Re: Oil Crash
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 12:26, Mike Carrell wrote: Stephen wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Fascinating. Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on global warming? Lack of oil will ruin the economy and lead to WWIII -- but will it also save the polar bears? Or have CO2 levels already gone so high that a methane burp followed by a total meltdown is inevitable? Take note of the cover story of the last Scientific American. The author uses deep ice core data to measure the cyclic methane and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over may millenia. It is cyclic, the cycles synchronous with variations in the solar illumination due to interactions of the eccentriciey of the the Eartth's orbit and its precession of the rotation axis -- both cosmic effect, beyond control of man. Following those cycles, Earth should have entered a cooling phase some 5-8000 years ago, headed for an ice age. That trend has been counterbalanced by the rise of agriculure, producing mathane from rotting crops and increasing carbon dioxide through deforestation. Thus we have ha a nice climate, due the presence of Man. We overdid it with the industrial age and massive use of fossil fuel, and may now face consequences. However, if the peak oil scenario is as bas as advertised, then the use of fossil fuels will decline, and we may continue down the cosmic cooling cycle toward another ice age. Thus even though there may be a near term victory for LENR and BLP to arrest the peak in global warming, the ride can still be bumpy. And to think there is a comepetition as to who can build the scariest roller coaster rides :-). Mike Carrell When the oil runs out, we will go nuclear. There will be some civil problems as folks for and against the nuclear option 'interact', but the nuclear option will be excersized. Yes there probably will be terrorists, but that is what National Guard troops are for. By then, the political climate of starving and cold masses huddling in the dark (while not fleeing south and becoming the new breed of John Steinbeck's 'Okies') will have profoundly changed; and the changes will be ominous for a previousely democratic society. In tough times they send for the sons of bitches! will be the operation phrase. If you think the 1930's were badwait. The Romans had laws to deal with the lawless, just like we Americans dealt with looters in the 1940's and 1950's. We called them outlaws and shot them on sight! That is what will happen to anti nuclear hooligans in the future. Stalin did not put up with economic saboteurs, and in the dark world of the near future neither will we. Come soon or come late. The only choice that we have is how destitute and cold and hungry and how willing to accept foreign domination will we be before we either build the plants ourselves or allow our conquerors to do it to us. For an energy poor country is a weak country. Every day we let the Chinese and Japanese proceed apace with their programs without strongly pursuing our own is one more day behind we get in the economy of the future. The French are will ahead of all of us on this. The Armenians know what happens when winter comes and there is no energy except nuclear available. Several years ago they almost froze until they restarted their Tchernobl type reactor and pulled themselves by their bootstraps out of trouble with no help from a world that criticized them from their comfortable armchairs of energy affluence. All the while there were no shortage of these comfortable critics telling the Armenians that they should just lay down and die before they started their 'unsafe' reactor.the reactor that saved their lives! Standing Bear
Re: Oil Crash
Standing Bear wrote: When the oil runs out, we will go nuclear. There will be some civil problems as folks for and against the nuclear option 'interact', but the nuclear option will be excersized. All else remaining as it is, this would not do us a bit of good. Oil is only used for transportation. Nuclear power cannot (at present) be used to power automobiles or aircraft. In the future it may be used to produce hydrogen, which can be used for transportation. Or we could use electric cars. However, we might as well use electricity from something cheaper than nuclear power, such as wind or even coal. In other words, when oil runs out, we may go nuclear, but if we want to spend six times less money, we will turn to wind power instead. That seems a lot more likely. Because oil is only used for transportation, it is much less important than people realize. Replace automobile engines with something better and the need for oil practically vanishes. The use of oil to generate electricity peaked in 1979 at 3,283 trillion Btu, and it has declined to 1,200 trillion Btu. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_18.pdf See also Fig. 5.14. Heat content of petroleum consumption by product by sector: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_34.pdf Note that the vertical scales differ. The figure on the bottom right shows the dramatic decline in petroleum consumption to generate electricity. All four sectors are shown together here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_28.pdf The only substantial use of oil is in industry and transportation. Some of the Industrial sector petroleum is used to generate electricity, in combined-heat-and-power plants (cogenerators). Most is for things like petrochemical feedstocks, which could easily be replaced if cheap wind energy becomes available (and will surely be replaced if CF becomes available). See Table 5.13b: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_31.pdf - Jed
Re: Oil Crash
At 02:28 pm 22-03-05 -0800, you wrote: This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ They have no wine. Time to wheel out the five water pots. 8-) Frank Grimer
Re: Oil Crash
Terry Blanton wrote: This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Fascinating. Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on global warming? Lack of oil will ruin the economy and lead to WWIII -- but will it also save the polar bears? Or have CO2 levels already gone so high that a methane burp followed by a total meltdown is inevitable?
Re: Oil Crash
At 8:34 AM 3/23/5, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Fascinating. Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on global warming? Lack of oil will ruin the economy and lead to WWIII -- but will it also save the polar bears? Or have CO2 levels already gone so high that a methane burp followed by a total meltdown is inevitable? All you can get on this right now is opinion, so here's mine. The very existence of global warming is still contended. Unlike typical new scientific theories and supporting data, which can be fully accepted only when those who have professed opposed principles all their lives die off, we can not wait for those who can not accept the existence global warming, much less the possibility of *runaway* global warming, to die off before action is taken. Unfortunately, that is the mode we have been in - waiting for both politically over committed scientists and scientifically challenged politicians to die off so an appropriate perspective can be developed. Research on global warming in general, and on methane release in particular, has been grossly underfunded. This is the other side of the coin with regard to common funding errors. Funding for fusion research, and renewable energy research and development, is too small because the funding process is not based on the expected value of the research, but rather the likelihood the research will yield anything important. This effect is due to the need for ego protection. No bureaucrat wants to fund anything which might fail, much less anything stigmatized which might fail. The expected value of research is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome times the dollar value of such outcome. Errors in funding decisions occur when there is a colossal value to a possible outcome which has small probability. In the case of cold fusion, the dollar value is for all practical purposes infinite. The probability of successfully achieving it is not zero, as many researchers can attest, so the expected value of the research in this area dwarfs many other kinds of research. This results in an error on the positive side, or type 1 error (my definition). The other side of the coin, a type 2 error, is an error on the negative side, a failing to asses the expected cost of risk, i.e. to examine negative expected values. Research on runaway global warming, due to methane release and high altitude water vapor, is undervalued due to a type 2 error. Failing to asses the risk early enough has a catastrophically high negative value. The probability of this risk is not zero, as evidenced by the climate mode of Venus. Given the fact that type 1 and and type 2 funding errors continue to be made, there is no way to reliably answer your question. The ongoing research may be too little too late. The effect of the oil peak can be reasonably predicted, however. The response in some countries will likely be to substitute coal energy for petroleum energy. The effect of this is clearly catastrophic. It is reasonable to expect that only a world war, both economic and military, can stop this. Further, the peak is just that, merely a peak. The subject article suggests the peak is symmetrical. If the peak occurs in 2000, it suggests the production in 2020 will be the same as in 1980. On this basis we can see that emissions out to 2150 will mimic those of the industrial age, and thus environmental catastrophe is unavoidable even if Hubbert's peak exists and we have passed the peak. I happen to have a little bit of practical experience with the projection of production curves. In my experience they are not symmetrical. They decrease more rapidly than they increase. I therefore think we thus can expect social effects more quickly than the article suggest, and a turn to coal production much more quickly than many expect. Methane production will increase dramatically too, but that is already a given. To sum up my opinion, the net effect of passing a global oil production peak, barring a miracle, will be to increase carbon emissions. Research funding errors, both type 1 and type 2 have been and will continue to be made until those who make them die off or are replaced. On the bight side, I was most surprised to catch on TV a small piece of a recent news conference in which President Bush was strongly encouraging energy conservation. I was also surprised no one mentioned it on vortex. This may be a sign of some kind of awakening in the administration. Then again, maybe not. My approach to a solution of the problem, An Energy Legacy Plan, I have posted here on vortex a number a times. As the plan notes, the funding amount suggested in the plan is too small, but was chosen because it seemed feasible based on political and economic conditions at the time. The
Re: Oil Crash
Edmund Storms wrote: I wonder why the article ignores the fact that deuterium is the only energy source that is in sufficient amount with a sufficiently high energy density? Actually, I believe the energy density and availability of uranium would be enough to produce all the energy we need for a few thousand years, even with today's highly inefficient fission reactors. Of course there are many problems with uranium as we all know! Wind energy could supply a large fraction of today's total energy demand. It might even be enough to supply all energy, but future demand is likely to grow, and it would be nice to have enough energy left over for things like gigantic desalination projects. I do not think that wind or uranium could supply enough energy for such purposes. The only source of energy large enough for this, other than deuterium fusion (hot or cold), would be space-based solar energy. The prospects for space-based solar are becoming much more realistic than they used to be, with the likely advent of space elevators. If serious global warming set in, I believe we could launch Manhattan Project scale efforts and we could build a very substantial number of space-based solar to microwave generators within 20 or 30 years. Combined with improvements in efficiency and laws banning things such as SUVs, I expect this could stop global warming, and even reverse the trend. However, it seems unlikely to me that people will muster the political will to do this sort of thing, or that the technical knowledge will become widespread quickly enough. Cold fusion would be and much easier and far cheaper alternative, if only it could be made to work reliably. - Jed
Re: Oil Crash
Stephen wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Fascinating. Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on global warming? Lack of oil will ruin the economy and lead to WWIII -- but will it also save the polar bears? Or have CO2 levels already gone so high that a methane burp followed by a total meltdown is inevitable? Take note of the cover story of the last Scientific American. The author uses deep ice core data to measure the cyclic methane and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over may millenia. It is cyclic, the cycles synchronous with variations in the solar illumination due to interactions of the eccentriciey of the the Eartth's orbit and its precession of the rotation axis -- both cosmic effect, beyond control of man. Following those cycles, Earth should have entered a cooling phase some 5-8000 years ago, headed for an ice age. That trend has been counterbalanced by the rise of agriculure, producing mathane from rotting crops and increasing carbon dioxide through deforestation. Thus we have ha a nice climate, due the presence of Man. We overdid it with the industrial age and massive use of fossil fuel, and may now face consequences. However, if the peak oil scenario is as bas as advertised, then the use of fossil fuels will decline, and we may continue down the cosmic cooling cycle toward another ice age. Thus even though there may be a near term victory for LENR and BLP to arrest the peak in global warming, the ride can still be bumpy. And to think there is a comepetition as to who can build the scariest roller coaster rides :-). Mike Carrell
Re: Oil Crash
At 11:29 AM 3/23/5, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: Research on runaway global warming, due to methane release and high altitude water vapor, is undervalued due to a type 2 error. Failing to asses the risk early enough has a catastrophically high negative value. The probability of this risk is not zero, as evidenced by the climate mode of Venus. Think positively! I think we can safely discount the Venus scenario. There is stron evidence we can not safely discount the Venus scenario (see below.) After all, Earth has been through at least one apparently permanent snowball phase in which the albedo went 'way up. My understanding is that the recovery path from snowball Earth was provided by the accumulation of massive quantities of CO2, released by volcanoes over a period of millenia, which remained in the atmosphere, unused, due to the lack of green plants. The CO2 level finally got high enough (10%? 20%?) to produce a truly ferocious greenhouse effect, which eventually melted the snowball ... and as the albedo dropped, there must have been massive overshoot since all that CO2 would have taken a very long time to break down, leading to a very hot Earth for some period of time. The come-back scenario I read was based in part on volcanic ash deposited on the ice ball reducing the albedo. If that hot Earth phase wasn't enough to cook the CO2 out of the carbonate rocks, which is the path which leads to a Venus Earth, then it seems very unlikely that industrial CO2, even combined with arctic methane, could do it. That scenario did not produce sufficient high altitude water vapor. High altitude water vapor is the ultimate killer, not CO2 or methane. Increased concentrations of CO2 and methane warm things up enough to get the water vapor into the stratisphere, but it is the water vapor that causes the runaway. There is a gigantic supply of water. It is just a matter of tipping the concentration balance. We currently dump a lot of water vapor directly into the stratisphere via jet engine. A large methane release will directly increase upper atmospheric water vapor via the gradual oxidation of the methane. Methane is lighter than air. And if the carbonate rocks don't break down then I think we can also safely assume that, in no more than a million years or so, global warming will abate and the coral reefs can start to come back. The Venus runaway greenhouse effect was not initially caused by CO2, but rather high altitude water vapor, which has a very powerful greenhouse effect. Try googleing: venus greenhouse water vapor Especially check out from that result: http:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020516080752.htm http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm There is an area over the Pacific already in a *measurable* runaway regime. Melting of the polar ice caps and vast methane releases already underway may be enough to tip the balance to a clearly measurable global runaway regime. In my book, that means that we are currently in a runaway regime, a regime in which global warming will runaway unless drastic action is taken. This is not the definition of runaway greenhouse effect used in the second URL above, but it is a definition that makes more sense to me. If the progression will not stop without drastic intervention, then to me that is runaway. Any other definition only clouds the issue. I was very happy to see all that information online. It was not available when I posted on the subject in 1998. Regards, Horace Heffner
Oil Crash
This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Oil Crash
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:39:21 -0700: Hi, I wonder why the article ignores the fact that deuterium is the only energy source that is in sufficient amount with a sufficiently high energy density? What does it take to make this fact part of government policy? Even the hot fusion program, as poor a method as it is, receives little support and, as we know, cold fusion is actively ignored. This is rather like people on a sinking ship ignoring the life boat because it is not painted with their favorite color. [snip] Actually the crew is in the hold boring holes in the hull, and the passengers are paying them to do it, while they stand around and watch. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
