Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby skyemoor » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 15:05:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '[')url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200604/ai_n16122056]Solar Plant[/url]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')EPOD announces the Company intends to construct a solar panel manufacturing facility in Kelowna, B.C. An estimated two megawatts of production capacity is anticipated to be available within six months, with the annual capacity of the plant projected to be five megawatts upon completion.



I'm thrilled to hear this kind of press release; the more PV plants, the better.

Note that 5MW of solar does not translate to constant output; my own 2kW PV array in Virginia only receives about 2.6 sun-hours per day in January on average, which means it's capacity is around 10% during that month. So that means the PV production of the plant is equal to about 0.5MW if converted to 100% duty cycle.

Image

A typical nuclear plant ranges from a low of about 500MW to 1GW of normally more than 90% duty cycle.

So while the plant you mention is good news, it would take the construction of 200,000 of them to equal just one 1GW nuclear plant. And our expected petroleum shortfall is, for a decline of -
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Drake', '
')1% would roughly mean a portion of 8 new GW plants for the US either to be saved or generated each year.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby skyemoor » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 15:23:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')s of 2004, the U.S. had about 271 years of measured, proven coal, economically exploitable with current prices and technology.


Tarry but a moment;

US National Academy of Sciences letter
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is clear that there is enough coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030, and probably enough for 100 years, the committee said. However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply for the next 250 years.


Main National Academies report
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')A combination of increased rates of production with more detailed reserve analyses that take into account location, quality, recoverability, and transportation issues may substantially reduce the estimated number of years supply. This increasing uncertainty associated with the longer-term projections arises because significant information is incomplete or unreliable. The data that are publicly available for such projections are outdated, fragmentary, or inaccurate—these deficiencies are elaborated below. Because there are no statistical measures to reflect the uncertainty of the nation’s estimated recoverable reserves, future policy will continue to be developed in the absence of accurate estimates until more detailed reserve analyses—which take into account the full suite of geographical, geological, economic, legal, and environmental characteristics—are completed.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby skyemoor » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 15:41:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')ll of the growing alternatives (gas, coal, nuclear, hydro and renewables) produce EV fuel (i.e. electricity), and none of them will peak in the pre-peak-gas period (with the possible exception of hydro).


Let's focus on North America for a moment. Natural Gas has been in overall decline (yearly fluctuations notwithstanding), and all of the production is taken up with space heating, current electrical generation, and industrial processes, with the latter two demands having had some curtailment when supplies have been tight over the last few years. I have no confidence in anyone's claims that N.A. natural gas will increase overall in the coming years; just the opposite, in fact. N.A. does not have sufficient LNG transfer facilities at this time to ramp up import (which would further reduce energy independence) even if there were suppliers that could drastically ramp up their delivery. Note that Qatar has to move their shipments through the Persian Gulf, making any conflict with Iran a point at which those supplies become highly unreliable.

New nuclear plants in the US coming on line anytime soon? I'd like to hear about them and their target dates for being fully operational.

Additional hydro facilities? I'd like to hear about those as well, and their expected capacity.

Renewables: you must mean wind, primarily (if not, provide projects, their completion dates, and expected annual kWH output). Wind certainly is growing at a brisk rate, though is still far down the scale when it comes to percentage of US electricity production, probably still less than 1%, certainly less than 2%.

This leaves coal to shoulder the ramp-up in the next decade. Even if the majority of autos produced in the next 10 years where EV or plug-in hybrid, the use of coal to power them would blacken the skies in N.A., the way it is in many parts of China at present, only worse. Who would want or accept that? The push to shutdown attempts to start up new coal plants has a tremendous head of steam in the US.

Okay. Let's go with your version. Do you expect to see no LNG, no nuclear and no new coal in the U.S.? Do you believe that U.S. energy production will enter a terminal decline, starting now? And industry/government/citizens will passively accept that?


Ok, so you punted. Let's now address the strawmen;

- "No LNG?" I never implied that, simply stated that there were foreign energy dependence issues and imports from volatile regions of the world. Now, what new LNG receiving facilities have been funded and cleared for construction in the US?

- "No nuclear?". I also didn't imply this, though I've done your homework for you, see
the list of proposed new nuclear plants. All most all of them are "yet to be determined" or "licensing submittal FY 2009" and so forth. There are 3 that are listed as going forward; one is in Virginia at North Anna, which is really a refit. Another was approved in 2007, but the design and number of units are "yet to be determined".

- "No new coal?" Not even close to implying this.

Hence, I cannot accept the offer of your strawmen.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby kublikhan » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 15:53:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') always look for the proportion that is wishful thinking (along the lines of Hirsch's report, which ignored yet to be proven technologies), in terms of efficacy, scale, timeliness and likelihood. So far, I've read nothing that doesn't contain a large dollop of that. I wish it were otherwise.
Are you saying the Hirsch report is wishful thinking?

Also, have you looked at the IEA's alternate energy scenarios?
They list your criteria of efficiency, scale, timeliness, etc.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2006 ... tsheet.pdf
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby skyemoor » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 16:03:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')re scooters "the solution". No. The "solution" is the entire scope of responses, i.e.:

Conservation = Walking + Bikes + Mopeds + Scooters + Motorcycles + Electric bicycles + Carpooling + Telecommuting + Riding the bus + Moving nearer to work + Sleeping at/near work + Small EVs + Full-size EVs + PHEVs + Hybrids + Light/High-efficiency conventional vehicles etc.


I'll accept the similarities to a Heinberg Powerdown are probably only about 50%.

I'm a big believer in moving towards this type of transportation restructuring; I was on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan committee for my rapidly growing County. Let's look at each of these one by one;

Walking: People should do more of this, though few American do, and suburbanites are in land use hell when it comes to doing much walking at all, especially suburbs that have been developed in the last 40 years (highly auto-dependent). So while city-dwellers can more easily walk and take mass transit (when available), suburbanites and exurbanites are highly discouraged from doing so.

Biking: There are several big drawbacks to biking in the US, many of which I discovered during my bike commuting days;
- Safety: Too many cars/SUVs means the streets are perceived as unsafe. Catch-22.
- Rain/Snow/Sleet is an issue in and around many US population centers. Even Southern California is having to deal with this now.
- Darkness in winter is another problem; people often leave for work or return when it's dark. Longer commute times with bikes only exacerbate this safety issue.
- Distance: With the majority of commutes over 10 miles, biking is perceived as too much work or leaves people too sweaty (with very few offices having showers, much less a large number of showers to support a significant shift to biking).

Mopeds + Scooters + Motorcycles + Electric bicycles: The same issues exist for bikes, for the most part. City and inner suburbs can benefit from these vehicles, assuming pollution levels do not go up, though rain/snow/sleet, safety perceptions, and distance put the chill on these for outer suburbs and exurbs.

Carpooling + Riding the bus: I've done both of these, though the typical American psyche seems highly resistant, especially riding the bus, as that is perceived as something only poor people do.

Telecommuting: I see this trend as being somewhat promising, though the Internet would have to ramp up to cover the massive amount of bandwidth required for virtual meetings (i.e., video and VOIP teleconferencing, electronic whiteboarding, application sharing, and so forth). One has to wonder how many people can truly work from a distance at their jobs, and then what percentage of their companies would not only allow that, but support them with the requisite tools and vastly expanded IT infrastructure?

Moving nearer to work + Sleeping at/near work: How much real estate is sitting vacant near large population centers? What is the cost of renting a room, if there is enough real estate available to build these corporate apartments? This might work for a small percentage of people, but the expense will impact family budgets (and time spent with the family).

Small EVs + Full-size EVs + PHEVs + Hybrids + Light/High-efficiency conventional vehicles: How many of these are available right now? Hybrids are the only ones, and they are stuck at 3% of the market, even with high oil prices. The others are mostly on the drawing board, and will require a minimum of 5 years to get to the market (Volt notwithstanding, though its first years production runs will be low). We won't see appreciable levels of production from these for many years to come, for the reasons of cultural inertia (e.g., "I'm a guy, I need a truck to maintain a guy image", soccer-mom, etc), industry resistance (how will that change the near term profit margin where light trucks are the only thing making money?), political hesitance (it took 30 years to raise CAFE standards). Again, even if the whole industry changed their roadmap overnight, it would still take at least 5 years of the new design/retooling cycle (likely much longer, as tooling manufacturers would have backorders of several years), and only then would the fleet begin the 18 year replacement cycle. Do we see signs of such a turnaround? Just yesterday, GM CEO Troy Clarke declared, "Malibu is the most important launch in the history of General Motors." India auto manufacturer Tara Motors will unveil their $2500 car for the Indian population tomorrow. So you can talk about what the world could be doing, but what is it doing in actuality?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')he real-world question is: How many people can that cover, and how fast can that scale?


Precisely. Technology is not the problem. We have the technology to produce high-mpg cars relatively easily. The issues again are;
- Cultural inertia
- Industry resistance
- Political cowardice (at least in one party)
- Time to accomplish a transition; we have little time remaining and so much change required.

A transition could be accomplished in 10 years, though it would require extraordinary efforts on the part of industry, government, and the citizenry, all of which are currently lacking, with little hope of rapid or far-reaching change. You seem to want to dismiss the projections of Robert Hirsch, though I would suggest you compare your resume to his.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'E')very junky can/does quit when the stuff runs out. Liquid fuels will get scarce. Ergo, people will stop using liquid fuel vehicles, no matter how addicted they are to them.


If it were only that simple. What is the best selling vehicle in the US right now? Ans: the Ford F-150. Even with gas prices hovering around $3, the addicts will not back down. So it is not a matter of what can we do right this instant and over the next few years, but what change can be realized by a inculcated population bombarded with SUV advertising and false hopes from bought energy analysts (i.e, Lynch, Yergin, et al). The population doesn't have to be convinced that there is a lot of energy left for them to consume, the just have to have a little bit of doubt that there is a possibility of PO in the near future so that they can stay cozy and warm in the soft cushions of denial. That's the point that you have yet to ken.

Image

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'I') foresee too many people clinging to their old ways just because they think it's 'normal' and because they can.

If they *can* still cling to their old ways, then there's no problem, so what's there to worry about?

Because they will slowly stop buying other products from other areas of the economy ("Hey, but I'm still driving!"), which will drag the economy into a deep recession, on top of what will already be happening from subprime abuses. Personal savings will reach all time lows, and the ability of the US consumer to 'buy' their way out of a recession or depression will be non-existent.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'I')f they *can't* still cling to their old ways, then they will change, and your worries about their inability to change are groundless.

So in a recession, or after they've gone farther into debt to maintain their lifestyle addiction, they'll simply be able to go out and replace their 3 year old F-150 Super Cab with a $25,000 plug-in hybrid? I just had a neighbor buy an F-150 Super Cab last fall because he "got such a great deal on dealer markdown." No, you are still being overly optimistic, and they won't get much for their SUV if they try to sell it when gas hits $3.50 (and resale of them is painful now, as was pointed out). Then there's Jeavon's paradox, even if it irritates you to admit it; if some small percentage of people transition, then prices will drop a little, and the rest of the addicts will be falsely encouraged to stay on the habit longer. Rinse, repeat ad nauseum. Those who live outside of the inner suburbs will see their house values plummet far further, making them even more financially insecure and unable to purchase an EV/Hybrid/Plug-in/etc, and those are the ones who tend to drive the longest distances with SUV/minivan/4x4Pickups.

In short, I see no realistic outcome that will avoid a serious financial crisis, with collapse a distinct possibility.
Last edited by skyemoor on Thu 10 Jan 2008, 16:23:05, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TheDude » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 16:15:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'S')o while the plant you mention is good news, it would take the construction of 200,000 of them to equal just one 1GW nuclear plant.


Nukes are only good for baseload though, except ABWRs which can do load following. Solar can fill a niche for peak power in summer months when A/C is going hogwild.

In re: cost you'd have to figure what 200K of those 5mw panels would cost in comparision to a 1GW NP's bill - about $1200/kw for a new Westinghouse. Nukes take about half a decade of paperwork/planning just to get started, too. Isn't looking like LNG has much of a future in the US either.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ohnDenver wrote:
All of the growing alternatives (gas, coal, nuclear, hydro and renewables) produce EV fuel (i.e. electricity), and none of them will peak in the pre-peak-gas period (with the possible exception of hydro).


Gas won't peak before gas peaks? Tell me more. Didn't realize hydro was going to peak, either. Did you read about the Grand Inga Project?
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TonyPrep » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 20:21:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'H')ave you ever seen M. King Hubbert's nuclear future (from his 1956 paper, Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels)? Here it is:
Image

How did Richard prove that to be impossible?
He doesn't have to prove it impossible. Your alternatives have to scale and in a timely fashion. It is critical to your hypothesis (that fossil fuel declines will have no severe consequences for society) that alternatives are not only possible but also scale on a timescale that keeps things ticking along with only relatively minor behavioural changes. Hubbert's projection is based on knowledge at the time. Currently, we only know of economically accessible uranium reserves that will only last 40-70 years, current consumption rates (don't know about the peak). There are new designs envisaged, there are new nuclear fuel sources envisaged but that is all wishful thinking, whether it has a sound basis or not.

Your debunking is not about what is possible; you say that your proposed alternatives will come on stream in a timely fashion, implying scaleability and smooth take up, which may be (and, I think, is) unrealistic.

By the way, you new sig line is puerile. Taking quotes out of context appears to be a common tactic of yours, as does trying ridicule. It doesn't bother me because those tactics weaken your position, until you can prove scalability (and timely scalability), for starters.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby Tyler_JC » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 20:38:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Hubbert's projection is based on knowledge at the time. Currently, we only know of economically accessible uranium reserves that will only last 40-70 years, current consumption rates (don't know about the peak).


That phrase is extremely dangerous.

What do the economically recoverable reserves look like if electricity prices return to the 1960s levels? 1950s levels? 1940s levels?
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby JohnDenver » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 21:01:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')Please provide the 1.8% production decline rate prediction by Campbell.


The details are provided here: STRONG ARGUMENT FOR A SLOW DECLINE


Ok, so now we have established a context by looking at All Liquids for this portion of the discussion. There are issues with the All Liquids metric (discussed below), but it would still be best if we continued keeping the context of decline rates focused on specific categories (i.e., CO, C&C, current producing wells, all liquids, future expected production, etc)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ttp://www.energybulletin.net/29162.html
Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari: says ".. My World Oil Production Capacity model has predicted that over the next 14 years, present global production of 82 million barrels per day will decrease by roughly 32%, down to around 55 million barrels per day by the year 2020."


Yes, that's genuine. Bakhtiari was on the pessimistic side of the scale, with a rate of 2.8%. His figure of 82mbd for peak was in error. We are currently at about 86mbd.


Here we must keep track of the category in question; Bakhtiari was referring to CO+NGL; you seem to be referring to All Liquids, hence Bakhtiari was not in error. Note that All Liquids include biofuels that consume near or more than their EROEI, making their inclusion questionable at best, purposefully misleading at worst. All Liquids also includes unconventional fuels (primarily tar sands), which have an EROEI of around 1.5, hence their inclusion suffers similar flaws.

EROEI is an irrelevant measure. Oil refining, GTL and CTL all have an EROEI <1, but they're still worth doing. The only relevant measure regarding ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and other unconventional liquids is LEROLEI (Liquid Energy Returned On Liquid Energy Invested). The main fuel for tar sands is NG, and the main fuel for ethanol is NG/coal. It makes sense at this point in time to invest gases/solids to return liquids. (Not that I approve of corn ethanol. I don't. I'm just noting that your point about EROEI is not valid.)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '[')img]http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Oilwatch_dec_oildrum_1.png[/img]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ttp://newsroom.slb.com/press/inside/print_article.cfm?ArticleID=213&printable=1
Andrew Gould, CEO of Schlumberger, said of the oil decline that "An accurate average decline rate is hard to estimate, but an overall figure of 8% is not an unreasonable assumption".
Gould is speaking of the base decline rate (i.e. the decline of fields in place, prior to bringing new projects on line).

Good, this categorization of decline rates should become the norm here.
Wow, talk about denial... :roll:

You still haven't refuted the fact that Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere and S. Staniford are all calling for post-peak decline rates of <2% for 20 years. That's quite an authoritative consensus if you ask me. I believe the burden is on you to explain why those people are wrong.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby kublikhan » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 21:43:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'b')iofuels consume near or more than their EROEI
I don't believe that is correct. Every "expert" has different numbers, but the source I found had these values:
Saudia Arabia Oil: 1:10.0
Cellulose Ethanol: 1: 6.0
Soybean Biodiesel: 1: 3.2
US Oil: 1: 3.0
Corn Ethanol: 1: 1.7

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1475
Sources used by article:
Power Down, Richard Heinberg
The Earth Policy Institue
Natural Resorces Defence Council
U.S. Energy Information Administration
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Even assuming the numbers are inflated and Corn Ethanol is near break even, don't lump all biofuels in the same category as Corn Ethanol.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby JohnDenver » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 21:57:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'H')ave you ever seen M. King Hubbert's nuclear future (from his 1956 paper, Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels)? Here it is:
Image

How did Richard prove that to be impossible?
He doesn't have to prove it impossible.

On the contrary! He does have to prove it impossible because that's his (and your) thesis. You and Richard aren't special privileged people who get to make claims without rigorous proof.

As you recall (and I can pull up the screen shot if need be), I challenged you to define the problem of scale in one sentence, to tell me what human beings will not be able to do.

You responded with this:

Replace fossil fuels for all of their uses, on scales that business as usual would dictate, on a timescale that mitigates the impact of fossil fuel declines and that doesn't impact our habitat for the worse.

Therefore, Heinberg (and you) need to show that humans will *not be able* to scale up nuclear to compensate for fossil fuel declines. I.e. that it is *impossible* for them to do so. That is what your claim (verbatim, as you made it) manifestly says.

Your comment below is not even remotely in the ballpark of such a proof.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ubbert's projection is based on knowledge at the time. Currently, we only know of economically accessible uranium reserves that will only last 40-70 years, current consumption rates (don't know about the peak). There are new designs envisaged, there are new nuclear fuel sources envisaged but that is all wishful thinking, whether it has a sound basis or not.

Your debunking is not about what is possible; you say that your proposed alternatives will come on stream in a timely fashion, implying scaleability and smooth take up, which may be (and, I think, is) unrealistic.


Let's keep our eye on the ball, Tony.

The proposition at hand, in either your version:
The issue of scale (Tony's version): [Humans will not be able to...] Replace fossil fuels for all of their uses, on scales that business as usual would dictate, on a timescale that mitigates the impact of fossil fuel declines and that doesn't impact our habitat for the worse.

or my version:
The issue of scale (Realistic version): [Humans will not be able to... ] Replace fossil fuels for all of their uses, on scales that maintain functionality, on a timescale that mitigates the impact of fossil fuel declines, while providing the low-level of environmental protection actually demanded by the electorate.

Does not say "Humans will not". It says "Humans will not be able to". As I said, we can go back to the original screenshot, if necessary, to confirm this. The fact that you are trying to move the goalposts in the middle of this debate speaks volumes about the strength of your position.

Your claim is that humans *can't* scale up alternatives to compensate for fossil fuels. Since nuclear is an alternative, your claim is that humans *can't* scale up nuclear to compensate for fossil fuels. It's all there in black and white. So you better get crackin' and show us the proof. Or, alternatively, take the path of honesty and admit that you have no proof.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y the way, you new sig line is puerile. Taking quotes out of context appears to be a common tactic of yours, as does trying ridicule. It doesn't bother me

Then why are you bringing it up? I offered fair and reasonable truce terms a few pages back. You ignored me.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby JohnDenver » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 22:16:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'F')inally found some data on sales. "Growth rates" are the essential terms to use.

Size of Market for Motor Scooters


Interesting link Dude. Thanks for all the good work. :)
It's clear that the world scooter market is quite large already, and growing rapidly. It's hard to get a clear picture, though, due to all the categories (electric bikes, mopeds, electric scooters, ICE scooters, small motorcycles, EV trikes etc.)
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby JohnDenver » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 22:21:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'O')k, so you punted.
- "No LNG?" I never implied that.
- "No nuclear?". I also didn't imply this
- "No new coal?" Not even close to implying this.

When you acquiesce to my position, as you just did, that's not me punting. That's me sacking you for a 15 yard loss. :lol:
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby yesplease » Thu 10 Jan 2008, 23:43:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')re scooters "the solution". No. The "solution" is the entire scope of responses, i.e.:

Conservation = Walking + Bikes + Mopeds + Scooters + Motorcycles + Electric bicycles + Carpooling + Telecommuting + Riding the bus + Moving nearer to work + Sleeping at/near work + Small EVs + Full-size EVs + PHEVs + Hybrids + Light/High-efficiency conventional vehicles etc.


I'll accept the similarities to a Heinberg Powerdown are probably only about 50%.

I'm a big believer in moving towards this type of transportation restructuring; I was on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan committee for my rapidly growing County. Let's look at each of these one by one;
I think both these assessments are both disingenuous. They are ignoring the easiest/cheapest alternative, a used compact car. I can go out and buy a car that gets the same mileage as any hybrid for a fifteenth or twentieth of the cost. I've seen more and more people on my block adopt a second or third small car in the past few year. The average mileage for passenger vehicles, including those not covered under CAFE is around 15mpg. It's not hard to find a compact car that can double this...

If people don't want to because of perception that's their choice, but they'll go broke that way unless they alter their behavior.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby skyemoor » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 00:10:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'b')iofuels consume near or more than their EROEI
I don't believe that is correct. Every "expert" has different numbers, but the source I found had these values:
Saudia Arabia Oil: 1:10.0
Cellulose Ethanol: 1: 6.0
Soybean Biodiesel: 1: 3.2
US Oil: 1: 3.0
Corn Ethanol: 1: 1.7


Yes, every 'expert' has different values;

Gasoline 6-to-1 and 10-to-1, says Cutler Cleveland, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University.
Soybean-based biodiesel 1.9 to 1, University of Minnesota
Corn Ethanol 1.24 to 1 (primary energy only) US Department of Agriculture
Corn Ethanol 1.25 to 1 University of Minnesota
Other studies have shown ethanol to be energy negative;
- Keeney and DeLuca (1992)
- Pimentel (1991) (a likely outlier)
- Ho (1989)

And yes, I should have specified corn ethanol, which is by far the most dominant biofuel in the US.

It's a bit premature to provide figures for cellulosic ethanol as there is no production ready process to establish measurements.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby skyemoor » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 00:18:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'O')k, so you punted.
- "No LNG?" I never implied that.
- "No nuclear?". I also didn't imply this
- "No new coal?" Not even close to implying this.

When you acquiesce to my position, as you just did, that's not me punting. That's me sacking you for a 15 yard loss. :lol:


I had stated serious issues with high growth expansion of the energy sources above. You attempted to push a weak strawman on me that said I must have meant that any growth was impossible, which I of course rejected. Your 'sack' has been erased by your being offsides and now I'm another 10 yards down the field with 1st and 10. Now make sure you don't get called for unsportsmanlike conduct...
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby skyemoor » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 00:36:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')Ok, so now we have established a context by looking at All Liquids for this portion of the discussion. There are issues with the All Liquids metric (discussed below), but it would still be best if we continued keeping the context of decline rates focused on specific categories (i.e., CO, C&C, current producing wells, all liquids, future expected production, etc)


Note this discussion when you get to the bottom of the post.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ttp://www.energybulletin.net/29162.html
Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari: says ".. My World Oil Production Capacity model has predicted that over the next 14 years, present global production of 82 million barrels per day will decrease by roughly 32%, down to around 55 million barrels per day by the year 2020."


Yes, that's genuine. Bakhtiari was on the pessimistic side of the scale, with a rate of 2.8%. His figure of 82mbd for peak was in error. We are currently at about 86mbd.


Here we must keep track of the category in question; Bakhtiari was referring to CO+NGL; you seem to be referring to All Liquids, hence Bakhtiari was not in error. Note that All Liquids include biofuels that consume near or more than their EROEI, making their inclusion questionable at best, purposefully misleading at worst. All Liquids also includes unconventional fuels (primarily tar sands), which have an EROEI of around 1.5, hence their inclusion suffers similar flaws.


I assume you understood this, though you made no mention.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'E')ROEI is an irrelevant measure. Oil refining, GTL and CTL all have an EROEI <1, but they're still worth doing. The only relevant measure regarding ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and other unconventional liquids is LEROLEI (Liquid Energy Returned On Liquid Energy Invested). The main fuel for tar sands is NG, and the main fuel for ethanol is NG/coal. It makes sense at this point in time to invest gases/solids to return liquids. (Not that I approve of corn ethanol. I don't. I'm just noting that your point about EROEI is not valid.)

I'm afraid I must disagree. You have been touting how other energy sources could be ramped up to plug the oil deficit, but if these other energy sources are being taxed to make biofuels, then they themselves will be working from a deficit position.

And NG is in decline in N.A., which is another serious crisis developing all on its own.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ttp://newsroom.slb.com/press/inside/print_article.cfm?ArticleID=213&printable=1
Andrew Gould, CEO of Schlumberger, said of the oil decline that "An accurate average decline rate is hard to estimate, but an overall figure of 8% is not an unreasonable assumption".
Gould is speaking of the base decline rate (i.e. the decline of fields in place, prior to bringing new projects on line).

Good, this categorization of decline rates should become the norm here.
Wow, talk about denial...

No, see above. I was merely stating that we should be careful about categorizing decline rates like you had above, to avoid confusion. I concur that Campbell is showing a 1.8% decline over all current and projected production of All Liquids in the Jan 2008 ASPO newsletter.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby JohnDenver » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 01:28:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')re scooters "the solution". No. The "solution" is the entire scope of responses, i.e.:

Conservation = Walking + Bikes + Mopeds + Scooters + Motorcycles + Electric bicycles + Carpooling + Telecommuting + Riding the bus + Moving nearer to work + Sleeping at/near work + Small EVs + Full-size EVs + PHEVs + Hybrids + Light/High-efficiency conventional vehicles etc.


I'll accept the similarities to a Heinberg Powerdown are probably only about 50%.

I'm a big believer in moving towards this type of transportation restructuring; I was on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan committee for my rapidly growing County. Let's look at each of these one by one;
I think both these assessments are both disingenuous. They are ignoring the easiest/cheapest alternative, a used compact car. I can go out and buy a car that gets the same mileage as any hybrid for a fifteenth or twentieth of the cost. I've seen more and more people on my block adopt a second or third small car in the past few year. The average mileage for passenger vehicles, including those not covered under CAFE is around 15mpg. It's not hard to find a compact car that can double this...


Good point. I've added your suggestion to the equation:
Conservation = Walking + Bikes + Mopeds + Scooters + Motorcycles + Electric bicycles + Carpooling + Telecommuting + Riding the bus + Riding the tram/train/subway + Moving nearer to work + Sleeping at/near work + NGVs + Small EVs + Full-size EVs + New electric trains + Electrifying existing diesel rail + Electric trucks + PHEVs + Hybrids + Ultralight/Ultraefficient conventional vehicles + Buying a used compact car as a second vehicle + Converting oil-fired generation to coal/nuclear + Jacking up CAFE standards + Increasing downtown parking rates + Lowering speed limits + Compressed work week
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TheDude » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 03:17:38

Actually Hubbert later in life was a champion of solar power, not nuclear, not to mention vehemently insistent that our rampant materialism must come to an end: Hubbert's Prescription for Survival, A Steady State Economy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ess well known were Hubbert's studies since 1926 on the rate of industrial growth and of mineral and energy resources and their significance in the evolution of the world's present technological civilization. 3 Clark in "Geophysics" in February 1983 states ""In recent years, he (Hubbert) has assaulted a target -- which he labels the culture of money --that is gigantic even by Hubbert standards. His thesis is that society is seriously handicapped because its two most important intellectual underpinnings, the science of matter-energy and the historic system of finance, are incompatible. A reasonable co-existence is possible when both are growing at approximately the same rate. That, Hubbert says, has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution but it is soon going to end because the amount the matter-energy system can grow is limited while money's growth is not.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he key to making this cultural alteration is to come up with a limitless supply of cheap energy. Hubbert feels the answer is obvious--solar power--and he does not feel more technological breakthroughs are needed before it can be made universally available. His faith is not that of a knee-jerk trendy but that of a doubter who did much studying before his conversion.

"Fifteen years ago I thought solar power was impractical because I thought nuclear power was the answer. But I spent some time on an advisory committee on waste disposal to the Atomic Energy Commission. After that, I began to be very, very skeptical because of the hazards. That's when I began to study solar power. I'm convinced we have the technology to handle it right now. We could make the transition in a matter of decades if we begin now.""


You still haven't addressed the issue of the ELM, JD. UK and Indonesia went to net imports in seven years. You are semi-correct in pointing out that oil is a fungible resource, but what do we do when the whole world is going through the same transition?

Don't expect you to respond in any constructive way to that either, though. Beginning to agree with pstarr that either you are willfully obtuse, have a big ax to grind, or are a mole on a payroll; at any rate there's no talking to you, it seems.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby kublikhan » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 03:46:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'Y')es, every 'expert' has different values;
Gasoline 6-to-1 and 10-to-1, says Cutler Cleveland, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University.
Soybean-based biodiesel 1.9 to 1, University of Minnesota
Corn Ethanol 1.24 to 1 (primary energy only) US Department of Agriculture
Corn Ethanol 1.25 to 1 University of Minnesota
Other studies have shown ethanol to be energy negative;
- Keeney and DeLuca (1992)
- Pimentel (1991) (a likely outlier)
- Ho (1989)
And yes, I should have specified corn ethanol, which is by far the most dominant biofuel in the US.
It's a bit premature to provide figures for cellulosic ethanol as there is no production ready process to establish measurements.

The studies that suggest biofuels are energy negative have been rebuttled here: National BioDiesel Board
Their arguments seem sound enough to me that I don't believe the the outliers' claims that biofuels are energy negative.

I read the Minnesota study. Most of it seems fairly sound. I did object to a few points they used to calculate EROEI. For example:
"sustaining farmers and their households"
"sustaining production facility workers and their households"
Essentially, they are including how much energy the refinery worker's wife uses to blow dry her hair when calculating how efficient biofuels are. And how much food his family eats in a day. Come now, doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous to you? I don't see Oil EROEI calculations being held to the same standard. Even using these ridiculous standards, they estimate cellulose ethanol to have a EROEI of greater than 4 to 1.

Still, I am no proponent of corn ethanol. I would like to see ethanol production switched to cellulose ethanol. Our fuel supply should not be competing with our food supply, and the EROEIs are much better. I don't see that happening anytime soon with the powerful corn lobby reaping in the subsidies.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron