Expensive fantasies

[Pidgey]

Partly due to the increased cost of oil. And around and around it goes.

The increased cost of oil is mostly due to the exponential rise in exploration and production costs.

That is, right up until the chemical potential energy delivered to market is equal to the chemical energy required to actually produce it (which takes conversion efficiencies into consideration for "getting usable work done"). Once that point is reached, it doesn't matter anymore because you're effectively at zero return on investment. To give you an idea how things have changed, we've gone from a 100-to-1 ROI down to a current average near 10-to-1 ROI. That's bad.

Most folks can not and will not get into details for many reasons. It IS tiresome, I'll grant you that. But we're not talking here about whether some relatively tiny company can afford to pay its employees a "living wage" due to the greed of its owner--we're talking about the basis of the entire world's economy: energy production.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The increased cost of oil is mostly due to the exponential rise in exploration and production costs.

That is, right up until the chemical potential energy delivered to market is equal to the chemical energy required to actually produce it (which takes conversion efficiencies into consideration for "getting usable work done"). Once that point is reached, it doesn't matter anymore because you're effectively at zero return on investment. To give you an idea how things have changed, we've gone from a 100-to-1 ROI down to a current average near 10-to-1 ROI. That's bad.

Most folks can not and will not get into details for many reasons. It IS tiresome, I'll grant you that. But we're not talking here about whether some relatively tiny company can afford to pay its employees a "living wage" due to the greed of its owner--we're talking about the basis of the entire world's economy: energy production.

you forgot about the expensive cost of ..doing nothing but speculating on the market to make a buck...a big driver of oil cost today.

 

[Pidgey]

I know. But there wouldn't BE a market if it weren't for speculation. If you have or want any kind of retirement pension or whatever, you're a speculator of sorts.

What you don't hear unless you run in the right circles is how MUCH it costs to bring oil online these days compared to The Old Days. You have to factor in EVERYTHING including the military security of an oil-producing region. And almost all wells require the oil to be pumped out (or pushed by way of injector wells). That takes an awful lot of energy and it's exponentially increasing with every new oil field that we find. In short, we've already picked all of the low-hanging fruit. It only gets tougher from here. Period. End of story.

A significant percentage price increase from speculation can ONLY occur due to not enough spare capacity and that, my friend, is solely because the demand curve is greater than the supply curve. Of course, the supply curve of Regular Conventional Oil (RCO) has reached and passed its vertex--we're in terminal decline now and have been fudging the numbers with unconventional oil (heavy, sour, tar sands, NGL's, etc.).

It's simple: net per capita delivered energy is in decline.

 

[PLC1]

I know. But there wouldn't BE a market if it weren't for speculation. If you have or want any kind of retirement pension or whatever, you're a speculator of sorts.

What you don't hear unless you run in the right circles is how MUCH it costs to bring oil online these days compared to The Old Days. You have to factor in EVERYTHING including the military security of an oil-producing region. And almost all wells require the oil to be pumped out (or pushed by way of injector wells). That takes an awful lot of energy and it's exponentially increasing with every new oil field that we find. In short, we've already picked all of the low-hanging fruit. It only gets tougher from here. Period. End of story.

A significant percentage price increase from speculation can ONLY occur due to not enough spare capacity and that, my friend, is solely because the demand curve is greater than the supply curve. Of course, the supply curve of Regular Conventional Oil (RCO) has reached and passed its vertex--we're in terminal decline now and have been fudging the numbers with unconventional oil (heavy, sour, tar sands, NGL's, etc.).

It's simple: net per capita delivered energy is in decline.

Which is a rather serious situation for a nation whose entire economy depends on oil. We think in terms of what it costs to fill the gas tank, but there is also the tanks on those trucks that deliver everything from soup to nuts, the tanks on those tractors that produce the ingredients for soup, the fertilizer (petroleum based) to grow the nuts, and so on.

When OPEC raised the cost of oil back in the '70s, pretty soon the cost of everything else went up to match t he cost of gas.

Of course, that was entirely the fault of Jimmy Carter, according to Republicans, but then that's an aside.

 

[Dr.Who]

Which, in turn, is due to Peak Oil.

Peak oil: the notion that we have already reached the point at which it will always be more expensive to get more oil and that the only thing that will happen from now on is that we will get less of it until it runs out.

There is no way to know if we have reached the hypothetical place in time where this will happen. Tomorrow could the the day that we improve the technology for drilling oil so that it becomes far easier to get it. And while there will be a day when it will run out we have no way to really know when that day will be without actually knowing how much oil there is. Every time we guess then more is found.

 

[Dr.Who]

Which, in turn, is due to the recession.

Speaking of energy consumption and recessions...

You have heard figures like: "Americans consume 25% of the worlds energy but only consitutes 5% of the population."

Wake up everyone!! That just means that we are PRODUCING more stuff per person. The amount of energy we use is directly related to the amount of productivity we have.

Does anyone think we need to be less productive? We could go back to using horses to plow fields and that would use less energy. We could all triple the amount of time spent washing dishes by hand. We could all go home when the sun goes down and turn off the lights.

 

[Dr.Who]

Correct. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small, and the percentage that can be attributed to humans is even smaller.

But, you have those feedback loops to consider, plus the fact that the warming has been very small as well. The thing is, even a small change worldwide can make some large differences locally.

Meanwhile, you have voices on one side saying that climate change is a crisis and we must do something (even if it's wrong, which it most likely will be), and on the other side trying to deny scientific theory on the basis of flimsy or non existent evidence. What needs to be done is to accept what is known, and then research what is not known, and quit making a political football out of it.

Not that such a thing is likely to happen, of course.

Of course all the feedback loops are complete guesses about what might happen. Did you know that in the computer models too many of the feedback loops that are used favor warming. When we take all the possible feedback mechanisms that could be happening and first figure out if they are negative or positive, THEN is the time to plug them into the models.

 

[PLC1]

Of course all the feedback loops are complete guesses about what might happen. Did you know that in the computer models too many of the feedback loops that are used favor warming. When we take all the possible feedback mechanisms that could be happening and first figure out if they are negative or positive, THEN is the time to plug them into the models.

What feedback loops favor cooling?

Yes, there is speculation, and no one really knows what is likely to happen. That something is already happening is not in dispute. The end result is still unknown.

 

[BigRob]

you forgot about the expensive cost of ..doing nothing but speculating on the market to make a buck...a big driver of oil cost today.

Speculating in the oil market does not really have as major impact on the price as you are indicating in my opinion.

 

[Dr.Who]

What feedback loops favor cooling?

Yes, there is speculation, and no one really knows what is likely to happen. That something is already happening is not in dispute. The end result is still unknown.

I think in theory they all could. It is just a question of what numbers are put into the equations.

Some possible examples:

How about increased c02 (a minor greenhouse gas) displaces water vapor (a major greenhouse gas) resulting in an atmosphere that in total has a smaller greenhouse effect.

Warming could increase clouds that would block solar radiation

Evaporation could cool certain parts of the planet that would result in changes that would cause cooling.

Increased c02 could cause plants to grow so fast that they would convert more heat energy into stored energy (thats where all the oil came from).

Increased snowfall could reflect more sunlight.

I don't really know, but the end result is still unknown. And that is the point. But there is a bias in the computer models where those who design such models tend to create them so that they show a warming effect. Computer models are no more than fancy guessing.

 

[PLC1]

I think in theory they all could. It is just a question of what numbers are put into the equations.

Some possible examples:

How about increased c02 (a minor greenhouse gas) displaces water vapor (a major greenhouse gas) resulting in an atmosphere that in total has a smaller greenhouse effect.

Um... no. CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere to start with. Water vapor is not going to be "displaced" by it. The amount of water vapor that can be in the air depends on the temperature.

Warming could increase clouds that would block solar radiation

That could happen, sure.

Evaporation could cool certain parts of the planet that would result in changes that would cause cooling.

Now, this is the first time I've heard this one. Is it possible? It seems counterintuitive, but, maybe. Evaporation does result in cooling.

Increased c02 could cause plants to grow so fast that they would convert more heat energy into stored energy (thats where all the oil came from).

yes, that's where the oil came from, but it is the CO2 stored as fossil fuels that resulted in global cooling to begin with. Now, we're releasing it once more.

Increased snowfall could reflect more sunlight.

Except that warming is likely to result in less snowfall overall, not more. There may be more in some places, like Europe and North America (due to thermohaline circulation) but an overall increase in snowfall is not plausible.

I don't really know, but the end result is still unknown. And that is the point. But there is a bias in the computer models where those who design such models tend to create them so that they show a warming effect. Computer models are no more than fancy guessing.

The end result is unknown. Probabilities include more extreme weather due to changes in the jet stream and ocean currents. Those are complex, and difficult to predict. That's why continued research is necessary.

Looking at local climate change, California generally gets more precipitation during a warming of the Pacific Ocean known as "El Nino." Now, if the Pacific warms, will we get more precip? Will more of that precipitation fall as rain rather than snow? That would have a profound effect on this state, as the Sierra snowpack is the beginning source of almost all of the water used here. So, if that happens, we need to get serious about water storage. Rain falls in the winter when it is not so much needed. Currently, nature stores it for us until spring and early summer in the form of mountain snow.

But, maybe we'll get less precipitation, which would be a disaster for agriculture here.
No one really knows.

 

[Dr.Who]

Um... no. CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere to start with. Water vapor is not going to be "displaced" by it. The amount of water vapor that can be in the air depends on the temperature.



That could happen, sure.



Now, this is the first time I've heard this one. Is it possible? It seems counterintuitive, but, maybe. Evaporation does result in cooling.



yes, that's where the oil came from, but it is the CO2 stored as fossil fuels that resulted in global cooling to begin with. Now, we're releasing it once more.



Except that warming is likely to result in less snowfall overall, not more. There may be more in some places, like Europe and North America (due to thermohaline circulation) but an overall increase in snowfall is not plausible.



The end result is unknown. Probabilities include more extreme weather due to changes in the jet stream and ocean currents. Those are complex, and difficult to predict. That's why continued research is necessary.

Looking at local climate change, California generally gets more precipitation during a warming of the Pacific Ocean known as "El Nino." Now, if the Pacific warms, will we get more precip? Will more of that precipitation fall as rain rather than snow? That would have a profound effect on this state, as the Sierra snowpack is the beginning source of almost all of the water used here. So, if that happens, we need to get serious about water storage. Rain falls in the winter when it is not so much needed. Currently, nature stores it for us until spring and early summer in the form of mountain snow.

But, maybe we'll get less precipitation, which would be a disaster for agriculture here.
No one really knows.

It is truye that no one knows. Which is why research is needed but not a heartless cap and trade.

 

[PLC1]

It is truye that no one knows. Which is why research is needed but not a heartless cap and trade.

Cap and trade isn't going to work anyway. Neither is ignoring the situation and claiming that global warming theory is a hoax. You're right in that we need more research into the issue, and I'd add that we need less politics and gamesmanship.

 

[Dr.Who]

Cap and trade isn't going to work anyway. Neither is ignoring the situation and claiming that global warming theory is a hoax. You're right in that we need more research into the issue, and I'd add that we need less politics and gamesmanship.

I am sure there are those who stick their heads in the sand and merely claim it is a hoax - perhaps for politica reasons. There are at least as many who claim it is real for political reasons.

As far as a layman, who happens to be a bit more scientifically literate than most, can do, I have evaluated it. While I do not think most advance it as part of a hoax I do not think there is anywhere near strong enough of a case to be made for any policy changes on the national level.

P.S for those of you who celebrate Easter...Happy Easter. For anyone else...Have a good day.

 

[clarkatticus]

Lat week my company purchased 4 new trailers at a cost of 340,000K. They replaced 4 trailers that were still usable, but old. Were we wrong in the purchase, we had 4 usable trailers? On the surface this seems silly to ask, but that is the basis of the debate we are having. Cap an trade will cost, but eventually new industries will emerge to support the bill, this will take a long time. Wind, solar, geothermal, nuke all cost alot up front with no real time on when they will pay back. Think of it this way, the price of oil will continue to go up and wreak havoc on our economy in cycles not predictable for reasons not controllable, it is a commodity. The other power resources are unlimited, and yes they can be refined to be practicable, but it will take a concerted effort. As I have said before, the first nation to become oil free will write it's own ticket for the next 100 years, and it better be us. I am tired of people saying it cannot be done, or it costs too much or it's a conspiracy-this is America, we can and have done whatever we have to do so lets quit whining and get with the program