an interesting article about our economy and the war

[Catal]

[quote]Originally posted by edew
I guess I should just give up because I'm too stupid to type. I'll let Catal lead us down the same Malthusian path that others like Lester Brown, Paul Erlich, and others have.


That sounds like propaganda; the kind people use to argue when they've no scientific evidence. At least link to something that gives the impression of evidence so we know that you understand what evidence is.

[Catal]

[quote]Originally posted by edew
Oil is renewable because it's a chemical molecule.

You're arguing the semenatics of the word "infinite," because you've no other way to prove your assertion. First, you start off that oil and coal are renewable by nature. Then, you drop that and try to prove oil and coal are infinite because we can always conserve our use of them. Now, you're taking the Star Trek approach, because you've no other recourse. Well, of course everything is infinite- my arm is infinite because it can be cloned, my collection of epees is infinite because I can always buy new ones. No, it doesn't work that way. Resolve: That natural oil produced by the earth is renewable. That was your original assertion, stop squirreling around the issue and answer it or admit your inability to do so.


Give me a date you expect the last drop of oil to be used up

I don't expect when the last drop of oil will be used. The scientists expect the last oil to be around 2050. Here is a link to a balanced paper that shows both sides of the argument: http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Campbell_02-3.pdf
And, another: http://www.purposeinlife.org/series2...l_run_out.html
And, another:
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/databas...l/c00017d.html


Of course, neither you nor I will be around then to pay (and receive, respectively) the wager.

Yeah, whatever. Anyway, go back to trying to prove that Ethanol has a lower BTU than oil, that was funny.

[edew]

From what I just read, ethanol-based fuel is more thermodynamically fuel efficient, but the bottom line is that gasoline provides better miles per gallon. But current cars are not built to run on pure ethanol or any mixture with more than 10% ethanol. At higher percent, your warrantee goes out the window, your engine could fail, etc.

Still, the point is clear: if ethanol becomes the dominant fuel for transportation, that makes using oil to get gasoline a secondary or tertiary consideration. Oil will not be used (or used less) and the existing content will be around (or last longer than previously thought).

Oil and gasoline is made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. As long as there's carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen available, oil and gasoline can be made. Heck, with trasmutation of elements, it is possible to create oil without the presence of carbon or hydrogen or oxygen. Of course, you'll need the heat of the inside of the sun to break down whatever atoms and reconstruct them into carbons and hydrogens and oxygens. I'll put this method in the unfeasible column.

There is only one clear way to measure the quantity of a resource: its price. The price of crude oil and the price of gasoline has decreased in the long run ever since the 1900s when it was discovered and used. Sure, there are blips of increase, but the general trend is decrease. Lower price means greater supply. The higher the price, the more scarce the resource. When the oil resource gets to its last drop, the price would theoretically be infinite for that last drop.

But the economy won't let that happen: when the price of oil goes higher than other alternative energy sources (ethanol from corn, hydrogen-fuel cells, whatever), oil will be discarded in favor of the other source. That will happen way before we near the infinitesimal amount of oil left in the ground.

The stone age ended not because of lack of rocks, but because the services derived from rocks can be had with metals. (It may be, ironically, that the services we now derive from metals may one day be replaced by rocks, as new technology in ceramics might prove useful.)

It's the services derived from oil that we cherish. But we don't care necessarily if it's from oil that we obtain these services. When those services from oil is too expensive, alternative resources will take over. That's why the amount of oil in the ground will never go to zero.

[Catal]

Go ahead and fill up your car with ethanol. See how far it can drive before the engine conks out.

How did you get that from this: "Anyway, go back to trying to prove that Ethanol has a lower BTU than oil, that was funny." Your response has nothing to with whether or not ethanol has a higher/lower BTU than oil. Again, you are squirreling the issue. Can you prove that ethanol has a lower BTU than gasoline, or not? If you can't prove your assertion, you say "No, I can't prove it. I'm sorry I opened my mouth without doing the research. I now realize that ethanol does, infact, have a higher BTU than oil. Thank you, for setting me straight on that issue, Catal."


As long as there's carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen available, oil and gasoline can be made.

What did I just say? Again, I said: "Resolve: That natural oil produced by the earth is renewable."

That was your original assertion. Now, can you prove it, or not?

[Dave]

I belive that (some) cars in Brazil do run on ethanol that is made from locally grown sugar cane.

Vegtable oil can also be used instead of diesel oil to run trucks and is in many countries used to make 'ecodiesel' where a cocktail of diesel and vegtable oil is used . At the moment one of the only reasons that it is not more popular is that its use invalidates the warenties on most cars (and it makes your car smell of frying).

[Catal]

From what I just read, ethanol-based fuel is more thermodynamically fuel efficient, but the bottom line is that gasoline provides better miles per gallon.


I see you wisely edited your previous response to include this as the first sentence. In any event, and for the Nth time- when I ask if you can prove that oil has a higher BTU than ethanol, you say "no." This other stuff is irrelevant. It was never discussed, and never contended. Ethanol has a higher BTU than gasoline, that's it, 'nuff said- stop covering up your ignorance.


There is only one clear way to measure the quantity of a resource: its price.

This is insane. Price does not dictate the quantity of an item that exists. One could charge $1million for a barrel of oil, that does not change how much oil is on the planet.


That's why the amount of oil in the ground will never go to zero.

What you said here does not satisfy the resolution: "That natural oil produced by the earth is renewable." Nor does it disprove the excellent scientific points made here: http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Campbell_02-3.pdf. Don't argue semantics with me; can you scientifically prove that this article is incorrect, yes or no?

[edew]

Ok, I'll concede that ethanol has higher BTU per <whatever> than gasoline. That still does not detract from my main point: the quantity of oil will never disappear. Rather, I guess the higher BTU of ethanol might be a more potent argument for the infinitude of oil.

[Catal]

the quantity of oil will never disappear.

That was never in contention. This is: "Oil and coal will never run out. It is, actually, a renewable source." (From your second post on this thread.)

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by edew
But the economy won't let that happen: when the price of oil goes higher than other alternative energy sources (ethanol from corn, hydrogen-fuel cells, whatever), oil will be discarded in favor of the other source. That will happen way before we near the infinitesimal amount of oil left in the ground.

Let me slip in between the kendo-like stick whacking between Catal and Edew to point out a minor weakness in Edew's world-view: infrastructure.

When heating the log cabin just required Junior to slip out back with an axe, home heating was not a big deal. When cities grew beyond the ability to find and utilize firewood, coal and then oil arrived on scene, but required much more effort by many more people to produce and deliver.

We've grown way beyond the ability to go out back for our energy needs now supplied by the cracking of hydrocarbons. Today, it's a world wide network of producers, shippers and refiners, accompanied by the grid of delivery systems.

Edew's contention that oil is a renewable resource is technically true, it's just that the time scale is so long (Sagan-like millions and millions of years) as to be useless to our current situation. The problem now is that there is a limited amount of oil left that is recoverable under the foreseeable technology in the next half century or so.

Sure, in theory, if oil gets expensive enough, other alternatives can be found. The thorny part of the equation is whether they can be found, developed and an infrastructure of production and delivery EQUIVALENT to that of the oil system put in place BEFORE the production levels of petroleum dip below the millions of barrels a day necessary to sustain modern industrial life.

If the current estimates of a 50 year supply are accurate, then that's not much time to come up with a workable plan to change our industrial base over to hydrogen fuel cells, fusion, or pixie dust...whatever proves the best replacement for the limited amount of recoverable petroleum.

[edew]

I unfortunately doubt I will be around fifty years from now, so I won't be able to see the conclusion of the bet. But again, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Yes, it would be mighty difficult to create coal in the same look and feel of the existing coal that we see now. I don't see any reason why we would want to make coal (or oil) in the form that it exists now, even if we have the technology.

What we want from coal are the following benefits of coal:
1. cheap, plentiful supply
2. easy to transport
3. not volatile until used (shoot a bazooka at a coal train will blast coal all over the place; shoot a bazooka at a train carryg gasoline and you'll have a pretty mushroom cloud).

If we can make something that provides the same amount of bang as coal, as easy to transport as coal, and as relatively safe as coal, wouldn't that basically be a valid, in terms of renewablility, substitute for coal?

Oil is the same thing. The services we want from oil are also cheap, plentiful, easy to transport (via pipes and ships), and its fluidity. At the same time, we're not too impressed by the fact that we have to break down oil into its different components using distillation methods to get the kerosene, the gasoline, the whatever else -enes or -ones. So, if we can make something that burns as well as gasoline, without having to produce a mixture of different components, many of which are not directly useful for us, wouldn't that be a better alternative to recreating oil in its raw form?

So in essence, the services provided by oil and coal can be manufactured, perhaps grown (as is ethanol via corn). In that case, that energy source is indeed renewable.

Is it possible to grow genetically modified plants that we can squeeze out gasoline like we squeeze out olive oil from olives? In the current days when we can create flies with eyes growing out of their legs or legs growing where their antennae belong, or fluorescent bunnies, I don't think it's too far-fetched to consider the possibility that within 10-20 years that we can grow crops that can be used to create gasoline in the formulation that we use now.

The information that leads to the 2050 timeframe for the end of oil is related more to the "known reserves" of oil. Known reserves does not measure the amount of oil in the ground, just the amount of oil we know are available. The analogy by Simon is that the known reserves is likened to the amount of food in your pantry. You, like most people, have about two weeks supply of food in your cupboard. But that amount is hardly indicative of the state of food scarcity in the world. When that amount in your reserves drop low, you just go and get some more.

When the known reserves drop low, we just drill for more. Given the long-run trend in the price of oil, relative to the CPI or some other marker, we see that the price has been dropping, meaning it's easier to get some more, much as it is easy to go get some more food to replenish your known reserve in your pantry.

I myself am optimistic in that scientists and others are continually looking at new ways to obtain energy from different and novel sources. As I mentioned previously, a university in Japan is developing a system to use the temperature gradient of the deep sea versus surface-level sea to generate electricity (and fresh water to boot). Let the scientists and dreamers work their way and we'll be in a new form energy soon enough.

If you look back in history, the transition from wood to coal occurred much sooner before the depletion of wood. The transition from coal to oil occurred much sooner before the depletion of coal. And the transition from oil to whatever comes next will occur before the depletion of oil becomes a crisis. It has always occurred this way, and there's no reason to believe otherwise.

(Of course, if restrictive and draconian government intervention comes into play, we may see artificial crises. Peasants in the middle ages didn't have enough wood for fuel not because the trees weren't there: their lords and kings were overly dictatorial and imposed hardships on the peasants.)

[edew]

Originally posted by Catal
the quantity of oil will never disappear.

That was never in contention. This is: "Oil and coal will never run out. It is, actually, a renewable source." (From your second post on this thread.)

I believe "the quantity of oil will never disappear" is logically equivalent to "oil [...] will never run out."

That it is a renewable source is a separate fact based on the simple fact that oil is composed of elements we have ample supply of. If needed, they can be recreated, either through a natural process which may take millions of years, or an artificial process which may require significant technological skills and ample funds.

If you do not argue against the claim that oil will never disappear, then you can't argue against the claim that oil will never run out.

I don't know how you can make an argument that it is impossible to create oil from basic materials (or at least the useful components of oil -- no need to create all the unnecessary constituents; economically, any recreation would create the product we want AFTER the crude oil goes through a refinery, not BEFORE going through the refinery).

[Catal]

[quote]Originally posted by edew
That it is a renewable source is a separate fact based on the simple fact that oil is composed of elements we have ample supply of.


Such a waste of time over what amounts to a semantic argument.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by edew
The information that leads to the 2050 timeframe for the end of oil is related more to the "known reserves" of oil. Known reserves does not measure the amount of oil in the ground, just the amount of oil we know are available. The analogy by Simon is that the known reserves is likened to the amount of food in your pantry. You, like most people, have about two weeks supply of food in your cupboard. But that amount is hardly indicative of the state of food scarcity in the world. When that amount in your reserves drop low, you just go and get some more.

When the known reserves drop low, we just drill for more.

Two problems with this analogy. First, even the most gung ho oil advocates will admit that most of the "easy" fields have been identified and tapped. Some are exhausted, some still have some lifespan left to them. It's becoming more and more difficult to find new fields to develop at any price.

Second, with a finite supply, you can't just keep going to the corner store. If you're out of cereal, and the only wheatfield left is in Botswana, there may be no practical way to procure a new box for your cup[baoard.

I would love to see concerted efforts across the industrialized nations to find and devlop alternative means of energy. I'm just concerned that the inertia of the oil industry will stifle development until it's too late to arrange that airlift to the Bostswana cereal factories.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

[quote]Originally posted by Catal

Originally posted by edew
That it is a renewable source is a separate fact based on the simple fact that oil is composed of elements we have ample supply of.


Such a waste of time over what amounts to a semantic argument.

No, it is not a waste of time. It is an element of fencing, otherwise known as "mind games". You see, Catal, next time you and Edew meet on the strip you will have this thread running through your head, and will not concentrate fully on the bout.

Feel honored that he found you such a formidable opponent so that he chose to mess with *your* head! ;-)

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Catal
{snip}. Ethanol has a higher BTU than gasoline, that's it, 'nuff said- stop covering up your ignorance.
{snip}

Speaking of putting out assertions without proof.... Do you happen to have a link for this?

Because, according to http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html, the energy content of a gallon of ethanol is 75,700 Btu/gallon, while gasoline is 115,000 Btu.

Crude oil (at 42-45 gigajoules/ton) is also significantly higher than ethanol (at 26.7 gigajoules/ton).

--Philistine

[Catal]

Speaking of putting out assertions without proof.... Do you happen to have a link for this?


Your question is proof that you don't read these posts carefully. Go back and read my responses, but make sure your eyes are open when you do this time. Also, wear any contact lenses or glasses if they are required. Then, when you see my post to the link that shows that ethanol does have a higher BTU, smack yourself in the head with a clue bat and say "Duuuhhhh..."

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Catal
Speaking of putting out assertions without proof.... Do you happen to have a link for this?


Your question is proof that you don't read these posts carefully. Go back and read my responses, but make sure your eyes are open when you do this time. Also, wear any contact lenses or glasses if they are required. Then, when you see my post to the link that shows that ethanol does have a higher BTU, smack yourself in the head with a clue bat and say "Duuuhhhh..."

Actually, your answer seems to be an indication that you do not read your own links carefully.

The Link you posted has nothing to do with the comparative energy content of petroleum sources vs. ethanol.

What it seems you have misconstrued was the paragraph stating:

Contrary to Pimentel's calculations, Corn ethanol yields a very net positive energy balance, and has a positive impact on US energy supplies. Researchers at Argonne Laboratories found, based on 1997 agricultural data that the energy in corn ethanol was 1.37 times the energy in fossil inputs (BTU in ethanol/BTU in inputs). Likewise USDA researchers found a net energy ratio of 1.24 based upon agricultural data collected in 1991 to 1995.

This is not a comparison of energy contents, but rather a calculation of how many BTU's of fossil fuel are expended in producing one BTU of ethanol. The number varies depending on the study--but according to this site, is positive. Note they are responding to a contrary study which found it negative.

If you would like confirmation, do a search to determine the energy content of ethanol. Then do one for gasoline (or other petroleum product). Compare them.

That's what I did. Let me know how that turns out for you.

--Philistine

[Voldune]

Wow...I think someone needs to remove the clue bat from their *** and stop with the personal insults. If you can't conduct yourself like a adult and have a debate without turing into a moron then I suggest you go hang out with the rest of those people no one has any urge to have anything to do with. Get a bloody clue and act like you have some type of common sense and social skill. Have a nice day...and I hope someone takes the clue bat...and smacks you up side your head so you realize how to talk to your fellow peers.


EDIT: misspelling

[Catal]

[quote]Originally posted by Voldune
Wow...I think someone needs to remove the clue bat from their *** and stop with the personal insults. If you can't conduct yourself like a adult and have a debate without turing into a moron then I suggest you go hang out with the rest of those people no one has any urge to have anything to do with. Get a bloody clue and act like you have some type of common sense and social skill. Have a nice day...and I hope someone takes the clue bat...and smacks you up side your head so you realize how to talk to your fellow peers.


Oh, la de dah... If I were to conduct myself like an adult, I would enact an embargo upon Kentucky, and ban your export of inbred yokels.

There is a certain risk in debate, misinterpretation of facts can lead to err; which in my case it has. However, I gather from your silence up to this point, you'd nothing educated or important to say, and are merely taking this act of opportunity to make yourself look more intelligent than you are. You are a flea, a thief who lives off the success of others. Keep your hands off the keyboard- if I'm to be insulted by anyone, it would be by the people who had the gusto to be involved in the debate in the first place.

[Voldune]

Well mr. high and mighty moron. The reason I did not participate in your debate up to this point is that I truly didn't give a rats *** about the subject matter. But I like to browse the threads as you never know what you might miss. And as for looking more intelligent...does it really make a adult look more intelligent to correct a child? Of course not...the adult feels its his duty to let the child know that the behavior the child is exhibiting is unacceptable. And thats what I am doing with you little kid. Letting you know that some people can act like adults...and some children need to be told when they are acting unacceptably. So grow up and act like your older than 5. And as for the flea comment...and the success of others....what success? Where has anyone succeeded? Well I guess you did succeed in making yourself look like a moron...but thats about it. So in conclusion...if you should ever have a topic of conversation I have any interest in...then I will participate in the debate....otherwise I will browse...and when I see children like yourself acting like spoiled little brats I will let them know. Oh yeah...got a problem with Kentucky? If ya do, oh bloody well. What part of the country are you from? That way I know where they are breeding the morons at and can keep away from your amazing stupidity and lack of social skills.