 | Playing detective with Saudi production numbers | The Oil Drum | Bringing the OPEC production numbers per well up to date |  |
Saturday open thread
Posted by Yankee on December 17, 2005 - 11:41am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Your own virtual snow fort. Play away.
Also of interest: Grist reports that the government and environmentalists may be able to see eye-to-eye on "clean coal" and carbon sequestration.
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/Ethanol/balance.html
This is a USDA report on ethanol EROEI (1995)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/aer721.pdf
However, their EROEI of 0.74 for gasoline looks like a bit of dirty pool to me. I strongly suspect that there is a conceptual sleight-of-hand behind this.
Having to expend 1.35 BTU of fossil fuel in the form of crude oil to produce 1 BTU in the form of gasoline is NOT how you should compute the EROEI for gasoline.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the way it should be done is to first compute the EROEI for making crude oil appear at the entrance to the refinery, and to then multiple that number by the 'in-plant' EROEI for turning crude into gasoline. The product of these two EROEIs should be the true EROEI for gasoline going out the door of the refinery.
For example, if the EROEI for getting crude oil to the entrance of the refinery is say 4.0 (I don't know if this is what it really is, but I'm just using it as an example), and if the 'in-plant' EROEI for gasoline is, to use their number, 0.74, then the true EROEI of getting gasoline out of the refinery is the product of the two, or 2.96, a far more realistic number.
This is what I suspect is behind their dodgy number for gasoline EROEI. (Hey, would anyone expect a state DOA to cast ethanol from corn in anything but a highly favorable light?)
Information wants to live forever.
Does high octane "super" gas require larger inputs of crude or energy at the refinery to produce? Is there a reason for its higher price other than supply/demand or marketing?
I've always heard that a gallon of gas contains the same energy no matter the octane, yet Super allows my engine to develop more horsepower. Presumably that's because it operates at a more advantageous thermodynamic condition.
I'm not sure if the higher octane gas requires more crude input or not, but I do know that it is a bit more difficult to make, which might be the reason for the slightly higher price.
You can buy chip sets for your car which will bypass the controls on your engine and allow you to operate at higher compression ratios, increase your pollution, and possibly wear out your engine faster as well. You won't pass smog while using those chip sets. You will win street races, though.
Ideas regarding earnings and profit seems to often fall into two different cathegories in this forum:
- Large scale, nuclear powerplants, society needs to change to rail transportation, coal to FT-diesel, etc.
- The world as we know it has ended, grow your own vegetables, learn to live withouth electricity and how to deliver your neighbours children.
- Is usefull for a politician and policymakers and people with lots of money to invest. And it is usefull when thinking figuring out where to find employment. But its no good for starting a small business.
- Is a good hobby and good for survival in extreme scenarions but dosent give anything in the moderate scenarios.
I think manny of us could profit on peak oil business ideas that do not need billions or millions and can be implemented with a few people and then perhaps grow. This will also help with solving peak oil problems.I have a few example ideas here, what do you think about them and can you add more?
Dispatching services run on internet to plan travel and freight. The hard problem here is generating trust so that strangers dare to share cars. There is probably a whole set of possible social ideas with pubs, clubs, etc to form and profit from the build up of the social capital that people will need more of. (This is not my skill.)
Better modularised and series produced equipment for converting houses to biomass heating. (My detailed ideas are specific for the Swedish market. )
Electronic car speed controllers optimised for minumum fuel consumption with a built in drive efficient guide for the driver.
Design portofolios for splitting standard types of McMansions into two or three apartments. Design portfolios for reshaping "wrinkly" styles into flatter more easily insulated styles. (I am not an architect. )
Micro plants for combined heat and power.
Get to wallmart, Ikea etc bus services with equipment for easy loding and unloading of bags.
We should be able to both prosper and do somthing to help with the peak oil problems.
But it is important to know that faschism and other hate ideologies can be usefull for some people. You idealy have to get to those people with better ideas before those who are receptive to them fall for them as easy solutions that for the short run makes their lives better.
It was wise of you to and an "eco". People have a harder time to recognice hate ideas when the are used togehther with "eco", "feminism", "god" or other ideas with positive values.
Glomming Eco and Fascist together to imply that there is some real threat from ecologists is absurd. Should we not talk about ecological issues for fear the ecologists will take over and force us all to wear Birkenstocks and eat granola while hugging trees? There is more than enough threat from those who hold the reins of power now. It is hard to imagine a crew that could have done worse, both by their actions and their inactions - and they're not done yet. I'm not too worried about some imaginary monster under the bed - there are plenty of real ones at the door.
But one could argue that the anti-agenda of opposing nuclear power and actually almost all other achievmenst of modern industrialism that don't "fit", is a hidden agenda for genocide, or should I rather say extermination. I can't help the thinking that many people are welcoming the overshoot idea because it will get rid the nature from human species. My expectations are that if it gets to there we will become so desperate that there will not be a biosphere left after us.
If most everybody was nice to his family and friends and sometimes a stranger it could all add up to a peacfull and nice world. (I do believe this, at least it gives larger and larger icelands of stability. )
If most everybody had some solar cells, a mini windmill and an earthhouse it could all add up to an enviromentally sound world withouth pollution.
Wrong! People forget the infrastructure needed to produce all kinds of raw materials and products, the infrastructure needed for a wide range of culture and the number of people living in cities producing these things.
A naive formula for building a civil society do not work for building an energised society. The wind mill and earth home people living on the countryside do need to care for a couple of 5 MW windmills each, then it starts to add up. But then it isent cute anymore and you can all day see that you are part of a larger technological society. svish svish svish
Personally, I don't think the present population levels are sustainable, but I cannot imagine a process by which it will decrease in an orderly, controlled fashion. In fact, "controlled" almost by definition means somebody decides who stays and who goes. So I'm left with hoping we can find transitional energy sources and that our numbers will reduce naturally. But I suspect that these will be environmentally disastrous, and that ol' Jevon's Paradox will probably mean that any such temporary respite will only allow people to keep on keeping on, thus negating the benefit. Frustrating.
What's really amazing is that Labor didn't grab this issue when they knew that their North Sea production was on the decline.
Actually most of the article is saying what we, here, are generally saying (without the in depth questioning, data and analysis). Where it differs is the long anti-jewish diatribe which occupies about half the article.
I personally think the BNP are racist filth and might be better converted into soap. But there are stupid bigots in this world and I think it is better they are aware of peak oil than not.
Peak oil can be hijacked by white neofacists or their like? That seems a silly concept to me, but, maybe, sillier things have happened, GW.
I want some investment in new nuclear plants, increased investment to make fusion power commercially viable as soon as practical, investment in clean coal implementation, improved mass transit etc. All these things will help ameliorate PO but I think we are running out of time to implement them.
Renewable energy supplies, local minigrids and generation, household generation are even more important IMO. They can be implemented more rapidly, on a more widespread and distributed basis, and should boost the economy more than the large scale projects above. Besides being more environmentally sustainable. I see woefully insufficient action on these, too.
Massive conservation efforts are essential. Increasing house and business insulation, improving vehicle gas consumption, using energy efficient appliances and lighting. Where is this initiative?
Some people are screaming at the politicians to get moving on all these before it's too late.
But I also say: the signs of enough being done in time look minimal, so: learn to grow vegetables, make yourself less dependent on fossil fuel energy, be prepared. These things will benefit you regardless of whether the outcome is dire or moderate.
Here's a set of links I sent to the DK mostly about local electricity generation...
The UK DTI Energy Group has just published a report on microgeneration that concluded "by 2050 micogeneration could potentially provide 30-40% of the UK's total electricity needs". I've not read the report yet, you can find it and related links here:
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/detail.asp?ReleaseID=181382
The main DTI Energy site is here:
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/index.shtml
That and the DEFRA (dept of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) site:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/
are worth scanning.
The UK Sustainable Development Commission has some microgeneration info:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/
They're planning a mini-grid in Ireland:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/landhousing/enliven.htm
The US DOE NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) has info:
http://www.nrel.gov/
The most pertinent to minigrids and the like are found here:
http://www.nrel.gov/learning/eds_distributed_energy.html
The whole set of links on left of that page are probably worth perusing as is the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy site:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/
Austria is a world leader in renewable energy use, this is the Austrian Energy Agency site (english version):
http://www.energyagency.at/(en)/index.htm
and its renewable energy section:
http://www.energyagency.at/(en)/projekte/ren-in-a.htm
This page about Upper Austria:
http://www.esv.or.at/esv/index.php?id=166&L=1
gives some background info and an impressive list of achievements since 1994.
Some other links which may be of interest:
http://www.cogen.org/index.htm (CHP)
http://www.microgen.com/main2.swf (microCHP UK)
http://www.whispertech.co.nz/index.cfm (microCHP NZ)
http://www.est.org.uk/housingbuildings/communityenergy/ (CHP)
http://www.bwea.com/ (wind)
http://www.ewea.org/ (wind)
http://www.british-hydro.org/mini-hydro/index.asp (hydro)
http://www.aepuk.com/need_info.php (some UK electricity data)
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/ (World Energy Council)
http://www.nef.org.uk/greenenergy/index.htm (UK green energy)
My issue is that the forecast is based on flights getting cheaper, GDP growth averaging 2.25% both unlikely and the real clanger, that oil price will stabilise at $25 (2000 dollars).
Since the forecast traffic growth is wrong, the justification for airport expansion is gone. How can we get this message out and in so doing avoid the country misallocating billions on completely unnecessary construction?
This ought to mean that you do not need to expand the number of runways but the terminal buildings and public transportation to the airports.
Why not go ahead and do that in a large scale even in an early peak oil scenario? When they no longer are needed you will if you build with good quality have a lot of exelent roomy buildings with good public transportation that can be used for other things.
If they realy want to invest, encourage them to do so in a way that gives a reasonable plan B for their investment.
If you consider what kind of technology is required to build a 10 megawatt wind turbine (blades 70-80 meters long), you'll realize that it's but a tiny stretch to have the same plants building wings for those ultra-economy liners.
North Sea gas drying up faster than hoped
JAMES KIRKUP WESTMINSTER EDITOR
NORTH Sea gas reserves are being used up faster than anticipated, MPs said yesterday, warning that energy shortages will be impossible to avert in the event of the predicted harsh winter.
It will be VERY interesting to start paying attention to both domestic energy talk (not the ubiquitous 2030 blather, but the ongoing management of crisis after crisis) and the same for international trade meetings (pay attention to the lower level talks here, when world leaders get together, it's a safe bet that they will only discuss publically variations of the 2030 BS narrative.)
Another fun task...Anyone been keeping track of the 2030 storylines that emerge from time to time? Seems that this is the latest version of: in the future people will...fill in the blank (that I remember from my childhood).
Google "2030". You will be surprised by what you find!
Hopefully you will have realised before now that I'm totally deranged. I don't mind, they used to chain us to trees (or worse) and misinterpret our babblings in past times, it's safer nowadays - so far, at least.
While I'm on a roll here's the next few months economically (did you catch gold going down Monday as I forecast? There's another $20 to $50 downside to go but get out of gold shorts by mid-Feb at latest)...
16th December 2005, 14:00 GMT notes.
Next couple of weeks to 31st December 2005
Stocks will peak today (Friday 16th December) with the DJIA failing to top 11,000. Gold should decline a little into yearend. Oil should climb a little, the US$ should climb a little. Yearend predictions: DJIA 10,720, Oil $66, Gold $493, US$ 90.3%. Nothing significant.
Quarter 1 2006
Things will start to go bad in a very noticeable way somewhere around mid March, I expect most economic data to reflect this soon thereafter. There will be significant increases in inflation, unemployment, oil, gold and commodity prices; stock markets and US$ will fall. I'm not sure yet whether geopolitical events will partly trigger these problems nor what events those might be. I expect US GDP to slow markedly to below 2% growth in the first half of 2006. The unwinding of the profit repatriation discount which has supported the $, stocks, mergers and indirectly the US economy during 2005 will begin to have a significant downside impact.
The Fed may not do the expected on interest rates, they may skip an increase on January 31st, Greenspan's last at the helm (markets currently put a probability of 98% on an increase so I am out on a long limb here). Helicopter (money) commander Bernanke needs to raise them at his first FOMC meeting in charge to establish his credibility. If Xmas retail is poor a pause in January may be helpful to allow that. They are also wary of prompting a 'rate inversion' that will likely happen with 2 more Fed rate increases (rate inversions have preceded all but one of recent recessions). However, Bernanke's first FOMC meeting as chief will be on 28th March and things could look bad by then, he is likely to be pulled in different directions by inflation, economy, stocks and $.
US$ is quite hard to predict, it will go down soon but has already taken a near 3% drop in mid December 2005 (which was just a correction) so should bounce up a bit first. I expect perhaps a 1.5% bounce within the next few weeks then a steady decline into March when it will drop quite suddenly by maybe 5% to around 82% of its index value (currently it is between 89% and 90%).
Oil will creep up till early March, expected $70, then spike higher by 10% if no major geopolitical event or supply disruption. If something significant happens I expect a spike to $95 or more.
Gold should trade in the $470 to $520 range until it makes a significant move up. This time, apart from a couple of brief and not large retracements, it will get very close to $600 before any significant pause. The move up will probably start before mid March.
Stock markets will be lethargic and mostly trending down until March. I expect the DJIA to have dropped to 10,000 by then and occasionally below. There will be a drop to 9,000 or below in late March or early April.
I have a tendancy to be a bit ahead of events with my prediction timings, so slippage of one or two months on the above would not surprise me.
17th December note: stocks made a poor fist of going higher yesterday, I expect another attempt before yearend now, but they will fail below critical levels (including DJIA 11,000) again. That's probably the last hurrah for stock markets this side of a long, long time.
In all seriousness, where will we be going? Dead? Too poor to connect to the 'net? Too bored to do so? This is NOT meant as sarcasm--I really want to understand what you're predicting.
Imagine being somewhere where all your normal senses (sight, touch, hearing, smell, skin) are non functional. There are still impressions about the place that you can be aware of. Given enough of these you can piece together some semi-coherent idea of 'how things are'. Then try to make sense of that in the context of what you see in your current world.
I expect the US to be quite chaotic in 2009. Considerable anger, violence, despair (much higher than now); some significant structural breakdown. As things happen over the next few years it will be easier for me to feel what's coming more accurately. Sometime not many years thereafter it feels like the US isn't in one piece any more, like it has split into regional entities. But that is getting too far ahead and very vague, much happens first.
The roll call: some will be prematurely dead, but not many, I don't expect many millions of Americans to die violently in 2009, just hundreds of thousands. Infrastructure, like electricity, will preclude some; more are likely to have much more important things to do than discuss things here, events will have overtaken the peak oil debate.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have started this, much will change before 2009. But the mentions of 2030 as if things might even be remotely similar to now irked me like the EIA and CERA fantasies irk many of us.