Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

Calliban · 2025-05-09 09:47:46

US tight oil tends to be light (low density) and low viscosity. It would be impossible to recover from fractured rock were that not the case. But US refineries are mostly decades old and were built to process oils with a specific range of density, viscosity and volumetric heat capacity. So tight oil is usually blended with heavier oils to produce a syncrude with the right properties for the refinery. It is possible to build refineries that could process tight oil or heavy oil without modification. But it takes a lot of capital and a lot of time to build a refinery. No one invests several billion dollars on a whim.

I have read articles that say that tight oil has insufficient heavy hydrocarbons to make the right balance of petrol, diesel and asphalt to meet market demands. But I have see contradictory information on this claim. I don't know how much truth is in it.

Void · 2025-05-09 11:07:26

I agree fairly well with what you say. I was just surprised with how competitive economically Tar Sands are.

I think that unlike other administrations, this one would protect the shale industry from a "Kill-Shot" from OPEC, if they tried to drop prices to knock competition from shale out.

If the USA is going to bring industry back into the USA, as they say they will and I believe they will, then I think that America can run on a higher priced oil than its non-continental competitors. That would be because we have a convergence of market, production, and energy sources.

So, for East Asia or Europe to sell into the American market, there are additional shipping costs perhaps? Hard to be sure as much of American population is on the coasts. But yes, I suspect that having production here on the continent reduces shipping cost, so you might not need quite as cheap of an oil source to make a profit as offshore will need. And of course we have natural gas as a substitute for oil which is practical here for reasons that Peter Zeihan has indicated.

So, with any sensible administration, Shale and Canadas Tar Sands would be worth us making an effort to protect from OPEC.

Even without economic protections, Shale benefits from being local, if the production to satisfy our market is here on the continent.

I am not sure what plans are for tariffs for bad actors who produce oil overseas.

My impression is that our Shale Gas will greatly outlast Shale Oil. And then we have Oil Shale in very large quantity, but I am guessing it will never be brought to market if Green and or Nuclear(Fission/Fusion) eventually become viable.

In a video, "The Electric Viking", has indicated the people in Pakistan are tilting strongly towards solar. This may be in part because China offers Coal made solar at a low price, and also because people in such a situation as Pakistan, have lower expectations for what constitute an upgrade in living situations. As 90% of the people in the world live in such sunny places, I would expect that (Coal + China) = cheap solar, which in those parts of the world are likely to become competitive with oil producers. But perhaps not so competitive with North American internal oil.

So, that is another slap in the face for OPEC, it seems.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-09 11:31:23)

Void · 2025-05-09 15:39:46

An idea has come to me. Could you combine Coal and Natural Gas, using Solar or Nuclear energy to make heavy oil?

This might provide efficiency as you could run a Natural Gas area and use a Solar or Nuclear power source to combine the Natural Gas the Coal to make heavy oil. Then the heavy oil is easy to transport by pipeline and then to put into a ship bound for Europe or Britain for instance.

If China can burn coal to make solar, I think it should be OK for us to use Nuclear or Solar to combine Coal and Natural Gas.

It would stretch America's energy reserves, and if Canada closes down the Canadian/Alberta Tar Sands, we would be OK.

But Canada going total green? Quite an experiment. Would their talented workers immigrate to the USA?

Ending Pending

kbd512 · 2025-05-10 08:49:30

Calliban,

Shale oil is excellent for making gasoline or lighter products. Gasoline is the most consumed refined petroleum product in the US, by a wide margin. Heavier products can be made with shale oil and coal, if necessary. America has 469 billion short tons of coal reserves. We already make most of our plastics, synthetic fibers, and lubricants from natural gas. Venezuela has at least 303 billion barrels of proven heavy crude reserves if other countries need that, but America should focus on light sweet crude and synthetic fuels production. At Venezuela's present extraction rate of 392,000bpd, their crude oil reserves should last for another 2,117 years.

We have General Motors LS platform engines that produce 1,000lb-ft of torque at 3,000rpm (571hp), running on LPG. That is a diesel-equivalent spark-ignited engine that weighs a fraction of what a typical Cummins / Caterpillar / NaviStar / Detroit Diesel semi-truck engine weighs. LS engines have a well-established reputation for durability. The Dart-branded LSNext iron block platform is more than capable of withstanding the power applied, as are the new LT iron blocks. I'm less certain about some of the new Aluminum blocks, but presumably those could work as well. Said engine was produced for a Spanish customer to meet emissions requirements that European-sourced diesels were unable to meet. Ka-Tech's LPG engine costs more than the mass-produced engines coming out of GM's Tonawanda plant, but it's not as expensive as any of the typical diesel truck engines and uses far less material. Even if it only lasts for 200,000 miles, it's far easier to completely remove from a semi-truck's frame to rebuild, so total ownership cost will be lower over time as a result.

Now that geared CVTs exist to always keep an engine in its optimal power band, I can see light hydrocarbon engines using gasoline or LPG as a "good enough" substitute for those giant diesel engines while still delivering diesel-like performance. If Ka-Tech's engine makes about 800lb-ft of torque at 1,800rpm, then it can cruise down a highway at the same rpm as much larger diesel engines from about 25 years ago while making the same power. In the early 2000s, the common semi-truck engines of that era would run near 1,500 to 1,800rpm at highway speeds. It's not ideal, obviously, but good enough.

A 15L displacement Cummins ISX 485 diesel makes 1,650lb-ft of torque at 1,200rpm, 485hp at 2,100rpm, and weighs 3,021lbs. They require just as many engine control electronics as any modern spark-ignited engine to do that. Go back about 25 years and look at the torque and power figures of the mechanical diesels, and Ka-Tech's LS engine closely resembles the performance of the last generation of mechanical diesel engines. The Ka-Tech engine doesn't have half as much displacement, weighs around 600lbs, and is small enough that it could be stuffed under the cab between the frame rails. That is wildly impressive.

All the weight savings on the nose of the chassis means these re-engined semis won't be overloaded to the point where the steering tires are approaching their structural integrity limit. Maintaining air pressure in the front tires at precisely the right value will be less of a factor in whether or not the truck blows a tire. This overload condition has become an issue over time as the front tires of semi-trucks are forced to bear more weight from heavier diesel engines. The weight saved can either be deleted or used to beef-up the frame rails to the point that they don't become bent / tweaked as often from hitting potholes.

All that is to say that I think we now have acceptable solutions for repowering semi-trucks and boats with smaller / lighter / cleaner / more powerful engines, even though it's doubtful that they'll last as long in service as the current generation of much larger and heavier diesel engines. Even so, the LS engine is something you can repair in a small shop using hand tools. An overhead gantry crane and massive tools are only required for large diesels. Cummins ISX series engines are only anticipated to go 350,000 to 500,000 miles between overhauls, because that extra power at a much lower rpm shortens their service lives as well. A complete ISX series engine overhaul runs about $30,000. A full custom LS engine with all the best parts can be had for that amount of money.

These newer / lighter / more powerful engines tend to last a long time as long as you run the engine hard every day and change the oil frequently. The vehicle itself will fall apart around an otherwise fully functional engine. Idling and low-rpm operation absolutely kills these newer engines, which were deliberately designed to deliver race car performance on a daily basis. We've made ordinary passenger vehicle engines behave a lot like aircraft engines- the worst possible thing you could do to negatively affect their longevity is to let them loaf along or use them infrequently. Our Lithium-ion batteries function the same way- use them every day and they're fine. If you stop using them or change their charge / discharge behavior, they quit functioning in short order.

Void · 2025-05-10 12:07:08

Lots of interesting information unknown to me in your post kdb512. Even so, sometimes we converge.

I think that there is a real chance that with advanced synthetic labor (Robots + AI), the cost of solar and maybe wind will continue down, and that over time the need for hydrocarbons as a portion of energy used will go down. But the desire for more energy will go up at the same time.

I think that the green movement of the West is doing it wrong. You do not kill your horse and walk somewhere to go get a car. You perhaps ride your horse to get a car, and you keep the horse around in case you need it.

China is not the stupid. Use the coal and make solar. Eventually if you keep working with solar you might master it to become a thing of value. If it does, then you can put your coal into retirement if it may be needed later. If it does not and you kill your coal, then someone is likely to conquer you because, you would not have the means to maintain a modern method of existence. In that case whoever conquers you is likely to burn the coal anyway then.

I thought it was amusing to suggest Solar + Natural Gas + Coal to make heavy oil, or to suggest Nuclear + Natural Gas + Coal.

Of course there is no strong reason not to use each separately, unless you want to export Oil to people, we like and want to defend. Internal to the USA it would make sense to use Nuclear, Solar, Natural Gas, and Coal, separately if we would use them.

But since I believe that it is likely that eventually Solar and Wind and Batteries will become more economic in the future because of synthetic labor, it makes sense to me to use our Hydrocarbons to protect the people we like from the "Alien Money" from the people we like less. (Usually those are a variety of anti-USA types).

In conversations prior you have indicated that Global Warming from greenhouse gasses is real, but not to be an intolerable menace to continuation of civilization. I tend to agree.

It appears that the vegetation on the planet is expanding and that the vegetation is better able to sequester CO2 than was thought.

Also, it appears that East Antarctica has begun to accumulate more ice due to increased snowfall, perhaps from global warming.

So, the planet has coping mechanisms in action.

Apparently from calculations, we are next scheduled for an ice age, so a bit of global warming might be useful anyway.

And I think that with synthetic labor in large quantities, extracting CO2 from the atmosphere to make things with such as Hydrocarbons, will become within reach, probably using a variety of energies.

The Green plan is becoming obvious as an AXIS of evil. While its promotion of solar, wind, and batteries was useful, the real intent of it was to be used to destroy industrial societies such as those in the west, as that would suit most other anti-western entities of Authoritarianism. I need not name each one but the resemble the AXIS between Germany, Italy, and Japan, who had a mutual interest in destroying the established structures. I need to say though that I do not hate any of those three. It was just how things worked. They were in transition from the old world to the new world and they faltered because that is a very hard place to operate.

In our country, it is becoming more obvious over time that the Verbal and Violent Elites (Of social movements) have no good intentions towards our kind. They are obviously just a hateful people where previously they were promoted as the "In Crowd".

So really, I think that the USA has a lot going for it now that we can see who they really are. Basically, people who don't belong to the heart of America at all.

I feel sorry for Canada, as it does apparently not emerge yet from the enslavement that the last period of time allowed the enemies to hold America in.

I think we should plan that somehow Eastern Canada will be able to stifle the Tar Sands, so we should be prepared to have things go either way. We can import Tar Sand Oil or not have the option.

Better to be less reliant on things we cannot have sufficient influence on.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-10 12:33:11)

kbd512 · 2025-05-11 12:30:53

Void,

The people who run China have caused the greatest total number of civilian deaths in the 20th century. Any government that wantonly and callously kills the very people who ultimately determine the fate of their nation is dictionary definition "stoopid". Making photovoltaic panels using coal that is otherwise too expensive to economically mine and slave laborers is ruthless and/or desperate beyond reason. Any nation that "conquers" China shall inherit a toxic waste dump filled with people too ruthless and/or desperate to make better decisions about how to power their nation. That seems like a terrible investment. Even if the Chinese government simply handed the nation over to us and said, "we give up, you fix it", I would be exceedingly reluctant to even attempt to clean up the mess they've made.

That said...

Let's enter a world of modest make-believe where photovoltaics (PV) and wind turbines cost nothing to make, require no energy (green or otherwise), nor any labor to make. We wave our magic wand and they simply materialize before us. In this same world where "magic" allows us to conjure-up PV panels and wind turbines from nothingness, all other components of an energy grid cost real money. In this world where our special little wand produces PV and wind turbines, the materials to produce all other goods and services still require energy / labor / capital inputs.

In this world of modest make-believe, physics still applies to every other aspect of energy generation and usage. Therefore, staggering quantities of Lithium-ion batteries are necessary to prevent vertical power drops measured in gigawatts, which is what happened to the Spanish power grid. These batteries still cost what they cost, still require materials / energy / labor / capital to produce, and we still have a very modest partial recycling solution attempting to recover the scarce metals from them when they eventually quit working, which is always 5 to 10 years away. In rough general terms, 10% of the energy that any battery can store over its lifetime is required to make them. We can always wave our wand to create more PV panels, but that's the extent of what we get. We still have to install them, take care of them, buffer the power they create, etc.

The recent Spanish grid technology failure highlighted what will happen whenever electronics fail to do what spinning metal does. I recently watched a podcast with an energy expert from the UK, who was talking to someone from America about where Colorado's energy grid is headed- the same ever-precarious position Spain's electric grid presently occupies. The synchronous condensers could not prevent Spain's grid collapse. What the Spanish electric grid really needed was "fast storage", something only electro-chemical batteries or super capacitors can provide.

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) must be sized according to the demonstrated requirement. If a grid was primarily wind-powered and 2 week long wind doldrums were encountered with regularity, as they are, then we'd have to increase generating capacity to the point of absurdity, which also increases the cost of the grid upgrades to the point of absurdity, or else store energy sufficient to cover the periods of time when wind power generation drops to near-zero, in order to prevent a grid collapse. Here in America we burn natural gas or coal to cover those periods at the present time, which should be added to the cost of any photovoltaic (PV) or wind turbine energy generating solutions since no grid remains functional for 24 hours without them. If you "overbuild" PV or wind turbines, then you add about $1 per Watt for grid upgrades for every Watt of overbuild. This is mostly beefed-up voltage transformers and power lines, but the nameplate capacity of the Spanish PV and wind turbines is already far above their peak consumption, much as it is in Germany.

A 14-day / 2.2TWh battery sufficient to cover Colorado's energy requirements, based on Colorado's 2023 net generation of 57.5TWh, at $0.148/Wh, would cost $326B every 10 years, or about $2.45T over 75 years. 10X 1GWe nuclear reactors would cost $220B ($10B per reactor for construction, $1B for 50X fresh batches of fuel, $1B for maintenance, $10B for decommissioning / loan repayment interest / unanticipated costs) over 75 years. The entire lifecycle cost of 10 reactors is less than the initial purchase price for the first of 8 suitably large BESS. Even if BESS installed cost falls to half of what it presently is, BESS does not generate any energy, it only consumes energy, so the BESS cost is in addition to the cost of PV and/or wind turbines. If we primarily use PV, then we need a much larger BESS to cover seasonality. Pumped hydro works out to about the same cost as BESS due to losses and poor energy density, but is unable to respond rapidly enough to be of great utility as a PV or wind turbine backup, unless all power is buffered through the hydro reservoirs, in which case losses purely due to friction will be horrendous. Energy production and immediate consumption always beats storage in terms of total cost. That logical maxim is even true of hydrocarbon fuels. If you had to store much in the way of natural gas prior to feeding it into a gas turbine, your energy costs skyrocket.

Whenever equivalent hour-by-hour generation and grid stability are required, PV and wind turbines rapidly become the most expensive forms of generation as their percentage of a grid's energy mix increases, which is always reflected in electricity costs to rate payers. If any of the cost claims about PV and wind turbines were actually true, then at some point rate payers would pay less money than they do for pure coal or natural gas electricity generation, yet they never do. It's pretty obvious why they don't. A series of very costly grid upgrades, complete backup power plants, and/or battery storage are required.

This is why the vast majority of grid operators refuse to install grid storage batteries, to include Colorado, whose directors have publicly stated that they will not use BESS to any significant degree, citing cost and performance as the primary reasons not to use BESS.

If we scale-up a similar BESS to power the US during a 14 day wind doldrum, then it's 165TWh and $24.4T, every 10 years. US GDP for 1 year is about $25T to $30T. I'm not the world's foremost economist, but I don't think any nation can afford to devote 2 out of every 10 years of GDP to storing energy in batteries, merely to appease someone's "green energy" fantasies. If we primarily use PV, then we need a 28 day 330TWh battery. These devices would be scattered across the US, obviously, but the total storage capacity to deal with wind doldrums or seasonality doesn't "go away" without using that magic wand that we seem to have misplaced. This kind of energy cost should make it abundantly clear why we're unlikely to ever build a 165TWh to 330TWh battery within our lifetimes. If we bring back most of that pure Platinum asteroid to Earth as repayment, then maybe there's enough hard currency to cover the initial construction costs, but what about cost over time? What about the fact that 10% of the energy that the battery can discharge over time is required to make it? At some point, economy actually means "energy economy" (energy input to useful economic output ratio).

A sCO2 gas turbine can respond very rapidly to load and supply changes, but not in 1 second. The entire Spanish grid failure was complete in 5 seconds. Contrary to initial reporting, it was indeed a complete failure. All generation of all types briefly tripped offline to protect the grid from the energy that had nowhere to go. The power inverters and synchronous condensers couldn't respond fast enough to deal with the frequency and power throughput fluctuations. There was no issue whatsoever with the PV providing the input power demanded by the grid. The voltage and amperage supplied were more than sufficient. It had everything to do with dynamic power redirection on the grid destabilizing it to the point that the grid's only option was to disconnect the power supply to prevent irreparable damage to grid-connected equipment like transformers and peoples' personal electronics. The moral of the story? You need "fast storage". It's not optional. At a national level, you need power run through a power buffer (an electro-chemical battery bank). You cannot "blow harder" and solve this problem. The more PV and wind you have on your grid, the larger the power buffer needs to be so that second-by-second disturbances to grid frequency doesn't drag the entire grid down with it.

This is why predominantly PV and wind turbine electric grids are likely to remain a pipe dream unless sufficient fast storage is included. If what we're actually doing is pretending to quit using hydrocarbon fuels while doing nothing of the sort, then we should stop playing that valueless game. You have to descend into a fantasy world where you can ignore energy consumption economics and the practical aspects of running a stable grid for it to work. We have a lot of fairly solid tech that works acceptably well most of the time. We do not have a magic wand, nor anything close enough to a magic wand, and likely never will. The cost to procure sufficient batteries as a grid-stabilizing power buffer is what kills this PV and wind turbine electric grid fantasy. That takes us right back to thermal systems. Maybe all those electrical engineers who came before us weren't so primitive and limited in knowledge after all. Maybe they built the grid the way they did through hard-won experience, aka "the school of hard knocks".

Void · 2025-05-11 15:27:31

kdb512,

I do not so much recommend what China does per Coal and Citizens = Solar Panels, I simply indicate that the process exists, and to some extent is in competition with OPEC and other energy producers. An example is Pakistan, which of course is doing other things just now. But where allowed 3rd world people in the Sun Belt are likely to opt for such solar panels, especially if China can produce useful Synthetic Labor (Robots + AI). For those people large grids may not even be useful, or maybe only partially useful. Of course their current wants and needs are not so high maintenance as for 1st world brat children.

The cost of solar and wind has been going down, and the idea of Synthetic Labor to assist in making those hardware products seems reasonable to me, and I expect that if the robots can do human equivalent labor for $1.00/hour, $0.10/hour or less, the cost of such hardware will go down.

I cannot say other than trends. The idea of practice makes more perfect, also may apply. Probably the Iberian grid problem will be mastered better now, as they should be able to improve it or avoid making it worse.

It is already known that Hydrocarbons will run out so there is some great value in rehearsing solutions for that before "The horse dies". But we have time, if the oceans don't boil. I do think that a lot of the "Green" move was to rebalance reality, in a manner that the elites wanted. The rich were never very fond of industrial people inventors and new money. I think the elites have found a way to manipulate the more ignorant parts of leftist movement from the have nots, to attempt to usurp power from those who are involved in industrial level productivity.

So, as I understand it, you need the "Flywheel" effects of rotating machines such as turbines, to give the fast response?

Perhaps it could be considered to create a Super-Conducting MG SET. (Motor-Generator).

Feed the power from the generator Back to the Motor. Of course I am not proposing a perpetual motion machine, you would have to get make-up power externally for the waste heat generated. Ideally the waste heat could be put to some use. (Maybe this would not be superconductive).

But I believe that with the power you could ramp up the generator or stimulate the generator to pull power spinning down the turbine. Perhaps the Motor would be DC and run off of batteries. Then the Generator would be AC, and could be manipulated as required to fill in a few critical seconds of grid wobble. Of course it is not free, but it might do things that other energy storage devices are poor at or cannot do at all.

Ideally you could pull the waste heat off of this process to heat something. Perhaps some kind of an industrial process.

No guarantees, I'm not Daddy or Moma, but I did try.

Ending Pending

Further thoughts on a MG SET with a Heat Pump>Industrial Heat.

The MG SET could be allowed to heat up to some limit where it would not be damaged. Then it is possible it might tolerate having heat drawn from it down to some safe limit by the Heat Pump. Obviously thermal cycling like that may have some detriment to the lifetime of the equipment, even if kept within reasonable limits. But it is interesting, the Stator Materials and the Rotors, can serve not only as inertial flywheels, but as thermal storage.

I am trying to consider if "Off-Peak-Power" methods could also be incorporated into this. But that gets a bit weird. Sort of like OK your heat pump heats a drum of water to industrial heat, using off peak power if possible, drawing heat from the MG-SET.

In colder parts of the world, perhaps a MG-SET would be better for converting DC Solar to AC, and heating someone's house much of the year or heating their hot water tank perhaps.

Pretty complex, though, costs of hardware may need a lot of synthetic labor to get to a low enough price.

Ending Pending

Here is an example of Synthetic Labor to lower the cost of Solar Installations: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/c … r-AA1EwBfp Quote:

Company makes leap in solar installation efficiency with simple solution: 'We see this as a force amplifier'
Story by Jon Turi • 1d •
3 min read

A heavy lift robot to use in nasty climate situations.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-11 16:10:45)

kbd512 · 2025-05-11 16:19:22

Void,

It's more along the lines of, the "flywheel effect" of large masses of spinning metal absorbs the minute frequency fluctuations and buys time to either bring additional generating capacity online or to shut it down. When nearly all of the grid was run that way, it was difficult to either drag the entire grid down or have power surges as loads dropped.

I would very much like a viable alternative to depleting coal, oil, and gas, but at the present time the most viable alternative seems to be using input electrical or thermal power to synthesize storable fuels from atmospheric or ocean-derived CO2 and Hydrogen, and to run the grid using on-demand energy turbine-based generators. That implies some combination of solar thermal, nuclear thermal, and hydrocarbon fueled gas turbines that preclude having to spend an enormous amount of energy and materials on grid upgrades and massive energy stores with very low energy density and high loss rates.

Professor Michaux's suggestion of building energy consuming machines that are not entirely dependent upon precise frequency control is another viable alternative. This would entail high-voltage DC machines that don't require the use power electronics to perform energy conversions, such as DC-to-AC-to-DC.

I'm agnostic on the ultimate solution, provided it works in the real world, and we're not constantly fed a bunch of ideological pablum about the failures (the typical "don't believe your lying eyes" silliness) and obfuscation about the underlying reasons behind those failures. I can even accept some mistakes while we figure out why something fundamentally new does or doesn't work, but only if we're actively learning from our mistakes and don't double-down on demonstrated failures. Whatever happened in Spain needs to become one of those "teachable moments" where ideology ends, accountability begins, and course correction takes place.

Void · 2025-05-11 18:31:58

The idea of synthetic fuels is a good one. Geothermal comes to mind: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/1 … ture-bill/
Quote:

Generally thinking the best is in the West. But not where the people are.

If a process could suck water and CO2 out of the air, that might work rather well in the Great Basin.

Then to make Hydrocarbon fuels. Those could be shipped by various methods.

If geothermal tricks begin to work better, and if Synthetic Labor reduces the cost of the hardware for fuel creation, possibly the cost of the fuel may come down enough to be competitive.

It might be that some sort of solar would also fit into this.

So, there is some hope.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-11 18:39:41)

kbd512 · 2025-05-12 09:06:20

Void,

We should certainly look into using geothermal power for thermal fuel conversion processes. Generating power directly may produce undesirable side-effects. Messing with the heat flows within the Earth's mantle is not something we want to experiment with. There's a major difference between pumping a batch of Carbon and Hydrogen down a bore hole and letting it "cook" within the upper mantle vs drawing the heat out of the mantle for electric power generation.

We already have lots of labor-saving machines. Whether or not AI-enabled humanoid robots add new capabilities remains to be seen. I think the idea has a lot of potential, but the real question is how much will those robots cost, how autonomous are they when it comes to critical job functions, and how much energy will making and using them require?

I don't have answers to any of those questions. If such an automaton truly does cost about $25K, as Elon Musk suggests, provides a like-kind substitute for repetitive manual labor, and lasts for 10 years before it's worn out, then it's a technological windfall. Quite a few hard labor jobs would benefit immensely from robotic workers that cannot be injured or killed. However, there's a high probability that these robots cost a lot more and take a lot longer to develop than anyone initially thought. Self-driving cars are an example that immediately comes to mind. At the present time, there are no self-driving cars. There are a few that can operate semi-autonomously. They've always been "just" 2 to 5 years away, sort of like the hype surrounding "better batteries".

Void · 2025-05-12 09:28:28

I appreciate your input kdb512.

Geothermal + Solar can be a good marriage. If you so completely dislike Photovoltaic, then think Solar Thermal with your loved CO2 as the working fluid. When Solar is working, then you can draw less on the Geothermal, and the Geothermal will recover more heat into the rock nearer then fluids of the well. So, if you like it you can run 24/7.

As the Next Step, you pull water from the air and also CO2 at the same time. Then you split some of the water and obtain Hydrogen. Then you feed CO2 and H2 to microbes in a vat to grow biomass.

Now, since you have Solar Thermal, you may process the biomass using Pyrolysis, to yield Hydrocarbons. Many waste gasses might be routed back to the microbe growth if it is compatible with the microbes.

In the Pyrolysis, process we might obtain Biochar, which could be a useful product. (I suspect that gaining various products from biochar may be possible).

So, we could get Methane, Oils, and Solids.

As for Robots, I expect some Elon Time in those. Starter tasks will be rather simple. But most places on Earth will be experimenting with it. Trade secrets will flow regardless of rules. So, skill levels will rise.

As for Robots lasting 10 years, it is more likely that parts of Robots will last various time intervals. If the Synthetic Labor drops the cost of hardware, then maintenance of robots could also be low cost. Possibly the robots repairing each other with low cost parts.

The number offered for the cost to make an Optimus is currently $10,000 per unit.

The first robots will be used inside of Tesla.

Probably the first robots sold or rented will be for a cost far above $10,000, as the labor one robot could provide might justify $50,000 for a sale, maybe even more.

In the use of robots, over time the number of tasks that such robots could do, will increase. Tasks that might be done will become more and more complex.

But if robots can build more robots in factories, then eventually an Optimus may cost $20,000, maybe even less.

But many categories of goods will experience severe deflation, so over time for many products people with low incomes will have better ability to own things for a lower cost.

I think this is going to be so disruptive, that it is really hard at this point to predict the rate of the change, and precisely the direction of changes.

Ending Pending

From post #34:

The idea of synthetic fuels is a good one. Geothermal comes to mind: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/1 … ture-bill/
Quote:
Generally thinking the best is in the West. But not where the people are.
If a process could suck water and CO2 out of the air, that might work rather well in the Great Basin.
Then to make Hydrocarbon fuels. Those could be shipped by various methods.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-12 10:13:10)

Void · 2025-05-29 20:18:53

Someone wants to make this claim: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE Quote:

MIT Cracked Nuclear Fusion.. And it Might Have Just Doomed the Oil Industry
YouTube
Spacialize
38 views

I am thinking that solar might survive at least for local power, provided it keeps dropping in price.

If this somehow is going to prove true, then the outer solar system opens up as well as Mars.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-29 20:20:43)

Void · Yesterday 10:06:50

I think this is interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auNx_lj … tricViking
Quote:

Gas Cars Will Disappear From The United States Sooner Than You Think
The Electric Viking

And we may get self healing solar panels that last 100 years, Natural Hydrogen that could last 200 year, geothermal that may be good for thousands of years, and maybe fusion, and other new energy types.

I think that a hysterical approach to claimed climate change remediation, is very improper under the circumstances. That is, unless you want to impoverish the common people.

Verbals may very much want to do that. Since their access to power, sex, money, is based on coercing other humans to obey their words, it is understandable why they would want to promote a painful reality for common people. In such a world the general pain will make people more willing to listen to their promises which have no basis in actual manipulation of mass and energy, except to direct slaves with words and cruelty.

Our future looks rather good to me. We only have to walk away from the Verbal and Violent and just fix the world.

But at the same time the idea of Carbon as a construction material is emerging.

So, Carbon at least may have a future value that it has not previously had. And there is plenty of Carbon as Coal or heavy oil.

When shale oil runs out, we will probably not miss it anymore.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 10:17:56)

kbd512 · Today 03:50:06

Void,

We already have solar panels that have lasted more than 8,000 years. They're called "mirrors". I'm genuinely curious as to why some of us have yet to discover these seemingly miraculous solar panels, because they've been a part of humanity's technology toolkit long before batteries or combustion engines ever existed.

This YouTube personality who calls himself "The Electric Viking" is delusional if he thinks gas powered cars are going to start disappearing from Texas during the next 5 to 10 years, or merely that BEVs become the majority of new car sales. People like him think they can cheer-lead their favored power and propulsion solution into existence. He cannot make peace with the idea that human civilization was built on specific engineering principles not amenable to his personal preferences. Power and energy density are iron-clad engineering principles that dictate which technologies eventually become practical and pervasive on-demand power and propulsion systems.

A kilogram of diesel fuel contains 39,750Wh of energy. A modern turbocharged diesel piston engine can extract 19,875Wh of mechanical energy from that fuel. For a 500Wh/kg battery, that's a 39.75:1 gravimetric energy density deficit ratio. There are no clever engineering principles able to overcome 40:1 mass ratio increases associated with power / propulsion systems for motorized vehicles. Unless the gravimetric density of batteries improves by about 40X, the only net result will be a more expensive and less available transportation solution.

Edit:
I should have stated diesel's per kilogram gravimetric energy density value, which is 12,500Wh/kg, but accidentally used diesel's per gallon, which is 39,750Wh/gal. 6,250Wh/kg can be converted into useful mechanical power output. This is still 12.5X greater than a 500Wh/kg battery, not 40X greater, but my underlying point still stands. There is literally nothing you can do to make an electric vehicle achieve the same range as a diesel powered vehicle, except by making it much heavier.

Edit #2 (supporting evidence):
The Tesla Model 3 Long Range costs about $56,000, has a 1,847kg curb weight, it's battery weighs 480kg, and it can drive ~310 miles at highway speeds when brand new.

The Mazda Model 3 costs about $25,000, has a 1,400kg curb weight, 13.2 gallon fuel tank and gets 37mpg on the highway, so it can drive ~481 miles on the highway, which is 55% further with 447kg less weight.

Using the current national average gasoline price of $3.136/gallon, if you kept both cars for 10 years, drove the "standard" 15,000 miles per year, and did 3 oil changes per year, the Tesla Model 3 will never "break even" with the Mazda 3 in terms of total cost of ownership. This would be the case if both the electricity and 12-18 month tire replacements (the maintenance penalty for its excessive weight) for the Tesla were free, which they're not.

Both vehicles are subcompact cars that take you from Point A to Point B. Anyone on a budget can see how the math of this proposition will work out for them. Anyone who doesn't care what the car costs, nor how frequently they need to carefully plan their driving route and closely monitor the vehicle's "fuel capacity", isn't significantly affected by their motor vehicle purchasing decisions. Good for them, but that doesn't describe most people.

Why is the Tesla so heavy and costly?

That's actually a relatively easy question to answer. That's the performance and monetary penalty associated with poor energy density. You pay double for 50% less driving range. If driving range and cost are both irrelevant, then lots of other practical ownership issues are also irrelevant. I think it's okay to make purchasing decisions that have nothing to do with money, but for vast majority of people who own and drive cars, cost and the practical usability of the vehicle is an issue. They have to make rational decisions about whether or not they're getting good value per dollar spent.
End Edit #2

More than a century after diesel engines were invented, there are still no practical substitutes for diesel engines. We should focus more time and effort synthesizing fuels which are free from impurities, designing pistons and valve trains that promote thorough mixing of fuel and air for complete combustion, and optimizing power transfer systems like transmissions.

As shale oil runs out, we should start synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels. We should do that because it's been achievable using technology that was invented in the 1970s. We use that same technology to synthesize modern synthetic motor oils from Methane base stock. If the past century of technological advancement is any indicator, there won't be any new battery technologies that begin to approach the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels. If all motorized road vehicles used batteries of some kind, oil demand only decreases by about 10%. If "The Electric Viking" lives to see his dream scenario of 100% electric vehicles, no dramatic change in demand for petroleum products will occur.

Speed-of-Air Pistons did more to improve air quality, through not-so-simple piston crown geometry changes resulting from supercomputer simulations of the combustion process, than the current combination of expensive and failure-prone catalytic converters, urea fluid, and particulate filters. That "ounce of prevention" proved to be worth more than several hundred pounds of "cure" for large diesel engines.

I wonder what has to transpire before these "electric dreamers" come to terms with the dissolution of their futurism fantasies. They seem increasingly desperate to ignore technological reality. I think most of them are in the bargaining phase, though "The Electric Viking" still seems to be in the denial phase. Regardless, public support and investments into their beliefs are waning as pragmatism gradually replaces hyperbolic techno-fetishism. Nobody who lives paycheck-to-paycheck is onboard with their plans for the future.

Last edited by kbd512 (Today 13:38:35)

Void · Today 07:21:18

"The Electric Viking" is clearly an optimist as per the claims in his materials. But of course for Australia, these technologies are a fairly good fit.

I recall the cars I have driven in my lifetime. American Cars from the Rust Belt, were somewhat basic, and maybe in some ways a bit drab for the "Drabs" like me.

I lived in a "Drab-Ocracy". Sort of a Plantation/Latin overtaking North European and Native American world. Some cultures elites make their "Glory" by "Drabifying", the lower ranks.

Then enter the East Asians, who overtook that, and the "Drabocracy", was knocked off of its props.

Normally a Drabocracy will be anti-technological, because it is hard to be rich relative to the "Drabs", unless you increase the "Drab" in the "Drab" people below your Hierarchy.

Thankfully, the world we live in allows for the accumulation of technological advancements. The Drabifying processes are too risky to continue, as then the East Asians who, don't fit in an who you cannot really conquer well enough to drabify, can come in with new shiny products that the Hierarchy of the "Drab" cannot compete with.

So, in these conditions it will be very hard for the Hierarchy of the "Drab" to destroy and conceal new technology that increases productivity and happiness.

So, indeed technologies that are not yet as good as we want them to be, can keep increasing perfection over time. Normally the Heirarchy of the "Drab" would make such efforts go bankrupt, and would classify and hide such things over time.

Their method of working is not to raise all boats with a rising tide. Instead the bleed the commoners to weakness, the better to control them, and so to make the wealth of the elites seem more important. It is not good for the souls of the sheep to be so materialistic.

Will Electric Cars keep getting better? Well as long as the "Drabocracy" is held in check, I think so. Now with an Aluminum Battery looking more likely than not, with improved performance, electric cars may become more competitive with gas cars. Will gas cars disappear? I don't expect so. The "Greens" are just a form of "Drobocrate in my opinion. Hair Shirts for all.

Mirrors? Well we know of them. If someone wants to make wealth from them they certainly can try to do so.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Today 07:38:07)

GW Johnson · Today 11:34:22

The title of this thread was "oil, peak oil, etc". We would have already seen peak oil, except for the successful advent of fracking, which among other effects, made the Permian Basin a rich supply again. Oil recovery there was drastically ramping down, until fracking made so much more of the resource available.

There are two prices to be paid for that. (1) initially, we needed immense amounts of fresh water for the base of fracking fluid, when there already isn't enough fresh water for the population. Frack fluid comes back up the well about 10 times as salty as seawater, contaminated with heavy metals, and slightly radioactive. (2) used frack fluid disposal by deep well injection has been confirmed to cause earthquakes, with magnitude increasing as you inject higher volumes faster in smaller regions.

They are only recently beginning to re-use frack fluid. That helps with cost (1), but there is still a long way to go. And the recent floods notwithstanding, there is still a risk of not enough fresh water supply in Texas.

All you have to do to lower the induced earthquake risk is not inject so much so rapidly, and also spread it out over much wider regions. That costs a bit more, which corporate CEO's object to, but with the verification of too much disposal injection causing earthquakes, the liability from earthquake damage would cost them more.

So, oil and natural gas are going to be with us for a while yet. Along with nuclear, wind, and solar. And for a while yet, coal.

Don't complain about the subsidies for wind and solar, without also complaining about the subsidies fossil fuels also get! That often gets lost when people make political arguments! The depletion allowance is almost 150 years old now. And most of the necessary environmental clean up costs do not appear in the prices of oil, gas, and coal; they appear instead in your taxes. So you still pay it, regardless of how and where it appears.

I think Obama was right, the correct strategy is "all of the above" for the shorter term, transitioning into majority nuclear and renewables, in the longer term. It takes decades to significantly change large industries, and fortunately that started a couple of decades ago. Which is why about 25% of Texas electricity is wind, with a tad of solar. And rightly so, based on the prices! The variability of the renewables is what limits their percentage: you need transient surge capacity, best offered by natural gas fueled gas turbine plants.

I would like to see natural gas replace coal as power plant fuel a bit faster than has been happening, but not dramatically so. Gas burns much cleaner than coal, and does less environmental damage in its extraction than coal. And there is no ash to dispose of after burning gas. And MW for MW, there is less CO2 emitted per MW produced by gas, than by coal. And less acid from the sulfur that is more-or-less inherent in coal, but not so much in gas.

The biggest problem faced by nuclear is disposal of used fuel, made worse (by roughly a factor of 10) because we do not recycle it. Even so, we built the disposal facility on the old nuclear test range in Nevada, but we never used it! Instead, spent fuel rests in cooling ponds at every nuclear plant, some not inside containment. How incredibly stupid is that? Politics demanded that stupid outcome, not anything technical.

As the grid scale storage solutions actually come on-line, the percent renewables can increase, but not until then! And we will still need surge plants using natural gas for decades to come, because nuclear as we know it now, does NOT surge well at all!

It would behoove us to fix the leaks in natural gas production and transportation venues. Gas is a bad greenhouse agent. Again, the costs of actually doing that are what CEO's object to. And they will continue objecting, until made liable for the damage those leaks do. The regulations for that are still largely lacking, and being resisted politically. We’ve seen this movie many times before!

Energy sources-wise, it's not an either-or thing. It's just doing what you know how to do, but doing it as responsibly as you can (which often requires regulations that can be enforced). All the while knowing that both knowledge and technology improve over time, especially if you do not cut the research funding!

And, as the motor fleet electrifies, grid capacity is going to have to increase significantly. There is no way around that, there is only how fast we really do it. As I said, changing industries takes time! Best to get started soonest! The climate disasters are already upon us, and will worsen for decades to come.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (Today 11:36:37)

kbd512 · Today 12:19:55

Void,

Technology adoption is less about perfection than it is about practicality and affordability.

I can disagree with but still accept the chosen solution if the math works. When the math doesn't work, no amount of denials or bargaining are going to converge on a solution. I won't blindly support any proposed solution, merely because I'm personally enamored with the idea. Hope and faith are not valid engineering / solution design strategies.

There's not enough Copper on Earth to meet the demand associated with "total electrification", or even 50% electrification, using wind turbines, photovoltaics, and electro-chemical batteries. How I think or feel about that particular solution is irrelevant to the fact that these technologies requires greater quantities of technology metals than are known to exist on Earth. That's a highly relevant problem which someone should've thought about before declaring that some specific technology was going to "re-power everything".

I accept that the average consumer is not an engineer and won't truly understand the concept of energy and power density, let alone its implications, even if they claim that they do. This fails to explain how people who are engineers somehow "missed" key points like the battery being 1/3 to 1/2 of the weight of the entire car while delivering 1/2 to 2/3 of the range, for a vehicle that's 50% more expensive than a gasoline powered equivalent. The only scenario under which such a technology selection makes sense is when something which ignores math, science, and basic economics is driving their technology development and purchasing decisions.

Void · Today 13:30:43

To start with that is a static view based on current reality.

It is already planned that data centers will be powered by power plants at location. Nuclear, Geothermal, and Solar are entertained. So those will not as much require a long-distance grid.

And keep in mind that I am very much interested in continuing the Petrochemical industry.

As for a Car having certain specs, about size and weight, the new Aluminum Batteries are considered to be almost twice as energy dense as the Lithium's. And let us keep in mind that such cars can be powered by other than solar power. Nuclear or geothermal for instance. Coal, if you like.

If the car gets you where you want to go for a reasonable price, then why will we care? There is a possibility that Tesla will come up with a car say about $25,000 for price, and if it is an Aluminum battery, it may be that the battery pack will outlast the car itself.

But let talk about Australia. The "Electric Viking" says that they are going solar and wind in a big way and that their coal plants are shutting down. He also suggests that the 90% of humans that live in the global sun belt could do similar. Is he stretching the truth, or outright lying?

I don't really know if we are going to need to upgrade our grids as much as may be supposed, as battery technology and the concept of "Superpower", may make power a local thing.

The price of the technologies are likely to continue to drop over time, and especially if humanoid robotic and advance automation even undercut cheap foreign labor.

You seem to have a ""Give up, it can't be done" attitude, and I have a "Give it a try and see what you can do" attitude.

Are you an anti-technological person?

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Today 13:41:45)

Terraformer · Today 14:05:34

Void,

Colocating demand might reduce the necessary building out of the grid, but aside from the transformers the grid is built of steel and aluminum, both very abundant metals. You're still going to need a lot of copper.

Void · Today 16:34:41

Yes, well if there is not enough Copper, and Aluminum will not substitute well enough then that is the limiting factor and we will have to settle for that reality and it's consequences.

I understand that high voltage power lines are expected to be converted to even higher voltage power lines, so the metals of those power lines might do more work if recycled that way.

I seem to have a nice article here about Aluminum Batteries: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=WRVORC Quote:

5 Minutes Ago: Elon Musk Dropped A Bombshell about the Aluminum Ion Battery!
YouTube
RevVolt
6 views

It starts to look like a real thing at this time.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Today 16:38:48)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2025-05-09 09:47:46

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#27 2025-05-09 11:07:26

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#28 2025-05-09 15:39:46

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#29 2025-05-10 08:49:30

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#30 2025-05-10 12:07:08

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#31 2025-05-11 12:30:53

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#32 2025-05-11 15:27:31

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#33 2025-05-11 16:19:22

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#34 2025-05-11 18:31:58

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#35 2025-05-12 09:06:20

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#36 2025-05-12 09:28:28

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#37 2025-05-29 20:18:53

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#38 Yesterday 10:06:50

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#39 Today 03:50:06

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#40 Today 07:21:18

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#41 Today 11:34:22

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#42 Today 12:19:55

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#43 Today 13:30:43

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#44 Today 14:05:34

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#45 Today 16:34:41

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

Board footer