Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

"The Bottomless Well"

A forum to either submit your own review of a book, video or audio interview, or to post reviews by others.

"The Bottomless Well"

Unread postby spot5050 » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 19:33:13

Has anyone read this book?..

The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy
Peter Huber, Mark P. Mills

ISBN: 0465031161

Amazon Synopsis: "A myth-shattering book that explains why energy is not scarce, why the quality of energy is more important than quantity, and why "waste" of energy is both necessary and desirable. The sheer volume of talk about energy, energy prices, and energy policy on both sides of the political aisle suggests that we must know something about energy. But according to Peter Huber and Mark Mills, the things we "know" are mostly myths. In The Bottomless Well, Huber and Mills debunk the myths and show how a better understanding of energy will radically change our views and policies on a number of very controversial issues. They explain why demand will never go down, why most of what we think of as "energy waste" actually benefits us; why greater efficiency will never lead to energy conservation; and why the energy supply is infinite-it's quality of energy that's scarce and expensive. The Bottomless Well will also revolutionize our thinking about the automotive industry (gas prices don't matter and the hybrid engine is irrelevant), coal and uranium, the much-maligned power grid (it's the worst system we could have except for all the others), what energy supplies mean for jobs and GDP, and many other hotly debated subjects. "
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: "The Bottomless Well"

Unread postby ThinkGeek » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 20:03:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '
')
why the energy supply is infinite-it's quality of energy that's scarce and expensive. "


Uh what happened to the law of conservation of energy?

Just a question. :wink:

TG
Image
"I believe totally in a capitalist system, I only wish that someone would try it."- Frank Lloyd Wright
ThinkGeek
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 29 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Chicagoland

Unread postby khebab » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 21:10:52

______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Unread postby spot5050 » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 18:11:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('khebab', '[')url=http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic5820.html]http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic5820.html[/url]

I've read that thread now, thanks khebab. I'm going to add some stuff tho...

The authors make some interesting points. Try this;

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Bottomless Well', 'T')he first "deep water" oil wells stood in 100 feet of water in 1954. Today, they reach through 10,000 feet of water, 20,000 feet of vertical rock, and another 30,000 feet of horizontal rock.
Yet over the long term the price of oil has held remarkably steady. Ten-mile oil costs less than 69-feet oil did, and about the same as one-mile oil did about two decades ago. Production costs in the hostile waters of the Statfjord oil fields of the North Sea are not very different from costs at the historic Spindletop fields of South Texas a century ago. There have been price spikes and sags, but they have been tied to political and regulatory instabilities, not discovery and extraction costs.

Take your peak-oil cap off for a moment. Look at the above statement objectively, neutrally.

Why has the price of oil (in real terms) remained within a well defined range for decades?
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England

The Bottomless Well

Unread postby spot5050 » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 15:54:05

"The twilight of fuel, the virtue of waste, and why we will never run out of energy."
ISBN: 0-465-03116-1

I'm determined to give this book a fair hearing. I think some of it is interesting, however some of it is just bizarre.

Here are a few extracts. What do you think...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Bottomless Well', 'A') quads worth of wood is a huge forest... bulky and heavy. Pound for pound, coal stores about twice as much heat. Oil beats coal by about twice as much again. And a gram of U-235 is worth about four tons of coal. The proponents of solar, wind, biomass are pushing against a powerfull historical trend. Left to its own devices the market has not persued thin, low-energy-density fuels, however cheap - it has paid steep premiums for fuels that pack more energy into less weight and space.

and...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Bottomless Well', 'T')he transition to the hybrid electric car will be completed over the next two decades.

next...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Bottomless Well', 'A')t the end of the day, the consumer doesn't much care about the the cost of just the fuel or just the hardware - the consumer wants what they deliver together. The more we spend on the hardware, the less we notice the cost of the fuel.

last...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Bottomless Well', 'T')he fuel that spins the turbines alongside the Hoover Dam is free too; all the cost of hydroelectricity is attributable to the cement and the steel....
...the cost of energy as we actually use it will become further separated from the cost of fuel. Hoover Dam economics will continue to overtake our electricity supply, with more and more in the cost of the hardware, less and less in the fuel.

Just for fun, I might re-post these extracts in a few months time, but claim that they are from an article by Colin Campbell!
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Re: The Bottomless Well

Unread postby khebab » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 16:38:39

Hmm... these statements are good examples of how flat-earth economists "think". They live in a world free of physical constraints where the market alone is the driving force of our future.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Bottomless Well', 'A') quads worth of wood is a huge forest... bulky and heavy. Pound for pound, coal stores about twice as much heat. Oil beats coal by about twice as much again. And a gram of U-235 is worth about four tons of coal. The proponents of solar, wind, biomass are pushing against a powerfull historical trend. Left to its own devices the market has not persued thin, low-energy-density fuels, however cheap - it has paid steep premiums for fuels that pack more energy into less weight and space.


This statement actually demonstrates why oil is so important for our civilization in terms of energy density and availability and why alternatives are far behind.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Bottomless Well', 'T')he transition to the hybrid electric car will be completed over the next two decades.

baseless claim?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Bottomless Well', 'A')t the end of the day, the consumer doesn't much care about the the cost of just the fuel or just the hardware - the consumer wants what they deliver together. The more we spend on the hardware, the less we notice the cost of the fuel.

does not mean anything. If the price of the fuel increases so will the price of the hardware. Cheap energy is the prerequisite that makes the hardware cheap and widely available.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Bottomless Well', 'T')he fuel that spins the turbines alongside the Hoover Dam is free too; all the cost of hydroelectricity is attributable to the cement and the steel....
...the cost of energy as we actually use it will become further separated from the cost of fuel. Hoover Dam economics will continue to overtake our electricity supply, with more and more in the cost of the hardware, less and less in the fuel.

Ok, you build your dam and you have fuel-free energy. But dams have to be maintained, repaired and eventually have a limited life span. Maintenance is based on fuel.
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada
Top

Unread postby 0mar » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 17:01:19

If he's not a scientist or an oil industry person, I will summarily ignore all his claims about future fuel sources. Economics does not make predictions, it makes post-dictions.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Unread postby MicroHydro » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 17:07:42

Human stupidity will always be a bottomless well. :-x
"The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel
User avatar
MicroHydro
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun 10 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Geology_Guy » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 23:24:44

It's in our nature to live in the present. I have seen studies linking major amounts of greenhouse gas emissions to flooded vegetation in reservoirs.

Also as just pointed out reservoirs silt up. There are major reservoirs in the Midwest almost 50% filled with silt. The engineers 40 years ago figured 40 years was a good design span for the new lakes. Surely in 40 years we would be using fusion they thought and hydro-electric would not matter.

All of these lakes provide drinking water to cities and were built with cheap oil. Building new lakes won't be so cheap or easy.
Geology_Guy
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Re: "The Bottomless Well"

Unread postby halfin » Sat 11 Jun 2005, 17:42:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ThinkGeek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '
')
why the energy supply is infinite-it's quality of energy that's scarce and expensive. "


Uh what happened to the law of conservation of energy?


I read the book, and I think what they meant was that raw energy is basically inexhaustible partially because of conservation of energy - it can never be destroyed, only degraded - and partially because ultimately our energy comes from sunlight which, for practical human time scales, is inexhaustible.

However I don't think most of their physics claims add up. They have this notion of "quality" of energy and they create a sort of hierarchy based on it. Sunlight is the lowest quality and the most diffuse. Then oil is higher quality, it is like concentrated sunlight and is much more useful. Next up is electricity, which is purified energy to an even higher degree and which is even easier to put to use. Then at the highest level they have things like laser light and the arrays of microscopic electrical switches in computer chips, which are in their minds a very structured, purified and intense form of energy that is the most useful of all.

Physically speaking, the sunlight-to-oil comparison makes some sense, oil has more energy per, say, pound than a typical solar cell or green plant produces in a reasonable period of time. But then oil to electricity is hard to compare, because fundamentally electricity is power while oil is energy, and these have different units. Then trying to say that laser light is even more useful? Well, it is useful for certain things but you can't really compare it to electricity or have it rank higher as they do.

I didn't think this part of the book really worked, although it doesn't have that much to do with their basic premise about the "bottomless well" which is the standard argument that economic forces will motivate the discovery of new energy sources.
User avatar
halfin
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MD » Sat 11 Jun 2005, 18:19:17

They make some interesting arguments, with definite strength when looking at efficiency growth from technology and economy of scale. Also the idea of an efficient engine naturally running faster thus consuming the gains and more is an appealing argument.

From the other side, how about a comparison to product lifecycle from development through commodity? Computers for example (or automobiles if you like) started out as highly specialized, troublesome, and profoundly expensive items. Demand was driven by sales, marketing, and application specialists until the product caught on. Rapid advances ensued, affecting price and quality, until the product reached where it is today, nearly a commodity requiring much less technical expertise and where price is the major driver for most of the market. (retail and small busines markets, not specialized markets)Advances are still being made, but market maturation has also occured.

How does this compare to the oil market? Have we reached technological maturation? Have we reached "quantum speeds?" Can we accomplish a few more orders of magnitude of improvents thus extracting greater percentages of oil in place at marketable costs? The debate rages on, but it certainly looks like the answers will be evident soon enough
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball

Unread postby aahala » Mon 13 Jun 2005, 11:27:20

What I am getting from the discussion and the quotes from the book, is
that the book was mistitled.

Instead of being "The Bottomless Well" it should have been called
"The Well may be a lot deeper than others believe".

It's a completely different thing to claim something is in much greater
supply than previously believed as opposed to "there is no limit".

If the authors are really claiming unlimited energy, they ought to
test their local buffet bar with unlimited trips. The owner of the cafe
will undoubtedly have a different opinion of the meaning of unlimited.
User avatar
aahala
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Kingcoal » Mon 13 Jun 2005, 13:58:47

During the first energy crisis in the seventies, someone said that we were suffering from an intelligence crisis, not an energy crisis. That's the point argued here. We have a crisis, but it's a more of a failure to progress than anything else. Imagine if our ancestors had an unlimited amount of firewood. Would they then have even bothered with coal?

Real power is the level of organization of energy usage. My laptop consumes less than 14 watts, yet is orders of magnitude more powerful than the ENIAC, which consumed as much as a city block. This increase in efficiency is huge in the electronics business, however much slower in other disciplines.

I think that Peak Oil will spell the end of the internal combustion engine. What is needed is a breakthrough in electric battery technology. That is the only thing holding back electric cars. We have been very slow to progress past the ICE and Peak Oil will light a fire under that effort.
User avatar
Kingcoal
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed 29 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Unread postby bobcousins » Mon 13 Jun 2005, 15:45:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kingcoal', 'D')uring the first energy crisis in the seventies, someone said that we were suffering from an intelligence crisis, not an energy crisis. That's the point argued here. We have a crisis, but it's a more of a failure to progress than anything else. Imagine if our ancestors had an unlimited amount of firewood. Would they then have even bothered with coal?

Real power is the level of organization of energy usage. My laptop consumes less than 14 watts, yet is orders of magnitude more powerful than the ENIAC, which consumed as much as a city block. This increase in efficiency is huge in the electronics business, however much slower in other disciplines.

I think that Peak Oil will spell the end of the internal combustion engine. What is needed is a breakthrough in electric battery technology. That is the only thing holding back electric cars. We have been very slow to progress past the ICE and Peak Oil will light a fire under that effort.


There is a significant difference between electronics and other technology. Electronics can be made smaller, cheaper, faster, more efficient, etc, because it is processing information. One bit can theoretically be represented and processed by a relatively tiny number of atoms.

But you can't miniaturize a car and have it do the same job. It has to transport the same payload the same distance. The same applies to all the other matter we convert and transport. Its in bulk, and it needs lots of energy. This places a very significant limit on the things we can do.
It's all downhill from here
User avatar
bobcousins
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Left the cult
Top


Return to Book/Media Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron