Re: Are nukes the answer to global warming?

From: Clouseau2 (eric_at_webmethods.com)
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: 9 Mar 2005 10:53:09 -0800

owl wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2005 11:11:03 -0800, "Clouseau2" <eric@webmethods.com>
wrote:
>
> >owl wrote:
> >> On 7 Mar 2005 20:38:36 -0800, "Clouseau2" <eric@webmethods.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >owl wrote:
>
> >Uhh, I've been researching this stuff for over a year. EROEI ==
Energy
> >Returned on Energy Invested. Here is a chart of some common
returns:
> >
> >http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp#tarsands_table
>
> >Note that tar sands are 1.5, Middle East oil 30+.
> >
> >I've read over 5 books on this subject. How many have you read?
>
> None. I caught on to the concept with a few links. 5 books, and
> you're still on the basics ... sigh ...

So, is the EROEI of the tar sands 1.5 or not? Oh, and I forgot to
mention the massive quantities of fresh water and natural gas required
to "cook" the tar sands. And the fact that mining the tarsands
releases lots of greenhouse gases.

> >> It is actually an advantage for EROEI to go down in North America
> >> because at the right ROI and cost balance, it unlocks the economic
> >> viability of the Tar Sands (and it's 200 years of reserves(.

Where, exactly, did that "200 years" # come from?

[ lost of condescending BS snipped ]

>
> >> >The return is very good for the middle east, but it is atrocious
for the
> >> >very mature fields in the USA.
> >>
> >> Yea ... duhh. Since the cost of transportation is closer to zero
at
> >> that point, you've really caught on to something fundamental here.
> >
> >Transportation is just one element that takes energy. There is
> >exploration, drilling, operation of the well, etc.
>
> >http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/220 :
>
> You're getting pretty boring with the 101 stuff. You can drop the
> spoon whenever you want.

> >You have to
>
> <snip the long and very boring nothing>
>
> It read like a paragraph from an intro geography book. It sounded
> like something you'd read to your kid at bedtime. If this is your
> mind-state with regards to oil, the industry, the technology, and the
> direction, stick to something a simpler.

I didn't write it, I cut+pasted it. And yes, it is very simple. These
aren't difficult concepts to understand, for most.

> If you've really read and understood the five books you've read, then
> you're quite aware of just how dumb this statement is. The world is
> way past caring about where it is - the technology to get at it, and
> transport it to a refinery is what matters. Forget this distraction
> with EROIE, and start listening to the voices of business ROI.

Physics will always trounce economics. That's part of the problem of
the world -- economists think money creates energy out of thin air.
That's just plain nonsense. Capital drives the exploitation of energy,
but if it is thermodynamically unavailable under any and all
technologies, no amount of capital will make it so.

> >Oil exploration and extraction are already down to by some
> >figures 20 to 1, 30 to 1, 40 to 1 in that range.
>
> Newsflash: it doesn't matter. If it's profitable and exploitable it
> adds to the reserves and will eventually get into a gastank near you.

If it takes more than 1 barrel of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, it's
never profitable as an energy source ... If your business books are
telling you otherwise, I would advise you to read better business
books.

> It is one small part of the equation for determining the long term
> price range of oil. You appear to have wasted a lot of time and
money
> on those books. Take a few business courses.

More Cornucopianism! This is the root of the problem, people who
believe that money can do anything, it cannot.

> >So you agree the above is all true. United States oil imports have
> >been growing, year after year, since the oil peak in the 1970s.
This
> >is a FACT.
>
> More 'so what'. You've found nothing new ... and said even less.

> >> >Cars are also using MORE energy than before, CAFE has stagnated
since
> >> >the 80s, we are consuming MORE energy. Our oil imports are going
up,
> >> >our oil consumption is going up, world oil consumption is going
up,
> >> >natural gas consumption is going up. This will of course change
in the
> >> >next 5-10 years as we enter a new era of energy scarcity.
>
> >> You're still in the mode where you throw it at the wall and see if
it
> >> sticks. The engines of today are more fuel-efficient, the car
> >> materials user materials that require less energy to manufacture.
> >
> >From
>
>http://envstudies.brown.edu/Thesis/2002/Dyer/Transportation%20Vehicle%20Efficiency.htm:
>
> Error 404 - File Not Found ... your Book of the Month Club
membership?

Since you are too lazy to use google, I've shortened it for you:

http://tinyurl.com/3jwz3

> You didn't back up anything. You're not saying anything related to a
> resource bottleneck. Trucks, SUVs and vans, were beefed up in
> horsepower and safety features from the 80s on. This isn't hidden
> knowledge - it was done and advertised. Better performance, safer,
> more comfortable.

Exactly, and more cars and trucks + no real improvement in fuel
efficiency == more oil used. Note that technology exists today to make
200 MPG cars, but people don't want to drive tiny tin boxes.

> Oil discoveries did not peak in the 60s. The major sources of world
> oil - the southerns U.S., southern Russia, the middle-east, the
> plains U.S. & Canada, Mexico & Venezuela - were discovered before the
> 60s. Iirc, the only really major field addition in the 60s was the
> North Sea.
> (note: to prevent a lame response, don't reply with by the 60s - it
> could also be stated by the 50s, by the 70s, by the 80s ... )

Ok, technically that was a secondary peak. Let's be clear and say the
peak of world oil discoveries in the MODERN age was in the 1960s.
There was less oil discovered in the 1970s than in the 1960s. There
was less oil discovered in the 1980s than in the 1970s. There was less
oil disovered in the 1990s than in the 1980s. Feel free to dispute
this. In the early 1980s we started consuming more oil than was being
discovered each year. Feel free to dispute this as well.

> The so-called 'energy crisis' of 73-79 wasn't a shortage of oil - it
> was about the selling price of oil and the shortage of refining
> capacity.

I never said it was about a shortage of oil. I said it was an energy
crisis.

> >> Quite simply, you're a slogan slagger without a good handle on
the
> >> true nature of the problem. You lack the ability to live with the
> >ups
> >> and downs and recognize them for just that. You appear to be
> >> dominated by vague generalities, misconceived assessments, and
fears
> >> of the impending unavoidable collapse of human civilization.
Worst
> >of
> >> all, you an understanding of human inventiveness and ingenuity
that's
> >> so low it's almost misanthropic.

And you are a condescending flat-earther who thinks money creates
energy.

> >And you just say stuff without any references or data.
>
> There's been nothing requiring pointing at sites or data. In fact,
> your own statements have been visibly weakened by pointing at broken
> links or referencing simple kids stuff.

I can't help it if you are too lazy to use google.

>
> >But don't blame
> >yourself, most of humanity is afflicted by "Cornucopianism", even in
> >the face of incontravertible facts. I suggest reading some work by
> >Richard Heinberg as an antidote, starting with the interview above.
>
> I suggest you don't know what I have or haven't read over the last 30
> years.
>
> >And human civilization doesn't have to collapse, human ingenuity can
> >overcome great obstacles, as you say. However, given the path we've
> >(United States) CURRENTLY chosen, things are not looking so good.
> >Unless you think serially invading oil rich countries is good for
the
> >world.
>
> Maybe your mom can help you sort this one out without becoming a
> warmunger.

I was against the invasion of Iraq. Since the invasion of Iraq was not
about finding WMDs, not about stopping any imminent threat, why exactly
did it occur? Why is it so important for the USA to control the Middle
East if the tar sands, with "200 years" worth of oil (according to you)
is sitting next door, in a friendly country more than happy to sell it
to us? Why go halfway around the world, spending hundreds of billions
of dollars, to a region where we are hated, get our troops killed and
maimed, and inflame world opinion to be even more anti-US? Both the
President and Vice President of the USA are oil men, they are very
aware of oil issues.

> >> The CO2 (pollution, warming, other-effects-to-be-seen) problem can
> >> work with a 'wait it out' strategy in your peter-panned-out world.
>
> >> That's the real problem - we're not running out.
> >
> >Yup, and once goal gasification starts up bigtime, and we turn the
> >planet into another Venus, the few million that might be able to
> >survive will able to try "plan B" for humanity.
>
> It appears you're incapable of dealing with problems without putting
> an apolalyptic spin on them. You've referenced serial wars, venus
> runaway effects, and an oil-scarce world just around the corner.
>
> You don't get it. It reads like this is pretty new stuff for you,
and
> reading something about where the 'Energy Crisis' really went at the
> end of 70s might help.

All your viewpoints don't jibe very well with the facts. Why is an
industry running at 90+ % capacity not expanding vigorously if there is
so much money to be made? Why are oil exploration budgets plunging?
Why have no new refineries been built in the USA in 30 years? Does the
oil industry operate on reverse psychology?

And oil won't exactly be scarce for a very long time. Even 30 years
from now, we will still probably have 30% or more of the capacity we
have today, unless the production capacity is damaged by resource wars.
 The problem is that our economic vitality is based on growth, which
requires growth in energy, and therefore growth in oil, natural gas,
etc. Increased efficiency means more growth can happen without an
increase in energy supply, but it cannot keep up with the economic
growth forever.

I would loved to be proven wrong, as I would much rather live in your
version of reality than in mine. I have benefitted tremendously from
our energy rich society, and I don't want it to fall apart.

Relevant Pages

  • Horseman of the Apocalypse (hes never even seen a)
    ... the Fed prints fiatmoney when it wants to, ... energy is the next billyclub bouncing upside your head. ... that oil wasn't going to last forever and we are the ... online dealers I've been listening to seriously expect gold to reach at least ...
    (uk.sport.football)
  • Re: This is awful
    ... Corporations will spend any amount of YOUR money to make a buck. ... > point in humanity's development that involves oil. ... So unless someone develops a realistic means of providing energy it ... > is inevitable that ANWR will be accessed some day. ...
    (rec.windsurfing)
  • The Fed and Oil Prices, Part I THE REAL STORY?
    ... Banks and brokers took the money, ... Some of that money went into stocks for a short term ... into rice, corn and oil. ... Energy, corn, NatGas. ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: How China is Dumping the Dollar
    ... Wealth requries consumption of resources, including energy. ... Energy supply growth permitted that. ... But, Peak Oil and Peak Water, things like this, are hugely ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • the Peak Oil debate
    ... Crude - The Incredible Journey of Oil ... Future Global Energy Prosperity: The Terawatt Challenge - Richard Smalley ... If we calculate 1.6% growth out to 600 years we find that there would be ... example of what exponential growth means in resources can be seen with US ...
    (sci.geo.petroleum)