$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('UIUCstudent01', 'T')he 80's were not double the 70's.
The 90's were not double the 80's.
And, from what I've heard, we aren't just going to dry up in 10 years...
Look throught theoildrum.com
Oil production isn't like exponential growth.
PeakOil is You
THE Dr. Albert A Bartlett Thread (merged)
Re: NO ONE HERE IS LISTENING TO THEIR OWN TALE
by grabby » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 11:38:44
Yes that is true, thansk.
If our energy growth rate stays at 0 it will take two doubling times
or two minutes for the bacteria instead of one.
-
grabby - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1291
- Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Re: NO ONE HERE IS LISTENING TO THEIR OWN TALE
by gnm » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 11:58:57
UIUC yeah but that lecture states that at the current rate the doubleing time was 17 years not 10 so you would have to look at say 1997 vs 1980.
-G
-G
- gnm
Re: NO ONE HERE IS LISTENING TO THEIR OWN TALE
by linlithgowoil » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 12:00:44
bacteria in a jar/doubling rates are just too simplistic and a direct comparison cant be made, so why bother?
that video is an example of how exponential growth leads to very large numbers after not so long, thats all. it doesnt apply to oil production or usage.
no one is entirely sure about oil demand/production anyway. does excess production stimulate more demand? no idea. how does OPEC change things? no idea. do high prices lower demand - doesnt look like it.
better to just look at the data and remember the shape of the hubbert curve. it is a bell shape, showing a very long tail end of production, not a ramping up to production of 300million barrels a day followed a day later by zero barrels.
that video is an example of how exponential growth leads to very large numbers after not so long, thats all. it doesnt apply to oil production or usage.
no one is entirely sure about oil demand/production anyway. does excess production stimulate more demand? no idea. how does OPEC change things? no idea. do high prices lower demand - doesnt look like it.
better to just look at the data and remember the shape of the hubbert curve. it is a bell shape, showing a very long tail end of production, not a ramping up to production of 300million barrels a day followed a day later by zero barrels.
-
linlithgowoil - Tar Sands
- Posts: 828
- Joined: Mon 20 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Scotland
Re: NO ONE HERE IS LISTENING TO THEIR OWN TALE
by Battle_Scarred_Galactico » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 12:37:49
Well I think it's nearer 20 years until total run-out, but we all know thats not the problem. (not immediatley anyway)
---
- Battle_Scarred_Galactico
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Thu 07 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Re: NO ONE HERE IS LISTENING TO THEIR OWN TALE
by gego » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 13:25:25
The doubling period is determined by the rate of growth. The rate of growth is constantly changing. As we approach peak, the rate of growth comes under downward pressure because of production constraints, and because of altered consumption patterns related to increased price. Obviously production constraints eventually make the growth rate negative.
The Hubbert curve is a reflection of the fact that the rate of growth changes and those changes follow a predictable pattern; this is the best model we now have to tell us how oil production will unwind.
However, remember that the Hubbert curve was developed under normal economic conditions, and the US oil production decline happened while there was substitute oil production from other parts of the world, so the down side of the curve was able to smoothly unfold. When we hit the world peak, the unwinding should be catastrophic for the economy and population levels, and the effect on production should vary as compared to the expected curve.
Another factor to consider is that production techniques have changed giving the ability to overproduce before the peak which must be compensated for by a sharper rate of production decline after the peak.
We do not know how fast the dieoff will develop, and this will also have an impact on the rate of consumption during the down side of the curve. Given human inguinity, I suspect that initially dieoff will be fended off, only to be compensated later by a higher death rate.
All in all, I am guessing that the overally shape of production will be less production initially after the peak as compared to Hubbert, but a longer time frame before we reach economically insignigicant levels of production.
The Hubbert curve is a reflection of the fact that the rate of growth changes and those changes follow a predictable pattern; this is the best model we now have to tell us how oil production will unwind.
However, remember that the Hubbert curve was developed under normal economic conditions, and the US oil production decline happened while there was substitute oil production from other parts of the world, so the down side of the curve was able to smoothly unfold. When we hit the world peak, the unwinding should be catastrophic for the economy and population levels, and the effect on production should vary as compared to the expected curve.
Another factor to consider is that production techniques have changed giving the ability to overproduce before the peak which must be compensated for by a sharper rate of production decline after the peak.
We do not know how fast the dieoff will develop, and this will also have an impact on the rate of consumption during the down side of the curve. Given human inguinity, I suspect that initially dieoff will be fended off, only to be compensated later by a higher death rate.
All in all, I am guessing that the overally shape of production will be less production initially after the peak as compared to Hubbert, but a longer time frame before we reach economically insignigicant levels of production.
- gego
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Re: NO ONE HERE IS LISTENING TO THEIR OWN TALE
by Odin » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 13:27:11
The oil will last for a long time, it just won't be cheap enough to be used as a common liquid fuel. That 10 years stuff is nonsense.
-
Odin - Peat
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Sat 28 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: Moorhead, MN, USA
Re: NO ONE HERE IS LISTENING TO THEIR OWN TALE
by Ludi » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 13:29:43
HUH?
I have no idea what you're talking about "no one here is listening to their own tale."
Some of us may be chasing our tails...
I have no idea what you're talking about "no one here is listening to their own tale."
Some of us may be chasing our tails...
- Ludi
Re: NO ONE HERE IS LISTENING TO THEIR OWN TALE
by FoxV » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 13:52:39
also don't forget that new discoveries, and new technologies will provide some new oil to drag out the depletion curve.
There's also demand desctruction so that as oil becomes exponentially more expensive, less people will be using it.
so relax, there's much more than 10 years of oil left. Its just that you will not be able to afford it or anything produced with it.
Hope you like the taste of tree bark
There's also demand desctruction so that as oil becomes exponentially more expensive, less people will be using it.
so relax, there's much more than 10 years of oil left. Its just that you will not be able to afford it or anything produced with it.
Hope you like the taste of tree bark
Angry yet?
- FoxV
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Wed 02 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Canada
by Cobra_Strike » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 15:19:26
I watched that video, and I have shown it to some friends. The reason why it is not as importent to me is that I came to that conclusion a while ago. If I was totally new to this it would have been a shock. It was a shock to some of the people I have shown to it.
This video does get a lot of play around here. The warning has not gone totally unheeded.
This video does get a lot of play around here. The warning has not gone totally unheeded.
We stand here, as the light of other days surrounds us.
"Hail the Dead"
"Hail the Dead"
- Cobra_Strike
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Fri 06 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: NO ONE HERE IS LISTENING TO THEIR OWN TALE
by Gazzatrone » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 18:13:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'g')et ready for a shock:
WHEN WE HIT PEAK OIL, WE THEN HAVE LESS THAN TEN YEARS LEFT BEFORE WE ARE COMPLETELY DRY
WHEN WE HIT PEAK OIL, WE THEN HAVE LESS THAN TEN YEARS LEFT BEFORE WE ARE COMPLETELY DRY
Thank you for quoting my post, hopefully people read the point about simplicity, which is why I linked the Bartlett video.
Don't forget that added to consuming oil a proportion of the remaining oil will go into searching and recovering it, (something I didn't realise when writing the post and scarily realised when it was pointed out).
As stated in the quoted post a ratio of 3/1 that means at current usage 250 billion barrels will go into getting out the remaining 750. whcih will all know will get closer to 2/1 as the oil gets harder to pump out.
Work out the maths based on a yearly consumption incease of 1.6% and you will see how long we have left.
I figure roughly about 12 - 15 years, but the preverbial will be heading towards the fan a lot sooner than that.
-
Gazzatrone - Tar Sands
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: London, UK
Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity
by ubercynicmeister » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 20:15:32
Hi Coyote! LOL, Hope I haven't bored you to death, or annoyed you too much.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', '
')Just the other day, I went to one of the discussions here at these boards, which had some intellectuals (or supposed intellectuals more like) sneering about the Pope, and how "backwards" he is. All the time they were espousing the use of contraceptives & condoms. As I asked there: don't you know contraceptives & condoms are made from oil-derived chemicals? It would seem that the haste-to-sneer is one of the things that keeps newbies from coming here and making a full contribution. My own remarks were, as usual, ignored.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', '
')Just the other day, I went to one of the discussions here at these boards, which had some intellectuals (or supposed intellectuals more like) sneering about the Pope, and how "backwards" he is. All the time they were espousing the use of contraceptives & condoms. As I asked there: don't you know contraceptives & condoms are made from oil-derived chemicals? It would seem that the haste-to-sneer is one of the things that keeps newbies from coming here and making a full contribution. My own remarks were, as usual, ignored.
From that thread:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', 'C')ondoms are Oil-Based
This is a perfect example of Aaron's sig line. Condoms are made of latex. Latex is tree sap derived from rubber trees. Rubber trees are a shade grown rainforest crop that have been used by many indeginous groups to raise cash and stave off destruction of the local forest.
You were not ignored, smallpoxgirl responded to your statement.
From Wikipedia:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Environmental impact
Latex condoms are made of a renewable resource - natural latex rubber - and as such, are generally biodegradable.
My recommendation: if you're going to complain about being ignored, make sure you are correct.
Hee hee, thanks...when I had posted that comment, I had been ignored as far as I could tell. OK, then, let's ask about LATEX. What is being said above is like insisting that, because paper is derived from trees, therefore "paper has no oil in it, and is entirely derived from natural products". Yet we know (I hope!) that the Paper industry is very oil-intensive.
To get completely off the topic:
After the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 (December 7th, US time, December 8th, Japanese time), the Imperial Army invaded many places, including the (then) Malay Penninsular, now Malaysia. This place was and still is full of rubber trees. The defending troops (British, Canadian Australian, New Zealanders, and some Indian troops) were ordered NOT to fight in the rubber plantations, as that might damage the trees.
For some reason the Japanese troops (the little men on bicycles) did fight in the plantations, so the British & Commonwealth soldiers had to do a fighting retreat all the way down the penninsular. They "holed up" at Singapore, an island. The Japanese force started out at about 13,000 and ended up at about 6,500. The British had under their command something about 87,000 troops.
Because the massive guns at Singapore had been designed to protect from a sea-based invasion, they could not be turned to face an land-based attack. Tanks, you see, could not fight in Malaysia, because the British said the ground was too soft. The Japanese brought tanks with them and they went quite well. Tanks would be needed to attack Singapore (it was figured) so that meant that Singapore would never need to have the guns "turned around" to fight a land-based enemy. Thus they couldn't be turned to face the land because the entire suggestion of a land-based attack was just silly.
And 6,500 Japanese troops stormed those guns, facing the wrong way, and, just as the Japanese ran out of ammunition, the British surrendered. That's right, 87,000 men surrendered to 6,500.
Ok, that digression out of the way, the reason that the Imperial Army (and the British) wanted the place so much was the rubber trees, to supply rubber for their tyres for the vehicles used in the war effort. That rubber is still used somewhat, but has been replaced in most instances by synthetic (ie: derived from Oil) rubbers, especially for vehicle tyres.
But let's assume that modern condoms don't use any such oil ingredients in their actual composition. OK, that's a big assumption, but let's assume it's true. What, then, drives the vehicles that collect the "sap buckets" from the plantations? In some places they still used human or animal powered vehicles.
But in more and more places that's being changed over to use 2 stroke petroleum-based engines. That's right, it's derived from Oil. OK, what about the transport from the small-holdings to the main warehouses, where the sheets are stored? That's Oil-based. How are the warehouses built and maintained? By Oil-using machinery.
Ok, what about the transport from the warehouses to the chemical plants in where the condoms are manufactured? Even if they now all get made in China, that transport still involves Oil-based means.
Ok, what about the heating & molding of the condoms? That's done by petroleum based means, too, probably Natural Gas fired "heaters". Certainly the actual machines that mold the condoms use oil, even if it's only as hydraulics.
Oil, oil, oil all derived from the ground, used at almost every point. In any case, I was and remain certain that synthetic oils get used in "doping" the latex, to make it flow easier in the molds; to allow the object to "let go" of the surrounding mold; to increase the tear-resistance (always important in a condom) and mechanical strength properties and certainly oil-based plastics are used to wrap and package the condoms.
Much that is called "latex" these days is actually PVC, and I'd not be surprised one little bit if the so-called "natural" condoms have not one drop of "natural" latex in them. Perhaps they do, but given how handy the Oil-derived chemicals are (they tend to be much tougher, for one thing) and given how the quality is said to vary in the supply from the rubber plantation, it would not be at all surprising to learn that all condoms are now made using synthetic latex. I have assumed they were made using some oil. But perhaps I was incorrect - condoms may actually be made entirely from synthetics, and get labelled as being "all natural" (whatever that means).
But I'm sure no responsible company would label their products as one thing, when they are actually something else, now, would they?
