...the newsreader is bugged...stop trying to get others
to solve a problem you are causing....
there is not recognised standard title line.....
i repeat....and you know it....'your' reader is bugged....
>> it is inserting garbage....the newsreader is broken for the purpose....
>> you say you realise it is a bug....
>> why not just get sommat that works correctly....
>>
>Since there isn't anything free that works as nicely as the Netscape
>newsreader, I use the Netscape newsreader.
in the end it is your problem....as stated....if you keep on causing the
problem i will reluctantly kill file you....
>> agent is widely regarded as the best.....
>> some like other readers.....but please ditch your broken reader....
>>
>Usenet is a free country and people are free to use whatever newsreader
>they want. Netscape 4.7x is one of the best free newsreaders out there.
you are being given advice....there are consequences if you do not
follow that advice....
behave like a spoilt child....do not be surprised when you get treated
like a spoilt child.....
your problem...not mine....neither will you make your problem mine....
you are not a victim....stop whining.
Mel Rowing
> >Capacity relates to ability to pump not to the size of the resource. I am
> >sure that the general consensus is that that particular regio stands on a
> >virtual sea of oil. Should demand outstrip capacity to pump of cpourse
> >prices would rise. This would inspire the intallation of more capacity
just
> >as if say transport structure were found wanting similar effects and
> >consequences would ensue. The total physical volume of oil existing on
this
> >planet would not be affected by one drop.
>
> i'm unsure you are making sense at this point....the best technology for
> raising oil is widely known....this does not stop there being a point
> at which no more oil can be pumped at market prices....and eventually
> at negative eroei....
Nothing to do with technology.
There will be a finite number of pumps, wells, pipes etc.(capacity) This
could over time be adjusted either way. However, if, at any point in time,
all these are operating at their maximum performance levels 24 hours a day
then no more oil could be pumped beyond that level. However, the addition or
reduction of pumping capacity does not alter the size of the resource one
jot.
> >The target price is in fact a band of prices outside which the price of
ME
> >oil is not allowed to venture. The target price is intended to maximise
> >income whilst at the same time not to place undue burden upon economies
> >which by now they have a large vested interest.
>
> all this is fine of course....however, one of the considerations as i have
> just stated...was also to stop competitive form of supply growing...
Yes! increase of supply into a stable market would cause a drop in price.
> another means of screwing the greedy satraps was inflation.....
> the massive inflation in the early 70s i am convinced was in part
> engineered to undermined the transfer of capital....
Whether it were engineered or not, that would be the effect unless supply
were pegged back further but this could give rise to yet another rise in
inflation leding into a spiral that would injure everybody and benefit
nobody.
> next....gdp in saudi is currently reported at $11,400 ppp
> bahrain $15,100 iran $6,800 even kuwait is 'only' $17,500
Er.........
Yes! I probably overstated that point upon the basis of an old reference
remembered in fact from the Guinness Book of Records of 198? that was bought
for me one Christmas. In it Kuwait was in fact listed as the world's richest
country (in terms of per capita GDP) The book was thrown away years ago. I
must discipline myself not to place as much reliance on memory as I do. It's
not as infallible as it once was.
> many of these states have pissed away their earnings on
> armaments and follies, dole, imported servants and toys....but
> above all on out of control population growth.....
> this is common with oil wealth and even the uk has done far too
> much of it....
>
> the oil states are no longer seriously wealthy....
Don't forget also the GDP means just that it doesn't take into account
foreign earnings. Just look at the various websites to gain an impression of
the wealth of saudi arabia and the sheikdoms. I can't afgree that they are
not seriously wealthy.
> >Secondary energy comes out of primary energy. We has humans use our
> >ingenuity to convert forms of energy into either more convenient or
> >appropriate forms. In so doing an energy cost is always involved. I
simply
> >do not understand your idea that the utility value of oil is limited to
the
> >amount of energy used in extracting it.
>
> i don't see why you don't follow.....
> if it cost you the equivalent of 2 barrels of oil to get every barrel of
> oil into the place you wished to use it.....
> then how are you going to get the two barrels out of the ground in
> the first place?
>
> this is reality....not some magical 'theory'!!
It is here where we fundamentally disagree.
Let's say that 2 barrels of oil equivalent is not two barrels of oil but
rather the energy that could be produced by two gallons of oil. The utility
value of oil is that it forms the basis of a transport fuel. The two barrels
equivalent couldcome from a nuclear pile, a quantit or coal, a hydro
electric power station or even a windmill. It does not matter. All these
sources could be harnessed to drive pumps. Only the resultant barrel of oil
could be utilised to drive a motor vehicle.
The oil would be expensive yes but that is not the immediate issue.
> forgive my picky nature....but to keep things clear....you can only use
> the fuel *once*
But there are so many energy sources but, at the same time, are not
particularly suited twards driving cars or trucks. I reassert my position
that there is no actual or forseeable shortge or primary energy.
> again, no problem....but you must also be aware the eroei can sink below
> 1:1!...at which point you fecked :-)
It can never reach zero.
> but do not ignore carrying capacity! populations expend on increases
> of available energy inputs
Not inevitably. Not even in actuality in developed countries. There is no
such law of nature. You're becoming Malthusian.
> your populations have been built on the back of free oil....
> if your bank account runs dry without ordered replacement....
> you *will* die by the billion....
The oil is no more free than is the wind, the rain, coal, uranium and so
forth. All require ingenuity in theeir exploitation.
Mel Rowing