You are not logged in.
I do not normally see the opec numbers so went after them.
https://mei.edu/publications/opec-and-m … ustainable
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News … Years.html
Looking over some of the other data points indicate that a truthful number was said for what they can really produce and not allowing a false one out in the public domain.
Offline
The Methane Released From the Damaged Nord Stream Pipeline is Visible From Space
https://www.universetoday.com/157996/th … rom-space/
Yellen says OPEC oil production cuts bad for global economy
Offline
The Methane Released From the Damaged Nord Stream Pipeline is Visible From Space
https://www.universetoday.com/157996/th … rom-space/
Yellen says OPEC oil production cuts bad for global economy
So far there havn't been any OPEC oil production cuts. They set production targets that were millions of barrels per day higher than they were able to achieve. They have now reduced the targets by 2mb/d. That is closer to what is sustainable for them. But reducing a target that they couldn't achieve anyway is not the same thing as a cut.
Incidentally, this graph tracks global crude and condensate production volumes for the past several years.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/up … 7200-1.gif
As of June this year, daily production was a full 5m b/d beneath the all time peak reached in November 2018. Given that OPEC have clearly reached production ceiling, Russian production is declining and US production is stagnating, I am prepared to stake November 2018 as being the all time peak in global oil production. It would take a huge amount of investment to surpass that peak now. It would require repeating the US tight oil experience internationally. The US has capital markets, infrastructure and petroleum engineering expertise that the rest of the world cannot hope to emulate. So I think this is unlikely, or at least unlikely on a scale that would change the outcome significantly. The UK and France might attempt this locally, but it will be small beer compaired to Texas.
Here is the production history for OPEC.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-update-s … r-18-2022/
This article only shows the largest producing nations in the cartel. But even from this limited picture you can see the difficulty that the group face in raising production. There are a handful of gulf states that might theoretically have that capability. But there are also a lot of OPEC members that are past their individual production peaks. At some point it will become impossible for the cartel to prevent overall decline, far less increase production on demand. When this happens, OPEC will be redundant as an organisation, because it will no longer be able to function as swing producer.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-09 19:04:12)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Richard Heinberg gives his take on the energy crisis.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022 … gy-crisis/
The UK is experiencing higher prices than any other western European country. This is in spite of the UK still having the North Sea as provider of half of our oil and gas. In the 1990s, the British government sold the UKs state owned utilities. They were bought by European utility companies, most of them state owned. Now the British sheeple are being fleeced and the profits are being used to subsidise energy for EU customers. It is difficult to overestimate the sheer incompetance of the British government. It is noteworthy that no other government in Europe was myopic enough to asset strip their own country in the way that the British government did. For the past 30 years, the UK has subsidised a huge trade deficit by selling off assets. There is little remaining to sell. Outside of London, the UK is the poorest country in Western Europe. The English have the smallest living space of any country in Europe. And our exports are smaller as a percentage of GDP than any other country in western Europe. Trade deficit per capita is dangerously high. The country is living beyond its means. The political classes sold every asset that the country once had. They now fear retribution from an angry and downtrodden populace. No wonder they won't let us own guns.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-09 20:27:07)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
It appears a rebate check is in the mail for states wanting to ease the pain at the pump. If taxation is the source for this money then in the long run its going to drive people out.
About 23 million California residents are likely to receive an "inflation relief" check within days, part of Governor Gavin Newsom's plan to offer financial assistance to many working families walloped by high gasoline prices.
The checks are part of a $17 billion relief package that also suspended the state's sales tax on diesel fuel and provided additional aid to help people with rent and utility bills, the governor said earlier this year.
California isn't alone in developing stimulus checks and rebates for residents to help them cope with inflation, with at least 20 other states also offering financial aid to their citizens.
Offline
President Biden is failing the world.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/shell … ling-world
Much of the the world is facing up to an energy crisis. Biden has persistantly impeded the expansion of oil and gas extraction within the US. Rising energy costs are fuelling inflation, which the fed will crush with high interest rates. This will bring misery to the world as the last decade of credit expansion unwinds. In old age, we will remember the approaching crisis in the way our grandparents remembered the Great Depression.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-11 00:58:02)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
The energy is there but we must stop using it like its water going past a dam and actually cut back, update the stuff we use as well as to look to our own power creation for use. Some of that will come from technology in low or high form with nature being used where we can. Of course, I am working on a sloping hillside power generation system (gravity storage) to give some energy to again aid in reducing my costs.
The low-cost hybrid is allowing me to get ahead of this rising energy cost. Changing incandescent bulbs to led which can be bought in dollar tree in a variety of light intensity wattage outputs. Winter is coming and I am still preparing for its cold getting ready to place plastic where I can stop wind drafts. I replace the main door as it was well worn and with a seal that was leaky. I am also making use of solar lights in several places to cut into that power requirement where the house is at its darkest.
Food costs are the only one I cannot reduce other than to make use of food pantries to supplement and to shop when I see low prices.
Offline
SpaceNut,
All the good things you've enjoyed in life did not stem from energy poverty. The "feature set" of energy poverty includes significantly shortened lifespans with high infant mortality rates, drastically lower quality education, disease, famine, and war. Cutting back on energy consumption means going backwards in time, not forwards. We cannot achieve greater technological progress by regressing back towards energy poverty. It's a mistake to believe otherwise.
Offline
What SpaceNut is describing is his personal solution to the energy poverty that society is imposing upon him. Thinking locally and using what energy sources are available locally, is a good and valid way for any individual to mitigate the crisis that the world is inflicting upon him. But it is obviously only relevant in that particular location and for that individual. It does nothing to solve the wider world's problems. And no man can entirely withdraw from the influences of the outside world. But SpaceNut's local solution will help him. And it is valuable in that context. Unfortunately, the vast bulk of the world's population are locked into systems that do not allow them scope for adaptation. If you live in a small town house, water, food and electricity are things that come from outside. And if the outside world collapses around you, you collapse along with it.
What we are witnessing is the beginning of the end of globalised industrialisation. Energy is part of the problem. Demographics is another part. And politics is making both problems worse, as politics often does. We can see technical solutions to specific problems. But solutions to the entirety of the problem, within the political framework of the present, are extremely difficult.
Most of the concern over the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on the environment, are probably unwarrented in the wider context of what is going on. Most of the world's populations are going to shrink and deindustrialise. Emissions will shrink and climate change will not be the dominant problem in most people's lives anyway. Short term problems, such as failing to grow enough food to feed everyone, are going to be more important in determining average life expectancy. In this context, political polarisation on the issue of CO2 emissions is illogical. We need as much oil and gas as we can get our hands on. It is becoming more and more difficult and expensive to extract oil and gas due to geological depletion and declining grades. ESG pressures are not helping people, because they are not practical replacements. And they are being pushed as alternatives for political rather than practical reasons.
As a group, we should continue to explore technological solutions to specific problems. That is the solution space in which we are able to be effective. We cannot solve the entirety of the world's energy, demographic and political problems. All we can do is look at each individual problem seperately and try and find solutions that will help.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-12 03:55:51)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
For Calliban re Energy Abundance and challenges of equitable distribution ...
There is more than enough energy flowing from the Sun, and stored on Earth in various forms, so that humans could live comfortably and productively in every location.
History, and the current global disruptions show that as a group, humans are not yet up to the challenge of organizing themselves to deliver the good life to all that is possible.
Instead, ambitions to control others seem to be a strong force in the minds of many.
A related observation I would make about human nature, is that millions (if not billions) of people seem to ** want ** to be controlled.
In the context of the situation at hand, it is difficult (for me for sure) to see a way forward.
This is the Petrol topic, so I'll remind everyone that both Calliban and kbd512 have described alternate futures where all of humanities needs for fuel could be met by manufacture of suitable hydrocarbons using nuclear fission.
However, the recent experience in Ukraine, where Soviet built atomic power plants were constructed in some numbers, shows that the risk of destructive human behavior is significant.
I'd like to see a future in which every human on Earth is backed by a megawatt of power allocated on their behalf by a reliable system for distribution.
The "StarTrek" franchise gave us a glimpse of what that might look like.
Such a situation would depend upon self-control / self-discipline that seems out of reach for much if not most of humanity right now.
(th)
Offline
tahanson43206,
There is more than enough energy flowing from the Sun, and stored on Earth in various forms, so that humans could live comfortably and productively in every location.
If every other aspect of accessing said energy is religiously ignored, then yes, there's more than enough. For all practical purposes, the solar energy that falls upon Vladivostok Station in Antarctica is inaccessible to the greatest swath of humanity. This is no different than putting a fusion reactor on the other side of the world. The reactor produces an enormous amount of power and nobody disputes that, but so much power is lost in transmission as to be functionally useless. It's pointless to design energy systems that way, and why such absurdities were never trotted out as "the solution" before wealthy ideologically-possessed non-engineers became involved. The power is definitely there and could be collected, but short of covering that frozen wasteland with solar panels, while ignoring the prospect of transmitting it somewhere that large numbers of people actually live, or moving them to Antarctica, said energy may as well not exist.
History, and the current global disruptions show that as a group, humans are not yet up to the challenge of organizing themselves to deliver the good life to all that is possible.
With every passing decade of the 20th century, more energy and goods were delivered to more people, in more places. That's a historical fact. We ended that century with vastly fewer people in abject poverty, not more, despite an explosion in our population which happened at the same time. I think our overall historical record is pretty good in that regard. That is not to say that the trend will continue without recognition of the limits of existing technology sets.
Instead, ambitions to control others seem to be a strong force in the minds of many.
I'd argue that "control" is a strong force in the minds of sociopaths and psychopaths who wish to subject the rest of humanity to the capricious demands of their rage-based personal ideology. Neuroticism and the desire to pursue toxic relationships is a rampant mental issue for those on the left. They want and lust after an all-powerful yet benevolent centralized government to take act as a proxy for mommy and daddy, which is the same power structure that routinely abuses them in horrific ways. Instead of recoiling in shock, their Stockholm Syndrome (identifying with and developing a co-dependent relationship with their abuser) causes them to bitterly cling to their abuser. It's a perverse dynamic, but very real.
A good number of women are attracted to serial killers because a portion of their lower brain values the demonstrated ability to carry out extreme violence on their behalf (their need for physical protection from other violent men / women / wild animals to have and raise children), but those same men who would satisfy some part of their desire for physical protection would also leave them at the mercy of abhorrent men who are otherwise incapable of being dutiful fathers / partners to raise their children with. Government is viewed as "violence with a purpose", with some amount of implied control attached to it, yet it's obvious to others that there often is no worthwhile purpose and scant evidence of self-control on the part of the people who make up a government. Even though it's obvious that all those other undesirable personality traits (of serial killers and governments) make them unsuitable father figures, human biology and psychology can't be hand-waived so easily.
That's why those of us on the right want limited government and don't want any relationship with our government, beyond that which is absolutely necessary to prevent anarchy and criminality (predatory or self-destructive behaviors). All government is coercive force, regardless of intent, with a direct implied threat of physical violence, if not also the carrying out of physical violence on top of that. You cannot have a healthy relationship with government, except to stay as far away from it as humanly possible.
"I want a healthy relationship with a powerful, coercive, and violent government that has the power to grant anything I desire, that can take anything I have, including my life, the moment it views you or I or anyone else as a threat to its continued existence. If I can get more of what I want at the moment, then I want more government."
Do you understand how ridiculous that is, merely by stating it?
That's what the left actually wants. They can't have it because it doesn't exist to "be had".
"I want that powerful, coercive, and violent government to stay the hell away from me, my family, and to only interact with us when there's no other practical option. If I ever have any choice in the matter, then I want as little of that government as is feasible."
That's what the right actually wants. That's why the left and right are in conflict with each other.
A related observation I would make about human nature, is that millions (if not billions) of people seem to ** want ** to be controlled.
Many people who purport to be leftists want to be "taken care of" (coddled the way small children are, for lack of a better description), by their government. Being treated as a child is not the same as being treated as a slave or prisoner. This aptly explains why the laws / rules they support appear designed to turn our country into an "adult playpen" (where nothing bad could ever happen, or so they believe). Given the choice, a very large number of people would be content with doing whatever they're told, by someone who is seen as having their best interest at heart, and who is benevolent in nature. Such people are not intelligent enough to understand the wild contradictions in what they're asking for, because they're applying a child's system of reasoning to adult topics.
Such a situation would depend upon self-control / self-discipline that seems out of reach for much if not most of humanity right now.
Self-control, as in "not driving to work", or self-control as in rampant consumerism and next-quarter profits thinking being curbed in favor of a longer-ranged view of "what is best"?
You think you'll actually get that from liberals?
Not a chance. They think buying a more expensive appliance is equivalent to "saving the planet", while consuming vastly more resources per appliance in the process. Some problems can't be solved by buying more stuff. That's a PSA to my fellow Americans, liberal / conservative / independent / otherwise.
Despite all of that, humanity is still here. That's proof positive that we can and have overcome ALL our numerous and varied physical and psychological problems- maybe not all of us all at the same time, but enough of us to result in humanity moving forwards, though clearly not fast enough to satisfy some. This is a broadly true statement, and exceptions don't disprove that general rule.
Offline
Calliban, your post 734 is spot on as to what I can do but there are the other options which are out there as well to try.
The efforts to build a cash level of saving to be able to get to those next levels is what all can do but it takes out of the box thinking that the solution is the oil, or liquid fuels or gaseous type let alone coal or electrical suppliers all of which are once you have that surplus to funds these you can stop the reliance on those lower tier improvements if you got that much spare change to burn.
Much like the urban green spaces that end up on the tops of roofs in cities there is always a means if you look at what can be done.
There are lots of people living off grid, but it does take effort to get there, or you start out with a large sum of cash to get it done.
In either case the gas price at the put is holding steady as the winter months approach.
Small change of toll costs went into effect as they are forcing the users of the highway to make use of the EzPass system of which the toll cost a week cash is $15 a week but with the installation of the unit that cost will drop. The transponder unit is not free as you end up paying up front for it. Once you have it the toll costs drop to $10.60 a week providing a net savings of $4.40 or for 50 weeks is $220 which is enough to buy a solar panel and a battery to make use of.
Offline
Global oil & gas exploration budgets fall by 60% in 2022.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene … -2022.html
Global oil and gas exploration efforts have plunged in 2022. High oil and gas prices have mostly incentivized companies to drill existing reserves. Most big oil companies aren’t replacing their reserve base at current production rates.
I do not see how future shortfalls can be avoided if exploration fails to replace reserves. In order to produce oil, we must first discover it. This is a dangerous shortfall that we will all pay for in the future. Of course, I am assuming that there are new places to explore, if only the money is there.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-17 20:41:33)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Regarding the future of US shale oil & gas production. Probably the most comprehensive analysis I have seen on the subject.
https://shalebubble.org/
US distillate (diesel, kerosene, jet fuel) stocks have reached 15-year lows.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH … ISTUS1&f=W
This is occuring whilst the Chinese economy is shut down and the strategic 'midterm' reserve is being emptied to levels not seen since the mid 1980s.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH … RSTUS1&f=W
Diesel prices are now $5.2 per gallon in the US and an eye watering $7.50 per gallon in the UK. Part of the problem with declining diesel stocks is that refining capacity has been allowed to atrophy. Even if oil supply were robust, there is less capacity to produce finished products.
Amidst the vomit inducing virtue signalling over the non-crisis of global climate change, a far more serious problem has been ignored, allowed to fester and is now hitting the world in the face. That problem is the depletion of global oil reserves. The most immiediate and problematic issue is declining diesel stocks. This is aggrevated by underinvestment in refining capacity. Whereas a gasoline shortage is annoying to motorists, a diesel shortage is an altogether more worrying problem. Diesel is the almost exclusive energy source for goods distribution and the mechanical power needed for agriculture and mining. Less diesel means less food, less GDP and less goods of every kind. Put another way, a gasoline shortage makes it more expensive for people to get to work. A diesel shortage makes it less likely that they will have a job to go to.
There are tentative signs that some governments are finally starting to take this problem seriously. The UK has issued a hundred new drilling permits in the North Sea. Whilst the British North Sea is heavily depleted, there are marginal deposits that coukd at least cushion the rate of decline if they are developed. But the UK government are still intent on their absolutely crazy plan to ban the sale of new ICE powered vehicles in 2030. This is predicated upon the wholly unrealistic prospect of battery electric vehicles displacing ICEs for all new vehicle sales over the next decade. By 2030, against the backdrop of crumbling global supply chains, this will be even less realistic than it now.
There is no sign of investment in new production capacity recovering to 2014 levels. And investment in oil exploration is down 60% in 2022. As a rule, you need to discover oil resources before you can develop them. And you can't find them if you aren't looking. Most of the world remains firmly in the grip of ESG mania, even as supply chain shortages cause the cost of these systems to skyrocket.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-18 02:38:15)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Calliban,
2/3rds of all investment dollars into oil and gas production has been removed from the market in the past 10 years. Reality being what it is, there are no forthcoming suitable replacements for oil and gas, so we'd better get hot on fuel consumption reduction and fuel synthesis programs, which provide real economic value, organic economic growth, usable stored energy until the Sun becomes a "Red Giant" or comparatively magical batteries appear in the future, as well as assured economic prosperity for our future generations if we refrain from "nuking it all" in the ultimate temper tantrum.
Offline
For kbd512 and Calliban ....
In days gone by (and perhaps still in some parts of the world) a small land holder could produce enough food to sustain a family and have surplus to trade for finished goods from those (usually in towns) who specialized.
The two of you have been conversing at what seems to me a global level.
There's nothing wrong with that, and the topic is certainly interesting.
However, I'd like to toss a question into the mix, to see if the current membership can see a future along these lines...
What would it take to make one gallon of high quality hydrocarbon fuel in a 24 hour period?
The fuel would be on a par with 87 octane gasoline in common use in the US in 2022.
I like kbd512's ideas for trough solar power, for a number of reasons.
It may be more in Calliban's field to work backward from the goal of one gallon of 87 octane gasoline, to sizing the solar panels.
In the end, if we (NewMars) can deliver an estimate for this scenario, we would know:
1) how much land is needed
2) What physical equipment is needed
3) What education/training/expertise/experience is needed
To try to get the ball rolling, can this be done with a square kilometer to work with, if the land is located in the Southern US near water?
The output of this process ** should ** be a solid plan that can be printed and offered to investors.
(th)
Offline
We need a diesel substitute a lot more urgently than we do a gasoline substitute. The lightweight passenger vehicle options that Kbd512 and I have discussed demonstrate that passenger cars can achieve a fuel efficiency of 80-120mpg, without dramatically compromising driving experience. That is 2-3x better than the average today. The higher end requires hybrid braking energy recovery and very lightweight chasis, frame and cladding, allowing a curb weight of 800kg. But this is relatively simple technology. Relative that is to the difficulty of building BEVs that any middle income person could realistically afford. Gasoline is a waste product from the oil refining process. Diesel is the premium product and on a unit energy basis, it is presently running at 1.5x the cost of gasoline. But I digress.
Your question is how to make the fuel. Assuming we are making it on a large scale, ammonia would be the most energetically efficient option. We would use a thermochemical process to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. We would then input the hydrogen and seperated nitrogen into a haber reactor. The thermochemical copper chloride cycle works at 530°C and is up to 43% efficient. In terms of energy out divided by energy in, ammonia production from hydrogen is around 70% efficient. So for each unit of solar heat we capture a maximum of 0.3 units of stored chemical energy is produced in the form of ammonia. The relatively good efficiency, the easy liquefaction of ammonia and the fact that only air and water are needed to make it, are all big advantages. It requires a high compression ratio engine to combust, so it works best in diesel engines. We can even modify engines to burn both diesel and ammonia. I am not sure if we can blend them in the same tank. However, ammonia is less than ideal in other ways. It's concentrated vapours are toxic. It is also a really obnoxious smell. It will make anyones eyes water and smells like stale pee. And it has only one third the volumetric energy density of diesel. So a truck burning ammonia, will only have one third the range between stops all else being equal.
If hydrocarbons are what we want, then we start by capturing CO2 and then react it with hydrogen to produce methanol. We then build up longer hydrocarbon chains by passing methanol and DME over zeolite catalysts. Robert Zubrin built a methane synthesis reactor for a few tens of thousands of dollars. The plus side is that synthetic hydrocarbons have higher energy density than ammonia or methanol. The downsides are poorer energy efficiency overall. We must reduce CO2 to CO and must then react it with 2mols of H2 to get methanol. Producing heavier hydrocarbons then involves condensation reactions that strip oxygen out of the molecules by reacting it with hydrogen.
If I were looking to make this energetically easier, I would start with a biomass feedstock and gassify it into syngas. We then have a syngas with composition CO+H2. We only need to add 1 mol of additional hydrogen to the syngas to get the perfect feedstock for methanol synthesis, rather than 3 mols if we are starting with captured CO2. Using the right catalyst, ZrO2 I believe, we can shift reaction kinetics to favour Dimethyl Ether over methanol. DME has a vapour pressure comparable to propane and its reaction kinetics suit compression ignition engines. It is therefore a direct diesel substitute.
I personally think ammonia will win the day, simply because we need to scale renewable NH3 production up massively in order to meet fertiliser needs. For the time being, the US has enough natural gas to produce all if its own needs. But that won't be true forever and it isn't true at all for the rest of the world. Ammonia as fuel wins on efficiency, even if some of its aspects are less than ideal. Nitrogen is energetically cheap, being 78% of air. Once the synthesis reactor reaches a temperature of 500°C, ammonia synthesis is exothermic. And unlike synthetic hydrocarbon production, we do not need to chemically reduce nitrogen. It reacts with hydrogen to produce ammonia with perfect efficiency. There are no condensation reactions that waste energy as heat.
N2 + 3H2 = 2NH3 (22MJ/kg product).
CO2 + 3H2 = CH3OH + H2O (21MJ/kg product)
2CH3OH = CH3OCH3 + H20 (33MJ/kg product).
Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-18 14:06:54)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
In a world that is both fuel constrained and cash strapped, the gyrobus might be a cheaper alternative for mass transit than catenary powered trams.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus
Unlike most trams, they do not require catenaries. A two phase contact point allows recharging at the bus stops. Concievably, we could simplify the arrangement even further by charging through magnetically switched contact pads in the road where the bus stops. The bus would interface with these via pickup shoes.
Something similar might work for trains and trams as well. A gyro tram would have more range between stops, because there is far less friction between steel wheels and rails.
For main line trains, a gyro energy storage system could reduce the cost of electrification. Only limited intervals of the track would need to be electrified. For passenger trains with regular stops, a short length of catenary or third rail would be in place at stations. If the distances between stops is long, then intervals of the line would carry a catenary and the train would recharge on the move from it. For third rail to be useful, would require both third and fourth rails, in order to deliver sufficient power. Having multiple rails isn't really a cost driver in this instance, as it is tge transformer stations that account for a greater proportion of cost.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-18 14:34:30)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
If you can produce carbon cheap enough, a carbon-water slurry would work. Likely far better for biofuel than oil crops are -- rapeseed gets about 3t/Ha, whilst the dry mass of switchgrass or willow works out to 25t/Ha, so even once you've turned it to charcoal you should be well ahead of oil based replacements.
Still, even then biofuel isn't going to be able to replace all uses of diesel. Best start shifting back to water and rail for freight, and maybe electric (petrol hybrid?) equipment and vehicles where we can.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Gail Tverberg latest blog entry on 'Our Finite World'.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2022/10/18/w … this-time/
Well worth reading. In a nutshell: financial solutions won't be useful for fixing the broken economy, because the problem is a failing energy dynamic. Quantitative easing (increasing money supply) fuels inflation, because more money ends up chasing fewer goods. The decay of European energy supplies is particularly alarming. When the effects of debt are removed from GDP calculations, Clean GDP is a linear function of energy supply. This suggests to me that the European economy has been on the slide for a long time and debt has allowed Europeans to live beyond their means.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-19 06:57:37)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
People becoming richer or poorer is a function of what money can actually buy. If manufacturers identify methods of making goods cheaper but more durable, then the fact that there's less money (the economic manifestation of surplus energy) available is far less problematic if like-kind goods and services are still attainable and readily available. America can locally source the steel and plastic, rather than going to China for raw materials and having those materials shipped half way around the world. This is what you'd do if fuel was more expensive but the total labor input to produce something like a car or washer and dryer was still pretty low because you refused to entertain anyone's complexity cravings.
As of now, automotive manufacturers are still fixated on how many electronic gadgets they can incorporate into a motor vehicle, effectively turning passenger vehicles into rolling arcade games. I'm more focused on how we can run a modern motor vehicle off a single chip, by identifying and removing all superfluous "features" while still providing usable transportation. I'm interested in how appropriate materials selection can reduce vehicle weight and cost (economic, energy, environmental), from cradle-to-grave.
Modern motor vehicles are filled with complex and expensive-to-produce parts. I'm asking the question of how we can best reduce that complexity to something more manageable.
* No unnecessary motorized gadgets within the car (power windows, power locks, power seats, etc)
* No systems that add weight which causes them to be necessary to begin with (power steering are required because vehicle weights have gone bonkers- race cars don't have or need power steering, because they're light enough for that to be unnecessary)
* No steel or Aluminum where metal is not required (plastic vehicle chassis with steel inserts for seat mounts, shock towers, etc- the ultimate form of "fastener reduction", which is something Sandy Munro incessantly harps on as an automotive engineer, with good reason even though I think he takes it too far at times, but I get what he means by labor cost and unreliability being tied to excess fasteners)
* No unnecessary computerization (door locks and door handles don't need computer controls) or electronics (a customer can supply his or her own electronic gadget for GPS navigation and entertainment; if you want "XM Radio", then you get that "feature" on your smart phone or tablet rather than creating another parallel economy in the automotive sector to provide that feature as part of the total cost of the car)
If a car can readily achieve 100mpg, then a 3 gallon fuel tank is sufficient. If it's used for city driving, then maybe a 1 to 2 gallon fuel tank is sufficient. The cost of such components is trivial compared to how much a 15 to 30 gallon steel fuel tank costs to fabricate, ship, and repair or replace. If fuel reaches $5 to $10 per gallon under a 100% "renewable" scenario (all fuel synthesized from scratch using CO2 from the atmosphere), then you can still afford to get from Point A to Point B as an ordinary working stiff. The rich can continue to pay for whatever toys they wish to buy.
I use cars as my example because they've becoming increasingly expensive and increasingly less durable at the same time, but this design philosophy applies to nearly all durable goods. Titanium silverware may have a "cool" or "whiz-bang" factor to it, but does it really do a better job of cutting up your food or shoveling it into your mouth? I'd argue that it doesn't.
As an ordinary consumer, I don't care about horsepower my car doesn't need or that I can't use without breaking the law and going to jail. I drive in order to get things done (taking the kids to and from school, going to work, getting groceries, making home repairs, etc). Anyone who wishes to "zoom zoom" on the road, I try to stay out of their way and let them zoom right past me. I'm good with allowing people to own any car they can afford to buy, but for me it's just a hard requirement to live in America. I'm fascinated by the technology, but I also view technology as a means to an end, not "a thing unto itself". I don't care if some insignificant fraction of percentage point of improvement is made if the end result is otherwise unusable.
That's functionally what we've done by insisting on computerization of everything from coffee brewing to driving to telephones. I don't need autonomous AI-controlled driving. I'm a real driver who knows how to drive a car. I don't need or want a computer to do it for me. If I need or want someone else to drive, then I'll take a cab. I don't need a triple-macchio-espresso-latte-ya-ya. I need coffee, black. Coffee is "bunker fuel" for humans, not another form of "artistic expression". Trying to reduce every aspect of life to a human-machine interaction, rather than a human-to-human interaction, is destroying civilized society. The kids don't know how to have a meaningful relationship with another person, and yes, that's an infinitely more serious problem than whether or not we can devise a computer control system to drive their car.
Steam engine trains were "good" because people had a personal connection to machines that appeared to be "alive" and share human characteristics. No two were exactly the same, some did certain jobs better than others, they were cantankerous at times, they had limits beyond which the result was an explosion, they didn't run without fuel, and if you wanted your train to "go faster", then you really did have to "pour the coal to it". There was a physical human interaction which made the machine work. Kids still don't dream about growing up to press buttons on battery-operated appliances. I don't doubt that someone out there is having a mental masturbation session over the inefficiency of the steam engine, but for some reason we run them anyway and people still show up in droves to ride aboard trains that existed before their parents did, or merely to see them in operation.
Talking to a girl in person on a date, driving your own car by what you feel, opening and closing valves on a steam engine, or brewing your own coffee, is about being human and having a human connection to both other people and what you're doing as a human. Are the humans still in control of humanity, or has that been reduced to a computer output as well?
Offline
Gas price at the pump dropped to $3.63 a gallon, I guess on the news of strategic reserve release.
I would agree that I do not like all of the electronic bells or whistles, and I could do without some of them, and it would not hurt my feelings at all.
Offline
Another few days and the price dropped to $3.57 a gallon.
Offline
SpaceNut,
President Biden won't succeed in doing anything except completely draining our SPR. After he does that, which direction do you think gas prices are headed?
Offline
Up if dollar value continues to fall in foreign exchange markets.
Some of which will happen here as a plan to refill that strategic reserve as a fixed future price gives them less profit if it goes up.
Offline
