Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Robert L Hirsch Thread (merged)

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

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby holmes » Wed 07 Jun 2006, 14:04:40

AND TO TOP IT ALL OFF..CORN IS A 100% UNSUSTAINABLE CROP WHEN GROWN IN MASS PRODUCTION MONOCULTURE. IT SUCKS WATER AND SOIL DOWN LIKE A PONZI SCHEME. IT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTORS TO OUR LOSS OF WATER AND SOIL.
END OF FUCKING STORY.
SCAM. PONZI.
"To crush the Cornucopians, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Wed 07 Jun 2006, 17:05:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')I suppose I will take on #2.

"A 10% INCREMENTAL recovery ( change in IOR ) translates to about 1.4 TRILLION barrels of recoverable resources, roughly an additional 50-year supply of global crude oil consumption at current rates."

You have made it pretty easy for me or anyone else actually by pinning your #2 point on one person.
Are you sure you would not wish to include some others who might be harder to discredit???



Why don't we start here and see where it goes? A quote from Mr Saleri was easy to get, I used him primarily for convienence plus he is on point in the article referenced.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')Mr. Saleri is being used by many to discredit not only Hirsch but Simmons as well.


Simmons can't quote an SPE paper without screwing it up, Mr Hirsch is quite a bit more capable. And yes, the statement I referenced appears to fly against the results of the modelling done in the 2005 Hirsch report.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')It seems that you are missing something very substantial in your calculations.


I haven't made any calculations to verify or contradict Mr Saleri, I simply used his opinion to justify why Mr Hirsch is wrong in his mitigation size for IOR.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')In their own words they believe they can produce "10,12 and even 15 MBPD for the next 50 years" but they will not say how much of it is sour vs. sweet - heavy vs. light and why the hell not offer it up now so the world has a 5mbpd buffer instead of the thin wafer we currently skate about on.

No need to answer - its heavy sour and no one wants it because it is worth less and cost more to refine and you do not get the same amount of gasoline, lower density and on and on and ALL of these things point to peak.



Mr Saleri's quoted information isn't specific to SA, and heavy versus light versus sour means nothing except higher inefficiencies with the correct refinery capacity. Joe Consumer doesn't care where his gasoline comes from, or what it is refined from, he only cares that it works, and that someone knows where they can get another trillion barrels of it when he wants it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')If they have so much then why not allow outside confirmation?



Because they don't want to. Its their oil, they can do as they please with it. I don't see anyone whining about auditing the Russian books or the Iranians...only SA. And in neither case does it have anything to do with the Hirsch report or Mr Saleri's insider knowledge which the Hirsch report requires for better estimates like Mr Saleri's to be made. According to Hirsch, Mr Saleri knows more than you do. Him telling the truth is quite another issue. And SA has already CORRECTLY modified Ghawars reserve figures...they have more of a track record of being correct than Simmons does of being wrong.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')
10% change in IOR = 1.4 trillion barrels - well then tell me why the U.S. and everyone else is not experiencing this through all this new applied technology?



We are. Its called reserve growth. Reference reserve data on Midway Sunset or most any other California heavy oilfield for verification.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')
10% of what?!?!!? 100bb/260bb/410bb or hell lets say 10% of the 900bb they say they "could" ultimately recover.



Mr Saleri references a resource pyramid encompassing some 7 Trillion Barrels of conventional oil. Another 7 of unconventional. His 10% is incremental change in recovery factor in exisiting fields. You know what a recovery factor is don't you? You are aware of the obvious, that when producing an oilfield, more is left in the ground than is retrieved? You have considered the idea that a shallow oilfield could conceivably be MINED haven't you? That in fact this is exactly what Canadian tar sand production is?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')
It is new/old technology that leads to higher depletion rates and thats what we can expect from SA in the future.



I do not assume that a change in recovery factor has anything to do with a change in production rates or decline rates. It has only to do with the ultimate expected recoverable volumes for a given reservoir. It requires guys like me using the technology to determine whether an increase in reservoir recovery can be converted into a faster extraction of the higher volume or not.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')
I wonder how long Mr. Saleri would be employed if he did not say what his masters wish to hear.


I wonder how long Mr Saleri would be employed if he were as incompetent as you assume him to be.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')
I do remember an ex-saudi oil chief stating quite the opposite as Mr Saleri.

If I found that article(s) would reading it just as easily sway you in the other direction?

While searching for the one I wanted I found this one in particular:
Doubts raised on Saudi vow for more oil



The reference you made has nothing to do with refuting Mr Saleri's point. Its mostly energybulletin speculation, which is normal, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, which is normal, with the usual "war for oil" conspiracy BS thrown in for good measure as background music. Mr Saleri made no reference to SA future production at all.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')
Wow... it seems that SA wants to up its reserves because a
"study" done by the overly optomistic USGS suggested they have more then they realize.



The only people who have suggested the USGS was optimistic are those who require their numbers to be lower for reasons of zealotry. have these naysayers conducted their own geologic study to refute the USGS? Of course they haven't. Is the work of naysayers as transparent as the publications of the USGS when calculating their estimates? Of course not.

Have the Saudi's increased their reserve estimates on ANY of their fields and referenced the USGS numbers as their reason for doing so? Not that I can find. Do you have better information or is your natural Doomerness creeping in here?

While characterizing some of the best geology on the planet as "overly optimistic" might fly around here in the face of compatriot Doomers, I require a little more than someone's word that someone elses geology work is biased one way or the other.
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Wed 07 Jun 2006, 17:30:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')According to optomistic TPTB estimates Ethanol has an EROEI of 1.3 - 1.6 to 1.
There is a great difference between 30-1 , 20-1 , 10-1 and 1.6 to 1.
Its a new era and cheap oil is over.

We will be just fine - if we are wrong - if you and those you admire are wrong - we are fucked.;-)



Cheap oil might be over...or it might not be. Peak oil might have happened last Thanksgiving, or it might not have.

In neither case do your figures stated above contradict the 2005 Hirsch report and his calculations of cost for ethanol or replacement volumes.

While wild speculation and making things up as you go along are fine and dandy among the run of the mill Doomer set, they don't work particularly well for those of us who deal with reality and have to have more evidence beyond "Neopo said so and he's alot smarter than Hirsch is".


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')
Now answer my fucking question and explain to me why you even bother with peakoil.com unless you are on someones fucking payroll!!!

Answer this or I personally will never respond to any of your shit again....... nuh nuh nuh!!!! buh bye ;-)


I have a job, even the witless around here would equate that with "being on someones payroll". It is likely that you are on someones payroll as well, and I don't discount what you say because of it

I discount what you say when you manufacture or speculate or imply false information. Or manufacture conspiracys where none exist.

I hang around here because it teaches me relative percentages of Doomers who know what they are talking about, and those who don't. It teaches me about the background of Doomers and their particular bents. For example, is JD's hypothosis on Doomers being religious correct, or are they more environmentalist? Do they know ANYTHING about anything? Are there industry people floating around who know the difference between production and reserves and recoverable resources or is everyone just slack jawed and silly? Do Doomers even know the fundamentals of their formost Prophet Of Doom, the technocrat himself?

In the end, the Doomer philosophy is interesting to me. I'm amazed by the zeal with which they defend something most are incompetent to even discuss at a cocktail party. I am stunned that people smart enough to build interesting models and extrapolations then break every rule they had to have learned professionally to support their Doomer views. It saddens me that of the tons of man hours going into posting here, I haven't met anyone yet who simply states the case in a reasonable and non zealot manner, and then can explain how they personally are trying to change the terrible future they think they see, or their friends have convinced them, is coming.

No one has spoken up and said that yes, they know EROEI on ethanol is bad and this is how they are going to improve it. No one has spoken up and said "let the oilfields decline, I'm putting extra batteries into my Prius as I type this and now get 80mpg".

The entire philosophy is alien, to bitch and whine and moan without any hint of helping to find a society wide solution, manufacturing conspiracys as fast as possible to cover holes in arguements because the only thing that matters around here is the social club aspect of DOOM, and how only those smart enough to see it now will come through the other side okay.

I poke and prod and try and break things down into facts and non facts and speculation, reasonable or otherwise, I try and correct when people use words they obviously don't even know the MEANING of let alone where and when they should be used and how they relate to each other, and the overall feeling that flows back my way is "You aren't one of us...Because of people like you this is going to happen...Resistance in futile".

Interesting. Unfortunate. Considering that half of all people are below average, not unexpected.

Now you have asked an off topic question and before the mods ban you for doing it, or me for responding in a honest fashion, perhaps you would like to come up with something REAL to counter or reinforce my points on the 2005 Hirsch report?
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby seahorse2 » Wed 07 Jun 2006, 17:45:34

Here's an interesting EIA document discussing various energy sources. Important to this debate is towards the bottom of the report where it discusses ethanol, bio fuels, costs, and estimates percentage of fuel use to come from these sources by certain dates. Whether it helps or hurts this debate is up for you all to decide.

EIA Fuels Outlook
User avatar
seahorse2
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Wed 07 Jun 2006, 20:59:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('holmes', 'A')ND TO TOP IT ALL OFF..CORN IS A 100% UNSUSTAINABLE CROP WHEN GROWN IN MASS PRODUCTION MONOCULTURE. IT SUCKS WATER AND SOIL DOWN LIKE A PONZI SCHEME. IT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTORS TO OUR LOSS OF WATER AND SOIL.
END OF FUCKING STORY.
SCAM. PONZI.


The sugar beet farmers are pretty excited about their product. They don't like corn either, and neither does the research I've seen on which is better to convert to alcohol.
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Wed 07 Jun 2006, 21:16:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') easily dismissed your booboo #1 as complete, unadulterated junk. The Hirsch report has nothing to do with biofuels because they do not exist. They are nothing like coal-to-liquid technologies that ran both Germany and South Africa during wars. No industry or society has ever been run on biofuels. This is why Hirsch does not accord it any attention whatsover.

.


Good thing the largest potential he assigns it is 17% of US gasoline supply then. Page 87, 2nd or 3rd paragraph. Out of curiousity, are you specifically excluding ethanol when you call something a "biofuel"?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')
NEOPO displayed the garbage thinking in booboo#2.

.


He did no such thing. He couldn't even find any silly Mr Saleri statements to argue against the obvious one I used. Calling SA bad because they won't allow outside auditing of reserves has nothing to do with IOR or Hirschs underrepresentation of IOR and what production increases are available, or declines it can offset.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')
and boobo #3 (as far as I can tell through all the wordy nonsence) is another dismissal of peak oil theory. It is another patented droolz reserve growth whine. THIS IS CLASSIC STRAWMAN BS.

.


I quoted the specific graph Hirsch used to justify Peak, and why it was wrong. Because you aren't qualified to, and apparently aren't capable of paying attention and learning why, it would be better that you do this "silly dismiss it out of hand" routine which appears to have cowered other Doomers into not confronting the silly spew which appears to be your default mode of communicating when confronted with things you don't like and aren't smart enough to understand.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')THE HIRSCH REPORT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN PEAK OIL. IT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO PLACE PEAK OIL. IT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO ARGUE PEAK OIL.

IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T NEED TO MEASURE RESERVE GROWTH



The Hirsch report talks all about mitigating Peak, and yes, he does put a basic, pretty simple spin on it. I referenced where and why, if you aren't smart enough to find it, go get a refund from whatever 2nd grade you graduated from and don't blame me, its right there in the report, and its wrong for the reasons I mentioned.

You are correct in that Hirsch does not try and place Peak oil, I imagine after being burned by his early-90's oil crisis which never emerged he's more than a little gunshy about looking as silly as Colin and the rest of the Prophet Brigade who are now laughing stocks.

And this conversation was meant for NeoPoo PStarr, according to Seahorse anyway. Go read a book already, come back when you understand even the beginnings of what Hirsch referenced in his basic Peak Oil explanation, if it wasn't obvious maybe turning on some more neurons ( a couple of quadzillion might be in order ) will help you out.
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby seahorse » Wed 07 Jun 2006, 22:39:41

Unfortunately, any points in this debate get lost in all the personal attacks.

I found this statement interesting from the above linked EIA report:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he solvent properties of biodiesel also make it unlikely that biodiesel blends could be shipped through petroleum product pipelines. There would be a risk of contamination when the biodiesel dissolved any material deposited on the walls of pipes, manifolds, or storage tanks. On the positive side, the addition of biodiesel to petroleum diesel reduces engine emissions of carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and particulates. On the negative, it tends to increase nitrogen oxide emissions, and that may limit the use of biodiesel in places with excess levels of ozone at ground level.

The production of methyl esters is an established technology in the United States, but the product typically has been too expensive to be used as fuel. Instead, methyl esters have been used in products such as soaps and detergents. Proctor and Gamble, Peter Cremer, Dow Haltermann, and other large firms currently supply methyl esters to the industrial market. Most dedicated biodiesel producers are much smaller, and delivery of a consistent product is proving to be a challenge.

Several other processes for making diesel fuel from biomass are under consideration. The most mature of these technologies is biomass-to-liquids (BTL). The biomass is first reacted with steam in the presence of a catalyst to form carbon monoxide and hydrogen, or synthesis gas. Any other elements contained in the biomass are removed during the gasification step. The carbon monoxide and hydrogen are then reacted to form liquid hydrocarbons and water.

Although BTL products are high in quality, BTL plants face several challenges. They have high capital and operating costs, and their feedstock handling costs are especially high. BTL gasifiers are significantly more expensive than the gasifiers used in CTL or GTL facilities. Furthermore, the cost of a BTL plant per barrel of output is several times the cost of expanding an existing petroleum refinery or building a new one. As a result, while new BTL plants are being built in Germany, there is no commercial production of BTL in the United States. BTL production and its market implications are discussed under “Nonconventional Liquid Fuels,” below.


Consider this statement as well about ethanol, projecting cost and market penetration:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')thanol. Ethanol can be blended into gasoline readily at up to 10 percent by volume. All cars and light trucks built for the U.S. market since the late 1970s can run on gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol. Automakers also produce a limited number of vehicles for the U.S. market that can run on blends of up to 85 percent ethanol. Ethanol adds oxygen to the gasoline, which reduces carbon monoxide emissions from vehicles with less sophisticated emissions controls. It also dilutes sulfur and aromatic contents and improves octane. Because newer vehicles with more sophisticated emissions controls show little or no change in emissions with the addition of oxygen to gasoline, ethanol blending in the future will depend largely on octane requirements, limits on gasoline sulfur and aromatics levels, and mandates for the use of renewable motor fuels.

Ethanol production from starches and sugars, such as corn, is a well-known technology that continues to evolve. In the United States, most fuel ethanol currently is distilled from corn, yielding byproducts that are used as supplements in animal feed. Three factors may limit ethanol production from starchy and sugary crops: all such crops are also used for food, and only a limited fraction of the available supply could be diverted for fuel use without driving up crop prices to the point where ethanol production would no longer be economical; there is a limit to the amount of suitable land available for growing the feedstock crops; and only a portion of the plant material from the feedstock can be used to produce ethanol. For example, corn grain can be used in ethanol plants, but the stalks, husks, and leaves are waste material, only some of which needs to be left on cornfields to prevent erosion and replenish soil nutrients.

The underutilization of crop residue has driven decades of research into ethanol production from cellulose; however, several obstacles continue to prevent commercialization of the process, including how to accelerate the hydrolysis reaction that breaks down cellulose fibers and what to do with the lignin byproduct. Research on acid hydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis is ongoing. The favored proposal for dealing with the lignin is to use it as a fuel for CHP plants, which could provide both thermal energy and electricity for cellulose ethanol plants, as well as electricity for the grid; however, CHP plants are expensive.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')thanol. Ethanol, the most widely used renewable biofuel, can be produced from any feedstock that contains plentiful natural sugars. Popular feedstocks include sugar beets (Europe), sugar cane (Brazil), and corn (United States). Ethanol is produced by fermenting sugars with yeast enzymes that convert glucose to ethanol. Crops are processed to remove sugar (by crushing, soaking, and/or chemical treatment), the sugar is fermented to alcohol using yeasts and microbes, and the resulting mix is distilled to obtain anhydrous ethanol.

There are two ethanol production technologies: sugar fermentation and cellulose conversion. Sugar fermentation is a mature technology, whereas cellulose conversion is new and still under development. Cellulose-to-biofuel (bioethanol) can use a variety of feedstocks, such as forest waste, grasses, and solid municipal waste, to produce synthetic fuel.

Capital costs for a corn-based ethanol plant can range from $21,000 to $33,000 (2004 dollars) per barrel of capacity, depending on size [72]. Manufacturing costs can be as low as $0.75 per gallon, as demonstrated by the low-cost production in Brazil, where climate conditions are favorable and labor costs are low. One industry risk is drought, which can limit the availability of feedstocks. Another issue is competition with the food supply. Based on current land use, industry trade sources estimate that annual corn ethanol production in the United States is limited to approximately 12 billion gallons to avoid disrupting food markets.

AEO2006 projects 700,000 barrels per day of ethanol production in 2030 in the reference case, representing about 47 percent of world production. The high price case projects production of 900,000 barrels per day in 2030, representing 30 percent of the world total. Worldwide, ethanol production (including biodiesel) in 2030 totals nearly 1.7 million barrels per day in the reference case and 3 million barrels per day in the high price case.



This too:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')enewables

In the face of international concern over GHG emissions, the eventual peaking of world oil production, and recent volatility in fossil fuel prices, many have seen promise in exploiting an ever-increasing range of renewable energy resources. Renewable energy resources used to generate electricity generally reduce net GHG emissions compared to fossil generation, are accepted as being nondepletable on a time scale of interest to society, and tend to have low and stable operating costs.

To date, however, market adoption of most renewable technologies has been limited by the significant capital expense of capturing and concentrating the often diffuse energy fluxes of wind, solar, ocean, and other renewable resources. With the most successful renewable generation technology, hydropower, nature has largely concentrated the diffuse energy of falling water through the geography of watersheds. The challenge for emerging technologies, as well as those on the horizon, will be to minimize both the monetary and environmental costs of collecting and converting renewable energy fuels to more portable and useful forms.



This statement about market penetration of more fuel efficient hybrid cars (how does this compare to Hirsch's estimate?):
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he efficiency of new light-duty vehicles also improves with increased market penetration of hybrid and diesel vehicles. Depending on the make and model, the incremental cost of a power-assisted hybrid vehicle (a “full hybrid”), currently estimated at $3,000 to $10,000, decreases to between $1,500 and $5,400 in 2030 [48]. As a result, the penetration of hybrid vehicles increases from 0.5 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales in 2004 to 9.0 percent in 2030. Market penetration of diesel vehicles increases from about 2 percent in 2004 to more than 8 percent in 2030. Battery and fuel cell powered vehicles also penetrate the light-duty vehicle market as a result of legislative mandates, but with very high vehicle costs, limited driving range, and the lack of a refueling infrastructure, they account for only 0.1 percent of new vehicle sales in 2030.

This statement about market penetration of alternative fuels (how does this compare to Hirsch's estimate?):

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')igher prices for crude oil and refined petroleum products are opening the door for nonconventional liquids to displace petroleum in the traditional fuel supply mix. Growing world demand for diesel fuel is helping to jump-start the trend toward increasing production of nonconventional liquids, and technological advances are making the nonconventional alternatives more viable commercially. Those trends are reflected in the AEO2006 projections.

In the reference case, based on projections for the United States and project announcements covering other world regions through 2030, the supply of syncrude, synthetic fuels, and liquids produced from renewable fuels approaches 10 million barrels per day worldwide in 2030. In the high price case, nonconventional liquids represent 16 percent of total world oil supply in 2030, at more than 16.4 million barrels per day. The U.S. share of world nonconventional liquids production in 2030 is 15 percent in the reference case and nearly 20 percent in the high price case (Table 14).

The term “nonconventional liquids” applies to three different product types: syncrude derived from the bitumen in oil sands, from extra-heavy oil, or from oil shales; synthetic fuels created from coal, natural gas, or biomass feedstocks; and renewable fuels—primarily, ethanol and biodiesel—produced from a variety of renewable feedstocks. Generally, these resources are economically competitive only when oil prices reach relatively high levels.

This projection for unconventional oils (which doesn't seem like enough to offset depletion):
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')evelopment of a third nonconventional resource, shale oil, is more speculative. The greatest risks facing syncrude production are higher production costs and lower crude oil prices. In AEO2006, production of syncrude worldwide increases to 5.3 million barrels per day in the reference case and 8.5 million barrels per day in the high price case in 2030.

This estimate for coal to liquids, whicch doesn't seem like a lot:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')EO2006 projects 800,000 barrels per day of domestic CTL production in the reference case and 1.7 million barrels per day in the high price case in 2030. Most of this activity initially occurs in coal-producing regions of the Midwest. Worldwide CTL production in 2030 totals 1.8 million barrels per day in the reference case and 2.3 million barrels per day in the high price case.
User avatar
seahorse
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2275
Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Arkansas
Top

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby Kez » Wed 14 Jun 2006, 15:11:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', 'T')he sugar beet farmers are pretty excited about their product. They don't like corn either, and neither does the research I've seen on which is better to convert to alcohol.


ReserveGrowthRulz, I respect your thoughts but please take a moment to analyze my research.

Ask yourself this question - where does the energy in the ethanol (the final product) come from? The answer is from the sun, via photosynthesis.

I have done some calculations, details of which can be found below. If you have different yield numbers or whatever, then post them, but I chose the *best* numbers that I found, not averages. Here is the summary though, and it's not good for ethanol. Please take some time to research photosynthesis and understand that ethanol from any plant is a huge, inefficient mess, when compared to other things, like solar panels.

The net result from my calculations is that sugar beets are 0.32% efficient at collecting the energy from the sun. What that means, is that if a solar panel is 10% efficient in an area, then growing beets on that same land will yield an efficiency of 0.32% in equivalent joules of energy. This is not going to solve any problems anytime soon. Instead, put up a few solar panels and immediately get 31 times the efficiency of sugar beets, with no irrigation, fertilization, pesticides, complicated harvesting/fermentation processes, droughts, or 4 year required crop rotations with non-beet species to worry about.


Sources used:

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_lib ... meCh2.html
http://www.onlineconversion.com
http://www.ienica.net/crops/sugarbeet.htm
http://www.worldscibooks.com/lifesci/et ... hap1_4.pdf


Calculations & assumptions:

75 tons per hectare per year (74.3 was the highest in the world, from France)
1 metric ton = 2404.6 pounds
75 * 2404.6 = 165,345 pounds per hectare

At best, 18% of the weight of the sugar beet is sugar
165,345 *0.18 = 29,762 pounds of sugar per hectare per year

1 gallon of ethanol requires approximately 15 pounds of sugar
29,762 pounds / 15 = 1,984 gallons of ethanol per hectare per year

1 hectare = 10,000 square meters
1,984 gallons / 10,000 square meters = 0.198414 gallons per meter squared per year

1 Watt = 1 Joule of energy per second
Average North Texas sunlight is roughly 4.80 kWh per day per meter squared (17,280,000 J / day / m2)
Average Iowa sunlight is roughly 4.00 kWh per day per meter squared (14,400,000 J / day / m2)

Since sugar beets are a cold weather crop, Texas is too hot. So we'll use 15,000,000 Joules per day per meter squared as a basis:

15,000,000 * 365 = 5,475,000,000 Joules per meter squared per year
0.198414 gallons of ethanol per meter squared per year is what we get from sugar beets

88,624,695 Joules of energy in one gallon of ethanol (based on 84,000 BTU)
17,584,380.23 Joules of energy in 0.198414 gallons of ethanol

5.4 billion joules shine upon an area in one year, and growing sugar beets, we manage to capture 17.5 million of them, or 0.3211758947%, using best case scenarios from today's current statistics.

Assume for a moment that we could double the amount of crops per hectare from 75 tons to 150, and then halve the required 15 pounds of sugar to 7.5. That would push our efficiency from 0.32% to a spectacular 1.28%. A bad solar panel would still be 9 times better.

And remember, nowhere in these efficiency numbers is anything about transportation, harvesting, nitrogen, potash, irrigation, crop rotation, phosphorous, pest control, CO2 levels, temperature, soil erosion, fermentation, etc. etc. etc. It only concerns the efficiency of photosynthesis itself, nothing else.
Efficiency of harnessing the sun's energy on earth (photosynthesis vs photovoltaics)

Sugar Cane (one of the very best solar energy absorbing plants on earth) - 2.0% to 3.8% efficient.

A lousy, 10 year-old solar panel, built with old technology - 10%
Kez
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri 06 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: North Texas
Top

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 15:11:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kez', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', 'T')he sugar beet farmers are pretty excited about their product. They don't like corn either, and neither does the research I've seen on which is better to convert to alcohol.


ReserveGrowthRulz, I respect your thoughts but please take a moment to analyze my research.



I did. Quite a nice compilation of data. And while I don't plan on disagreeing with your fundamental conclusion that a 10 year old solar panel does a much better job of converting sunlight to energy than converting a sugar beet to energy, I would venture that I won't be running my car off a 10 year old solar panel very soon, whereas alcohol derived from ANY source makes a quite mixable, easy to use with current technology, transport fuel.

Which happens to be the crux of the matter, in the States anyway, when talking about one energy source outdoing or replacing another.

The idea of solar panels on everyones rooftops powering home systems and feeding the grid during the day rather than drawing from it is a quite reasonable and doable, current technology type idea. My guess is it will require widespread pressure by one government entity or another to REQUIRE it, or at the least SUBSIDIZE it, but is a quite reasonable mitigator for energy use in general. If you are charging your pluggable hybrid during the day I suppose it fills that niche as well.

If your point was that sugar beets are a wonderfully inefficient way to store hydrogen atoms in liquid form for combustion purposes, I would agree. Good thing that the process is inefficient I suppose, one company or another will be paying alot of engineers to make it more efficient for a competitive advantage, and I'm all for the need for more engineers rather than, say, lawyers or telemarketeers or used car salesmen.
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Robert Hirsch Presentation in Calgary

Postby FatherOfTwo » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 17:06:10

I attended Robert Hirsch’s presentation at the UofC today. Essentially it’s a trimmed down power point version of his report, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management.

I have to say, he’s a very straight laced, no-nonsense kind of guy. It was a very good introduction for newbies, although after reading his original report I didn’t find much new in it. He covered the basics of oil production, showed all of the different projected peak dates by EIA, ExxonMobil, CERA, Campbell, ex-Saudi Aramaco officials etc., and then went on to show what their research says is needed to mitigate. One of the new things I did see was how they’ve incorporated the various “commercial ready” mitigation efforts, CTL, EOR, heavy oil, fuel efficiency increases etc. and he also made it clear that even if these mitigation efforts are rolled out in full force, it’s only under ExxonMobile’s 2030+ date where we can feel confident that we won't encounter any negative effects from Peak Oil. My one disappointment was that he talked of Peak Oil as a liquid fuels crisis, which I agree it is, but it’s also an economic crisis. Perhaps he didn’t want to dump too much do-do on everyone. :-)

At the end I was able to ask him just what exactly the relationship between him, his original report and the DOE is. (Cuz it was never clear to me if the DOE asked him to do it etc.) He stated that “they” (him and his co-authors) approached the DOE with the idea, the DOE agreed to fund it and then when they delivered it, the DOE didn’t quite know what to do with it. He said in general that it’s only been in the last few years where talking about peaking of world oil production hasn’t been considered as “fringe” and that things are “bubbling up” now in the government.

In his language choice you could tell he thinks are going to be bad but would rather get people to act then scare the do-do out of them, so he went to pains to not come across as a scare monger. IMO he’s exactly the type of Peak Oil prophet that needs to be heard.

edit - cleaned up my language!
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country

Re: Robert Hirsch Presentation in Calgary

Postby Carlhole » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 18:04:26

Was it videotaped?
Carlhole
 

Re: Robert Hirsch Presentation in Calgary

Postby Torion » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 19:52:08

that's very interesting that he approached the DOE! I wondered about that when I read his report. Thanks for the report and the information!
There is no where to go but Earth!
Except for space ......
User avatar
Torion
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Robert Hirsch Presentation in Calgary

Postby seahorse » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 20:38:06

Fatherof2,

When you asked him about his earlier report, were you asking him about his 1980's? report that RGR has mentioned? Great question and I hope you can give us some more details as to why he did that report in the 80s. Was he just crying wolf in the 80s or do you think he believes PO is going to happen this decade for example.
User avatar
seahorse
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2275
Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Arkansas

Re: Robert Hirsch Presentation in Calgary

Postby Such » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 22:59:32

well.... that is how many things are done in the US. Petition the government.
Such
 

Postby FatherOfTwo » Fri 23 Jun 2006, 18:29:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'F')atherof2,

When you asked him about his earlier report, were you asking him about his 1980's? report that RGR has mentioned? Great question and I hope you can give us some more details as to why he did that report in the 80s. Was he just crying wolf in the 80s or do you think he believes PO is going to happen this decade for example.


No I asked him about the recent one. I've sorta heard on this site about this supposed 80's report, and before the presentation I thought I should ask him ... but didn't. (Don't ask why, I'm not sure myself... I was distracted by his presentation?)

As for when he thinks PO will be, I don't think he'd ever directly answer that question. Partly because he recognizes the data is poor, not agreed upon and subject to political manipulation. Plus he chooses his language carefully; he doesn't want to be the one yelling fire in a packed theatre.
But you can tell when he says things like "with normal depletion, and with full blown mitigation efforts (CAFE increases, EOR, heavy oil/oil sands etc.) we are only in ok shape if peak is 2030+" Otherwise it's recession or depression.

Almost every slide had in red at the bottom : THINK RISK.

I've asked the university if his power point presentation will be made available...
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Re: Hirsch II:Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Opt

Postby grabby » Sun 30 Jul 2006, 12:05:54

Ah my condolences, that you have a lawyer in the family.
My grandfather died of cancer so I know how you feel.
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Robert Hirsch's presentation to ISEE at the UofC

Postby FatherOfTwo » Fri 04 Aug 2006, 00:07:47

I finally got my hands on Hirsch's presentation that he gave at the ISEEE conference at the University of Calgary in June.

I've converted the power point presentation to a PDF and uploaded it to a free web hosting service, available here

This presentation is more suited to having him discuss it at the same time, it doesn't read like his report; nonetheless, it's worth posting for members to see.

ISEEE plans to post this on their site one of these days, so I trust my linking to it here isn't violating any copyright or other COC rules.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country

Re: Hirsch II:Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Opt

Postby FatherOfTwo » Fri 04 Aug 2006, 11:31:26

A link to Hirsch's latest presentation (given to ISEEE at the UofC) can be found in this thread
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests