Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on January 12, 2016

Oil crashes to $30 a barrel

The dramatic crash in crude oil prices just got even more stunning.

Oil plummeted below $30 a barrel on Tuesday for the first time since December 2003. The latest wave of selling leaves crude oil down 19% this year alone. It represents an incredible 72% plunge from crude oil’s June 2014 peak of almost $108.

“The fundamental situation for oil markets is much worse than previously thought,” Barclays commodities analysts wrote in a client note.

Crude oil declined 3% on the day to settle at $30.44 a barrel, marking its seventh day in a row of losses.

All of this is great news for American drivers. The average price of a gallon of gasoline fell below $1.97 this week, compared with $3.68 about 18 months ago, according to AAA.

Here’s why crude oil prices keep crashing lower:

1.) OPEC in complete disarray: Oil prices initially rallied on Tuesday after Nigeria’s top oil official and the outgoing OPEC President Emmanuel Kachikwu told CNN the oil cartel is considering an emergency meeting. That fueled hopes of an output cut that countries like Nigeria have been begging OPEC leader Saudi Arabia for.

However, officials from the United Arab Emirates quickly moved to downplay those hopes, saying the current strategy is working.

The public back-and-forth between OPEC members highlights the deep fractures within OPEC that have diminished the already-low chances of the cartel cutting output.

The recent outbreak of tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran did much of the same last week, helping to drive oil prices even lower.

Barclays calls all of this the “complete breakdown of OPEC cohesion.”

2.) China is spooking everyone: Worries about China’s economy aren’t just bad for the stock market.

If China is truly slowing more than investors realized, that would mean it needs less oil to fuel its economy. That’s a scary thought for those who were hoping oil would soon be on the upswing.

“Just in the past week, strong fears of a hard landing in China have reemerged with a vengeance,” Michael Wittner, global head of oil research at Societe Generale, wrote in a research report.

3.) Defiant U.S. oil production: While demand fears are on the rise, the oil crash has mostly been fueled by a massive supply glut. That excess supply was largely created by the American shale oil boom.

U.S. oil production has not taken nearly the hit that many thought it would. The U.S. pumped an average of 9.35 million barrels per day in October, down just a bit from the April peak of 9.7 million, according to the government.

That hurts oil prices because American production likely needs to come down to ease the supply glut.

“The market has lost confidence that U.S. shale will decline quickly enough to perform its job this year of beginning the global rebalancing process,” Wittner said.

4.) Iran is gearing up: The global oil market is bracing for Iran to deepen the supply glut by pumping lots more oil very soon.

Iran is making progress in meeting its obligations to receive sanctions relief under its nuclear deal with the West. That potentially clears the way for Iran to return later this month or in February.

It’s a big mystery just how much oil Iran will be able to pump, but it’s unlikely the country will back down despite the price crash. Even just a gradual increase in output can’t help the oversupply problem.

5.) U.S. dollar strength a risk: Crude oil trades in U.S. dollars. That means when the dollar gets stronger, oil gets more expensive for overseas buyers.

That’s why Morgan Stanley warned on Monday that the strong greenback could send oil plunging to $20 a barrel.

While cheap oil is great for American consumers, it continues to contribute to the losses in the stock market. Shares of S&P 500 energy companies are already down 10% so far this year, while some like Marathon Oil (MRO) and Anadarko Petroleum (AEUA) have plunged over 20%.

money.cnn.com

45 Comments on "Oil crashes to $30 a barrel"

makati1 on Tue, 12th Jan 2016 7:47 pm

CNN … Blah blah blah…

penury on Tue, 12th Jan 2016 9:26 pm

Individually statistics can be ignored. But if you look at BDI. train traffic and cargo truck mileage you can begin to detect a trend which could explain the low oil price. People have no money.

Pete Bauer on Tue, 12th Jan 2016 9:29 pm

Why are they talking about China’s economy alone. They should talk about China’s Electric vehicle sales.

It has zoomed past USA and is gaining rapidly. Demand for OPEC oil will gradually decline.

http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/

makati1 on Tue, 12th Jan 2016 9:57 pm

Pete… a drop in the ocean. Not important. Never be more than a very small percentage of cars, ever.

Nony on Tue, 12th Jan 2016 10:07 pm

Woot day it is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBwvFBxf_Eg

twocats on Tue, 12th Jan 2016 11:36 pm

They should talk about China’s Electric vehicle sales. [pete]

i thought at first that was a joke, and a good one, like instead of “what does that have to with the price of tea in China”, its, “what does that have to do with number of electric cars sold in China”. you crack me up.

But in all seriousness, aren’t we getting close to the dreaded “lifting cost” of oil for some of these fields? How much is average lifting cost for shale, conventional, etc? I know, every well is different, but then if that’s an unknowable thing then Short doesn’t get to say that sets the floor anymore because it can’t be verified.

Go Speed Racer on Tue, 12th Jan 2016 11:53 pm

Yay. $30 a barrel. We can dust off the blueprints for 1977 Chevrolet K5 Blazer, and go back into mass production:
http://i.wheelsage.org/pictures/c/chevrolet/blazer/chevrolet_k5_blazer_6.jpg

I’ll take two.

Tom S on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 12:09 am

Makati1,

Why do you believe that EVs will never be more than a small percentage of cars? Just curious.

-Tom S

Apneaman on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 12:26 am

Speed Racer, my buddy had one of these in the early 80’s – our beerNweed wagon.

http://www.history-of-cars.com/images/chrysler/1972-newport-211-003.jpg

GregT on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 12:37 am

TomS,

Why do you believe that EVs will ever be more than a small percentage of cars? Just curious.

GregT

makati1 on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 1:25 am

GregT, the believers in tech cannot see anything else. It’s a kind of blindness that prevents them from seeing the end of their techie dreams. Denial big time.

I get tired of telling the short memory people that, today, the total electric vehicles (excluding golf carts) are less then 2% of the total vehicles on the road worldwide. To replace even half of them with electric in the next 10 years would entail building and selling some 100,000,000 per year or ~8 million per month. Not going to happen.

And that does not even mention the electrical system build-out that would be required to provide them with electric, which would also come from fossil fuels. Electric is not a fuel, it is a carrier of energy from some other source. Again, educating the non is becoming a bore. Too many stupid people in this world. Or is it too many lazy, uneducated, stupid people? LOL

makati1 on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 1:29 am

Go Speed, I had a 1975, Chevy Impala SS Convertible with a 396 cu.in. V8 and a 4 barrel carb when I was 21. I would love to have it again without any electronic crap. Just an AM/FM radio. But I bet it would cost more than the 1975 sticker price of $2,500. LOL

GregT on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 1:53 am

Mak,

Anyone that runs a blog titled “bountifulenergy.blogspot.ca” is far beyond the point of extreme denial. I’ve come to the realization that the guy has some serious psychological issues.

Tom S on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 2:00 am

Makati1:

“the believers in tech cannot see anything else. It’s a kind of blindness that prevents them from seeing the end of their techie dreams. Denial big time.”

You’re just reverting back to incessant name-calling (“techie dreamer corn porn denial blindness” etc), which is simply not a reason of any kind.

I’m inquiring what reason you have to support the opinion you just offered.

“the total electric vehicles (excluding golf carts) are less then 2% of the total vehicles on the road worldwide.”

So? You were saying that EV’s could NEVER be more than a very small fraction of total cars. Do you have any reason to believe that?

“To replace even half of them with electric in the next 10 years would entail building and selling some 100,000,000 per year or ~8 million per month.”

So? You were saying that EVs could NEVER be more than a “very small” percentage. It would not be necessary to replace half of all cars in the next 10 years.

“Not going to happen.”

That’s not a reason. That is just STATING what you believe to be the case. You would need some reason other than just throwing out a number and then saying “not going to happen”.

“Too many stupid people in this world. Or is it too many lazy, uneducated, stupid people? LOL”

Once again, you’ve just reverted back to incessant name-calling and hysterical acting out. You’re doing that right after I asked you politely for some kind of reason.

Again: do you have any reason to believe that electric cars will “never” be more than a “very small” percentage of all cars? If you have some serious reason to believe that, then now is the time to say what it is.

-Tom S

Tom S on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 2:02 am

GregT:

“Why do you believe that EVs will ever be more than a small percentage of cars? Just curious.”

I actually haven’t stated any opinion on the matter. It was Makati1 who said that EVs would “never” be more than a “very small” percentage. He seemed to have a very confident opinion on that matter, but he offered no reasons. I was wondering if he had any reasons for that belief.

Personally, I have no strong opinion on the matter. If you want some kind of off-the-cuff opinion then I can give one I suppose.

-Tom S

Tom S on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 2:04 am

GregT:

“Anyone that runs a blog titled “bountifulenergy.blogspot.ca” is far beyond the point of extreme denial. I’ve come to the realization that the guy has some serious psychological issues.”

Once again, that is just ad hominem attacking the questioner. That’s just not offering any reason or any logical response to the question I asked. Even if I have psychological issues, do you or Makati1 have any serious reason to believe the opinion he just offered?

-Tom S

GregT on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 2:25 am

Tom,

The facts have been presented to you so many times now that it is beyond ridiculous. If you are not willing to face reality, there is no point in trying to have a rational conversation with you. If you are willing to accept the seriousness of our collective predicament, and are willing to discuss realistic options, then by all means let’s talk, but if you choose to continue to act in an irrational manner, then there is no point trying to discuss anything with you at all. None of us are overly pleased with the direction that our species is heading in, you are only adding stupidity to injury.

Tom S on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 2:44 am

GregT:

“The facts have been presented to you so many times now that it is beyond ridiculous.”

No, because the entire time I’ve been here, all you have ever pointed out is that we live on a finite planet so infinite growth is impossible. That’s it. You repeat that one thing thousands of times. Makati1 says things like “corn porn denial CNN techie dreamers unicorn bullshit” and various other kinds of name-calling, and nothing else. There is also ad hoc psychoanalysis on occasion, but no serious reasons given.

I am asking you guys if you or he has any reason to believe the opinion he just offered.

“If you are not willing to face reality”

I am asking you if you or he has any reason to believe the opinion he just offered. You have not stated any reasons whatsoever, over any time period. Whether I am willing to face it or not, do you or he have any serious reason to believe that?

“If you are willing to accept the seriousness of our collective predicament”

You are making statements about me again. The question is not about me.

I am asking you if you or he has any reason to believe the opinion he just offered. Why would you or he believe that EVs will “never” be more than a “very small” percentage of vehicles?

“None of us are overly pleased with the direction that our species is heading in”

So? That’s just changing the topic. Again: what reason do you or he have to support the opinion just offered wrt EVs.

“you are only adding stupidity to injury”

Once again, you’ve reverted to name-calling and lashing out, right after I asked you for an actual reason. I’ll try one more time: what reason do you have to support the opinion just offered? Personal remarks are not reasons of any kind for the opinion.

-Tom S

GregT on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 2:56 am

Tom,

The reasons are obvious. If you refuse to respond in a rational and intelligent manner, then there is no point in attempting to have any further conversation with you.

makati1 on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 6:31 am

TomS, shooting the messenger does not change the message. The message is that most tech is also going to disappear in the near future. It is ALL supported by plentiful, cheap energy supplied by oil and NG.

Denial does not change the future. Inability to see reality does not exempt you from it’s consequences. Inability to let go of BAU in some form is going to kill most of the Westerners in the near future. You included, it seems.

Davy on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 7:12 am

Tom you are digging a hole. This is a routine activity once every couple of months. You come on here a trumpet EV’s and renewables and you get bitch slapped. You have a wonderful idea that is like an angel with iron wings. These technologies are never going to fly through the storm of reality testing.

I don’t mind you though because EV’s will have a useful niche in a collapsing economy. Alt’s and Ev’s are a far better investment than another Nascar track. EV’s and renewables will be salvaged into useful niches and in that respect have value even where there are malinvestments per a collapsing economy.

I am always amazed with the greenies and the techies that seem like smart people but live in this rapture that tech will save society. What is more bizarre is how they can call themselves green and still promote dirty manufacturing and lifestyles that “green” tech is a part of. You can’t put lipstick on a pig.

The way people live in the status quo with or without green equipment is not green. It will take visible attitude and lifestyle changes for me to say yes you are green. These attitudes and lifestyles will come and be forced on us by an existential crisis that is in the works. It is too late for saving the status quo so these changes are just ancillary.

Without the status quo we are going to see a few billion people exit the movie theater. Those that stay are going to be horrified with the ugliness of poverty and pain. This may not happen all at once but it will be the trend. Your greenie visions of a “Jetson’s” future are just fantasy but at a higher level of usefulness than some of the brownies of the status quo who live in the economic haze of exceptionalism and human manifest destiny.

Boat on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 7:27 am

Davy,

Ford announced spending 4.5 billion and says 40% of cars will be electric by 2020. That sounds bigger than a niche.

I am always amazed with the greenies and the techies that seem like smart people but live in this rapture that tech will save society.
You say that Davy. Who else besides doomers say that. Me thinks you/ya’ll make up shyt.

Boat on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 7:32 am

GregT on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 12:37 am
TomS,
Why do you believe that EVs will ever be more than a small percentage of cars? Just curious.
GregT

Of course electric cars will become a large percentage of the fleet over the next 30 years. You born in a cave not to think so Greg? Oh, I forgot, we all died in the big crash yet to happen.

rockman on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 7:41 am

Cat – Lifting costs? It really is impossible to offer a generalization that’s usefull. Not only does LOE vary greatly from trend to trend it’s very dependent on the individual well/field. The same operator could have 2 Eagle Ford wells each making 100 bopd and 1,000 bwpd. But one lease has its own SWD well and gets rid of the water for $0.20/bbl: $200/day. But the other lease has to haul the water out by truck and pay a disposal company to take it: $2.00/bbl: $2,000/day.

So $730,000 per year vs $73,000 per year. Now compare that to my conventional 400 bopd oil well that makes no water and costs me $24,000 per year to lift. And compare that to our cohort shallow, the stripper operator. His LOE might be low for that well: $1,200/month. But he has a net production of 1 bopd. At $90/bbl he was grossing $2,700/month. But now: $900/month. IOW he’s got negative cash flow.

Forget the world, the USA, Texas and even the Eagle Ford Shale trend. How could you tty to edtimate the AVERAGE lifting cost of nust the EFS wells operated by Chesapeake? Now try to expand that effort to all EFS wells…all Texas wells… all Bakken wells… all Deep Water Gulf of Mexico wells…all US wells… all Saudi wells… all global production…etc.

I can’t even offer a wild ass guess for any of those numbers. And I’ve been doing this for 40 years. lol. Which is why I take every estimate as complete bullsh*t. No one has a data base that comes close to DOCUMENTING any estimate.

I’m one of the smartest folks on this site because I have an excellent idea of what I DON’T know. lol.

Davy on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 7:44 am

Boat, are you saying everything is alright? Are you saying tech is solving our problems even as new ones pop up and old ones linger on? As for Ford claiming 40% of the cars produced will be electric by 2020 that sounds nutter to me. Boat who is more nutter you are me? I accept being a nutter but a nutter with a trend in his favor not a dying momentum like you.

JuanP on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 8:02 am

Saudi debt risks creeping up, https://www.rt.com/business/328649-saudi-arabia-debt-oil/

JuanP on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 8:03 am

Russia prepares for $20 oil, https://www.rt.com/business/328728-russia-oil-prices-budget/

JuanP on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 8:13 am

Greg & Mak, Tom is better left alone. I already explainde to him that his electric vehicle revolution comprises 0.1% of the global fleet. At today’s rate of yearly electric vehicle production of 500,000 or 0.05% of the global fleet, it would take 2,000 years to replace all non electric vehicles with electric alternatives, and that is assuming all those vehicles lasted for 2,000 years.

Tom is innumerate and simply cannot understand these matters, they are too complex for him. I just wrote this comment to help others from being confused by Tom’s innumerate dreams of a physically impossible future. Electric vehicles can’t be scaled up to replace the one billion non electric vehicles in the world today. Mak is simply 100% right, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

makati1 on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 8:16 am

He is added to my ‘ignore’ list. I don’t have tome to educate the uneducatable either. ^_^

Go Speed Racer on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 9:37 am

YO SLEEEP APNEAMAN,
I am so jealous of your beer and weed wagon. Wow. Look at all that steel.
http://www.history-of-cars.com/images/chrysler/1972-newport-211-003.jpg
I can smell that 11 miles per gallon from a distance, love at first sight.

You could put tank tracks on that thing, and a gun on top and win WW2.
:O)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Jx0sqzELZiE/TIj5ZhmrmpI/AAAAAAAAAHY/otkCNpINffA/s1600/Tanks+(2).jpg

What we need to do, is put a small nuclear reactor under the hood of these 5000 pound American 1970’s cars.
http://images.gtcarlot.com/pictures/30050713.jpg

Then we will drive them forever, without buying gasoline. If it works for the USS Nimitz, it could work for the land yachts too.

shortonoil on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 9:43 am

“Tom you are digging a hole. This is a routine activity once every couple of months. You come on here a trumpet EV’s and renewables and you get bitch slapped. You have a wonderful idea that is like an angel with iron wings. These technologies are never going to fly through the storm of reality testing.”

Most in the West have grown up during a period of such incredible plenty that they can not even imagine that bounty could come to an end. Even a child can have available to it more energy than did a Roman Emperor with his 50 legions. Most are unable to decipher the enigma of the physics that dictates the boundaries of that bounty; and with no prior experience they have no frame of reference from which to intuitively understand it.

Fossil fuels have propelled the world into an era of such prosperity that the world prior to it could not even have imaged. That wealth is based on the extraction of resources that took the earth half a billion years to accumulate. The fact that in a geological blink of an eye humanity has all but exhausted those resources is basically unfathomable to most. The fact that we no longer have the ability to produce legions of EVs to replace our soon to be obsolete petroleum powered fleets goes beyond the intuitive understanding of most.

Many will hang on to the illusion that the world that they knew will continue on forever. Many will be pacified with memories of the past as one part after another of this modern miracle disappears. Having no experience as to what the world consisted of before that miracle arrived, they will continue to intuitively refuse to believe that it is leaving.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

antaris on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 10:07 am

From Bountifulenergy “Oil production won’t enter a sustained decline for at least another decade, and the decline will be very gradual thereafter. There is a lot of time, and there are many alternatives.” Alternatives like eventually walking, or if fortunate riding a horse.

shortonoil on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 10:23 am

“From Bountifulenergy “Oil production won’t enter a sustained decline for at least another decade,”

“Having no experience as to what the world consisted of before that miracle arrived, they will continue to intuitively refuse to believe that it is leaving.”

WTI is $31 this morning. Most of the world’s producers are going broke, and at $31 none of them can replace the reserves that they are extracting. Bountifulenergy appears to be selling snake oil, and Dr. Marvels Magic Elixir.

“Sucker born every day; just enough to make a living” W.C. Fields

tahoe1780 on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 12:04 pm

Good one: http://www.amazon.com/Scarcity-Humanitys-Christopher-O-Clugston/dp/1621412504

Apneaman on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 12:39 pm

“Who else besides doomers say that. Me thinks you/ya’ll make up shyt.”

Boat you have been provided hundreds of links to many learned people since you first showed up. You ignore them. Me, I don’t do arguments from authority. I put in the time and read the research and data. There are literally thousands of these egg heads warning society, but they are drowned out by the propaganda machine and dismissed fragile ape psyches. I do not expect that to change – apes is fucking crazy.

Techno Fix – Why Technology Won’t Save Us Or the Environment

Michael Huesemann, Phd, chemical engineering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MsUypIHZhc

You Call this Progress?

Tom Murphy, Phd Physics.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2015/09/you-call-this-progress/

Ozzie Zehner: “Green Illusions” | Talks at Google

BS – Engineering, MS/Drs – Science and Technology Studies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6uVnyjTb58

Tom S on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 1:12 pm

JuanP:

“I already explainde to him that his electric vehicle revolution comprises 0.1% of the global fleet. At today’s rate of yearly electric vehicle production of 500,000 or 0.05% of the global fleet, it would take 2,000 years ”

That’s the number of EVs which exist right now, and the number being produced right now. I’m not asking how many there are right now. I’m asking why you believe that EVs COULD NEVER be more than a “very small” percentage. Why couldn’t more be built in the future?

“it would take 2,000 years to replace all non electric vehicles with electric alternatives”

So? I’m not asking how long it would take to replace 100% of current cars with EVs, if we don’t produce them any faster than now. I am asking why you or anyone believes that EVs could “never” be more than a “very small” percentage of total cars. Why couldn’t more of them be made in the future? That’s what I’m asking.

“Tom is innumerate and simply cannot understand these matters, they are too complex for him.”

You’re reverting to lashing out again and making inappropriate personal comments. That’s just not an answer to the question I asked. Again, this isn’t about me. Even if I’m innumerate, why can’t EVs ever constitute more than a “very small” fraction of cars?

“Tom’s innumerate dreams of a physically impossible future.”

I’m not offering any dreams. I’m asking a question. What reason do you have to believe that EVs could NEVER be more than a small fraction of cars?

“Electric vehicles can’t be scaled up to replace the one billion non electric vehicles in the world today.”

This is just stating your conclusion. I’m asking you WHY electric vehicles could never be more than a very small fraction of cars.

-Tom S

Apneaman on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 1:23 pm

Tom, you sound like a complete fucking idiot. Stop playing semantics. You’re no good at it.

Tom S on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 1:26 pm

Apneaman:

“Tom, you sound like a complete fucking idiot.”

You’re just lashing out hysterically again. That’s not an answer to the question. I’m asking why you or anyone believes that EVs could “NEVER” be more than a “very small” fraction of vehicles.

“Stop playing semantics. You’re no good at it.”

No, I’m asking a question. You’re making a statement about what I’m playing, but not answering the question. Again: why do you or anyone else believe that EVs could never be more than a small fraction of total cars?

-Tom S

Tom S on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 1:27 pm

short:

“WTI is $31 this morning. Most of the world’s producers are going broke, and at $31 none of them can replace the reserves that they are extracting.”

So? I wasn’t making any claims about the price of oil.

-Tom S

JuanP on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 1:38 pm

Tom, I have already provided you with links in the past to places where you can learn why your dream is chemically, physically, biologically, ecologically, and enrgetically impossible to achieve by humans on planet Earth.

You must visit Tom Murphy’s “Do The Math” website. Everything you need to learn is explained there in a very clear way. I’ve read it all for years, give it a try. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/

Apneaman on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 1:52 pm

Here’s Tom S, last May playing the exact same contrarian word games ) with Professor George Mobus on his fine site, “Question Everything”

Tom is a one trick pony.

“Hi George,

“(You) fail to provide any real evidence… I would suggest that if you want to have your claims taken seriously you do more than just state such-and-such is so.”

I didn’t just state that such-and-such is so. I provided a link whereby I show that Charles Hall et al (who coined the term “EROI”) wrongly calculated EROI, wrongly counted consumption as investment, did not account for recyclying and its effect on embedded energy, wrongly assumed that gross energy is constant, and so on. I showed that when those errors are corrected, the EROI for renewables is fine and the EROI for society as a whole has not been declining.

You haven’t posted any objections to that. I see some nasty personal remarks from you, but no actual objections. That’s just not a legitimate response. There are severe and widespread mathematical errors in this EROI stuff which invalidate its conclusions, and that needs to be addressed.

On this blog you regularly espouse things like “questioning your own beliefs” and so on. However, you are doing that less than almost anyone. You are responding to valid criticism by making nasty remarks and then not even addressing the criticism. Furthermore, your own collapse expectations and predictions were drastically mistaken, yet I see no evidence of any kind of critical questioning, from you or anyone else in this group. It is long overdue. I think you should take your own advice, and start asking some hard questions about why the predictions keep failing so badly.

Incidentally, there have been other researchers who are not members of the collapse/doomsday clique, and who have calculated the EROI of renewable sources of power. They found that the EROI for renewables was high. See many of the papers by Fthenakis, particularly The technical, geographical, and economic feasibility for solar energy to supply the energy needs of the US.

“consider not wasting our time please.”

Some of the readers here have wrongly prepared for doomsday/collapse over and over again, year in and year out, for decades. I don’t think it’s a waste of time to engage briefly in some critical thinking. Especially not from someone who claims that he questions his own beliefs.

I probably won’t post here any further. If you actually respond to criticism, then I may respond in turn. However, there is no point in my responding any more if you just don’t address criticisms.

I wish to remind you that it’s not a valid response just to engage in personal remarks and nothing else. You need to explain why this stuff is still valid despite the severe mathematical errors I pointed out, and why it’s still valid despite unrelenting failure of prediction for more than a decade.

-Tom S
Posted by: Desmond Smith | May 20, 2015 at 01:48 PM

http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2015/05/civilization-collapse-30.html?cid=6a00e54f9ea2e5883401b7c78dca71970b#comment-6a00e54f9ea2e5883401b7c78dca71970b

Here’s Tom getting spanked by Mobus.

“@Desmond/Tom S.,

I did read the website. Here is what I am talking about:

As an example, the paper[4] from C Hall (What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have?) calculates the EROI of oil. However, it includes the energy cost of freeways, automobiles, and so on. That is a mistake, because those things are energy consumption, not energy investments to obtain energy.
Hall et al have explained very reasonably the ways in which they count embodied energy in infrastructure apportioned to energy production (that portion of a road cost used to transport fuels for example). People in the business of calculating EROI have long recognized that the boundaries for energy expenditures must be large enough to take these factors into account.

In this statement you simply claim that it is a mistake by saying (not demonstrating) that it is consumption rather than investment (the embodied energy). This is a strange claim given that when we build a refinery, for example, we consume resources in its construction. However those resources are invested in the future production of fuels so it is definitely investment.

The next sentence is a red herring: “If you include all energy consumption as energy investment, then the EROI of every energy source is 1.”

Hall has never come close to trying to include ALL energy used for everything so this statement, while factually true as far as it goes does not do justice to the calculations actually done.

In Error #2:

It would be highly surprising if solar PV cells failed on exactly the day their warranty expired. For example, I bought a car with a 50,000 mile warranty, but it didn’t cease working at 50,000 miles.

Another red herring. And Hall etc did not just choose the warranty period as representing the life cycle for useful energy production. There is, however a strong correlation between warranty period lengths and actual average life times for panels so 25 years is not arbitrary.
From your prior comment:

Civilization is not facing declines in net free energy per capita.

You proceed to speculate about the meaning of China’s consumption of coal, I suspect making the same error of reasoning about what is investment vs. consumption. But you do not provide numbers or a calculation of what you mean by free energy per capita.
Trust me that over the years I have seen many papers attempting to show higher EROI for alternatives and speculations re: supplying BAU with enough energy to run and even grow our economy. Most of them have long since been debunked by deeper analysis and widening the boundaries. My own efforts at analysis show that solar PV cannot yet supply enough net free energy to both supply consumption needs (which I define quite precisely) and the work needed to replace the solar system over its useful life. In order to be successful, alternative energy sources need to supply both power to society for economic work and power to their replacement industries to do so (that doesn’t even get into maintenance).

Once again I will point out that I have been writing this blog for many years and have both questioned my own beliefs as well as shouldered criticisms. However I do insist that when someone makes a factual claim of any kind they be ready to back it up with evidence and not just more claims. The website you suggested would not meet the standards of rigor for scientific work and therefore would not be admissible as a standalone argument against EROI or Energy-LCA work. Nor does it provide any evidence for your claims that, essentially, energy is abundant.
Posted by: George Mobus | May 20, 2015 at 02:48 PM”

http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2015/05/civilization-collapse-30.html?cid=6a00e54f9ea2e5883401bb0831da3c970d#comment-6a00e54f9ea2e5883401bb0831da3c970d

GregT on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 3:51 pm

Juan,

Thanks for the link to Tom Murphy’s “Do The Math” website.

In the comments section on his article titled “My Chicken of an EV”, I found one comment to be of particular interest:

Beamspot on 2015-08-25 at 23:18 said:

“Being a former R+D engineer in Hybrid and Electric Vehicle department of a big manufacturer in Europe (where BMW, Audi and other car manufacturers use our proposals), and still working in the same company, but in a different department (since the former is being dismantled – reduced), I can say that serious manufacturers are starting to leave the BEV concept, and working only with hybrids, and in different veins, and only to pay back the effort (more than 1000M€ losses in that field).

Now, add the looming economic crisis (in fact, the same, the crash oil induced de-growth), and the most probable future is that cars, generally, will be declining in their use, and in two decades, only expensive EV’s, toys for the rich, may be produced, and only to flag the next target.”

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2015/08/my-chicken-of-an-ev/#more-1535

Right from the horses mouth, so to speak.

GregT on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 4:13 pm

I wonder is Tesla has an armoured and tracked version in the works?

The Tesla Tank “TM” UDV (Urban Defence Vehicle)

Apneaman on Wed, 13th Jan 2016 4:28 pm

What a Tesla Model S looks like after it bursts into flames while charging

http://bgr.com/2016/01/04/tesla-mode-s-fast-charging-fire/

Kenz300 on Thu, 14th Jan 2016 7:50 am