[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '
')Still, I think my point is likely to stand: why get economic variables into the model when it doesn't need them to make useful predictions about peak oil?

[Baduila]

@Doly,
Which version of „Fundamentals od Engineering Thermodynamics“ do you have ?
In the following, I will give a coarse overview of the thermodynamic analysis. Some approximations are used, but not explained in detail. Much background information is omitted. I use png-images to
simplify my work. In sum it will be 11 images.

[Baduila]

[Baduila]

[Baduila]

[Baduila]

[Baduila]

[Baduila]

[AdamB]

A "Baduila" thermodynamics question.

I have an oven, containing hot rocks. 20 hot rocks to be precise. They are all at the temperature dictated by the oven.

I remove 1 hot rock without disturbing the temperature of the oven, or other hot rocks, in any way.

Does the temperature of the inside of the oven, or any of the remaining 19 hot rocks, change?

[Doly]

Baduila, that's really interesting. I have to read it slowly and think carefully about it. Thanks. I got the eighth edition of Moran.

Adam, under the conditions you propose, the temperature of the oven or the rocks would not change but the amount of heat in the oven would. All of which is totally irrelevant to the question of the amount of energy that might be required to extract the rock, or the amount of energy that would necessarily be wasted in the process of extracting the rock. So, as Baduila said, you do not appear to be able to discuss thermodynamics.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '
')Adam, under the conditions you propose, the temperature of the oven or the rocks would not change but the amount of heat in the oven would.

[Baduila]

Normally, i don’t read Adams posts because they are filled with lies and nonsense. I have put him on my list of foes about five years ago. This time i make an exception, because i want to find out if my explanation has typos.
Adam has found one (increases/decreases), so i replace part one with a new version.
The rest of his post is his usual mixture of lies and nonsense. I wrote in part one: „Water from the surface enters the oil reservoir.“ (see below) The water from the surface is cooler than the oil reservoir. For example, fracking requires pumping down millions of gallons of water before the first drop of oil leaves the well. Or in Ghawar, each day about 8 million barrel of water are pumped downwards. Adam seems to have never heard of both. Each person with a functioning brain will know, that the water cools the oil reservoir. Adam does not. And so on and on. His „oven experiment“ would have some relevance to oil production, if he would replace the rock with a liter of water. Why he does not get that ?

Discussing thermodynamics with Adam is like discussing colours with a blind person. It makes no sense at all.

[Baduila]

@Doly
Most of the persons discussing here believe, that the only conclusion of the second law ist, that the disorder in the world increases. They have not understood the importance of this law.

The 2nd is as important as the first law of thermodynamics, which is the conservation of energy. The 2nd law determines all transformations of one form of energy in another one. It is the basis of motor design, of power plant design etc. And it is the law of physics which describes the flow of time.
It is written in formulas, as all other laws of physics. The formulas can be used to determine the outcome of processes. It is always valid and is known for more than 150 years.

Oil production is a process of transforming an input energy (of machines and organisms) into output energy (oil), so the second law is valid for it.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')iscussing thermodynamics with Adam is like discussing colours with a blind person. It makes no sense at all.

[AdamB]

A "Baduila" thermodynamics question.

I have an oven, containing hot rocks. 20 hot rocks to be precise. They are all at the temperature dictated by the oven.

I remove 1 hot rock, and replace it with 1 cold rock without disturbing the temperature of the oven, or other hot rocks, in any way.

Does the cold rock stop the oven from functioning correctly (allowing the cold rock to influence the systems temperature) or somehow interfere with the other 19 rock's ability to remain at the temperature dictated by the oven, or does it warm up to the temperature of the system?

Sorry to the audience in general, but this isn't difficult at all and certainly doesn't need an edition of whatever textbook someone thinks we need to have a copy of to understand. This is Earth Science 101 type stuff and I'm trying real hard to not discuss specific heat, thermal conductivity or inertia, the rate of radioactive heat generation, etc etc.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')oes the cold rock stop the oven from functioning correctly (allowing the cold rock to influence the systems temperature) or somehow interfere with the other 19 rock's ability to remain at the temperature dictated by the oven

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')oes the cold rock stop the oven from functioning correctly (allowing the cold rock to influence the systems temperature) or somehow interfere with the other 19 rock's ability to remain at the temperature dictated by the oven

[Baduila]

@Doly

I have version 7, but i think chapter 6 and diagram 6.2 are the same.

The switch from energy to money and vice versa is an important point. Most people know, that the economy runs on energy, but always speak of the influence of money on the economy, and never mention the energy.
1. Money gets printed by central banks, and is created out of thin air. In theory, infinite amouts of money are available.
2. In contrast, energy is finite. Energy is used to produce energy.
This simple point has the following consequence: As long as a person believes, money explains the economy, they don’t understand the problem with energy:
To 1. If the money required to produce energy gets too high, some more money is to be printed by the central banks, and the problem vanishes.
To 2. In contrast, if the energy required to produce energy gets too high, a crash in the production system will occur.
You might think, this can’t be a problem, but it is. Most economic theories don’t ever mention energy. Only about 1995 Ayres and Kümmel started to include energy in economic theories, but this knowledge has not reached the public. ALL economists (i repeat: ALL) with which i talked were not able to think in energy terms instead of money terms. For them Peak Oil must be a problem of geology:
To 1: All oil available will be extracted, because some of the infinite money for extraction will be available.
But the reality is:
To 2: Oil extraction will experience a crash, when the extraction energy surpasses a limit. (Think of the critical point of diagram 6.2).

If you want to get an idea, what money really is, read David Graebers book „Debt: The first 5000 years.“
I myself use the energy intensity diagram, which is „world GDP“ divided by „world primary energy use“ for switching between money and energy. Money is not the same as energy, but the diagram is useful.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Baduila', '@')Doly

I have version 7, but i think chapter 6 and diagram 6.2 are the same.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Baduila', 'S')o, the trolls did not have an idea where ETP predicts 2 $ in 2021, but kublaikhan saved them, and showed an over simplified model which is the reason.

Last question:
The actual folks who work in oil production on this site have had a tendency to repeatedly point out that it's ECONOMICS that decides whether to produce oil at a given site, NOT thermodynamics.

Where in the ETP model is written that thermodynamics should be considered by drillers if they want to produce at a given site ?