[Jack]

Excellent post! Please accept my compliments.

[Tapas]

Brilliant work Funzone!!!

Perhaps you deserve a prize for the best first post in the Peak Oil Forum. You have summarized the situation very well. With your permission, I would like to make a copy of your essay with all the links and charts and distribute this amongst my friends.

You have done a thorough research and explored all avenues. This is the kind of exposure we need to educate the masses. Imagine for a moment if we could get all 6.5 billion of us on the same page and work together to find a solution to save humanity. Maybe it would take a Manhattan type project to pull it off - but involving the entire world and all its citizens acting in unison.

I look forward to reading more of your enlightened posts. Thank you for this treat.

Regards,

Tapas

[Antimatter]

The first chart is good for scaring people but not relevant because oil demand is not and will not grow at anything approaching 7%/year. The rest is a mish mash of facts, opinions and links to articles that don't say what they are implied to (eg silicon). I want my 10 minutes back.

[Flow]

Considering how the first half of it deals with EROEI I give you an "A" for effort but an "D" for merit. EROEI is a common tactic used by Doomers that has little to do with anything truly relevant when talking about alternatives oils.

I will illustrate this with an example. Coal to Oil Liquefaction has a much lower EROEI that conventional oil does. But the energy inputs required to produce the synthetic oil from coal is largely a much cheaper and plentiful energy. The huge machines used to get the coal out of the ground in strip mining operations run on electricty produced by coal or nuclear driven power plants. The coal is transported in vehicles that use fossil fuel (actually applies). During the conversion to oil process, the coal is heated with natural gas. The end result is a synthetic crude oil.

Now if you take all of the energy input verses the energy gained, the EROEI is crap. But when you think that we used a lot of cheap and abundant energy (electric and natural gas) to make this oil that is more expensive and less abundant, EROEI doens't really matter.

A better way to look at it is FOSSIL FUEL return on FOSSIEL FUEL invested.

[peripato]

Now if you take all of the energy input verses the energy gained, the EROEI is crap. But when you think that we used a lot of cheap and abundant energy (electric and natural gas) to make this oil that is more expensive and less abundant, EROEI doens't really matter.

A better way to look at it is FOSSIL FUEL return on FOSSIEL FUEL invested.

Where did you pick this up this nonsense, Forbes magazine? Mate good luck with your assumptions because at the end of the day based on its logic (using increasingly scarce and expensive forms of energy to produce even more expensive kinds of energy), the only really profitable area of the economy remaining post-peak will be the energy sector.

[Flow]

So let me get this straight, you don't understand this statement:

If we use electricty from a nuclear power plant to strip mine the coal out of the ground and we produce natural gas that can be created from Coal Gasifaction to heat the coal during the coal liquefaction we are using two forms of cheaper and abundant enegery to create a more expensive and less abundant energy source. To make Coal Liquefaction profitable, oil must sell for around $35 a barrel. To make Tar Sands profitable, oil must sell for around $30 a barrel. We are hoovering around $60 a barrel so the cost of the cheaper electricty and natural gas don't really matter. And as I have stated, as the "real" natural gas becomes scarce, we can always manufature it too.

Take off the Peak Oil blinders and think about it for a few moments. There is nothing non-sense about it.

[Daryl]

So let me get this straight, you don't understand this statement:

If we use electricty from a nuclear power plant to strip mine the coal out of the ground and we produce natural gas that can be created from Coal Gasifaction to heat the coal during the coal liquefaction we are using two forms of cheaper and abundant enegery to create a more expensive and less abundant energy source. To make Coal Liquefaction profitable, oil must sell for around $35 a barrel. To make Tar Sands profitable, oil must sell for around $30 a barrel. We are hoovering around $60 a barrel so the cost of the cheaper electricty and natural gas don't really matter. And as I have stated, as the "real" natural gas becomes scarce, we can always manufature it too.

Take off the Peak Oil blinders and think about it for a few moments. There is nothing non-sense about it.

You forgot, Flow, you have to provide a solution that is 100% oil free. You need oil to build the gasification plant, remember? Doomer argumentation leaps from "no more cheap oil" to "no more oil whatsoever" to support its pessimism.

[peripato]

So let me get this straight, you don't understand this statement:

If we use electricty from a nuclear power plant to strip mine the coal out of the ground and we produce natural gas that can be created from Coal Gasifaction to heat the coal during the coal liquefaction we are using two forms of cheaper and abundant enegery to create a more expensive and less abundant energy source. To make Coal Liquefaction profitable, oil must sell for around $35 a barrel. To make Tar Sands profitable, oil must sell for around $30 a barrel. We are hoovering around $60 a barrel so the cost of the cheaper electricty and natural gas don't really matter. And as I have stated, as the "real" natural gas becomes scarce, we can always manufature it too.

Only so long as the cost of conventional fossil fuels remains cheap will the prices you quote for CTL production etc. remain at these levels. The EPR of coal and bitumen will continue to fall as the availablity of cheap oil and NG to process them declines, and richer seams of coal and uranium etc. are replaced by poorer ones. The end result will be that ever increasing amounts of energy will need to be used by the energy industry itself for the creation of non-conventional fuels such as CTL. The more energy consumed during the production of these derivatives, the less that will be available to the wider economy. What part of that don't you understand?

[Optimist]

Nice work Funzone!

You are destined to be remembered by History. You will take a place next to the "experts" that boldly stated that heavier-than-air-flyers could not be built, right about the time the Wright brothers were inventing flying. Or the Roman general who stated that weapons research was a waste of time, as weapons had "obviously" deveoped as much as it ever would.

Hint: Here is the systematic error that you (and others) commit. Say you evaluated 100 different alternatives to oil and all proved unworkable. What does that tell you about Technology #101? A: Nothing!

So sit back, relax and wait for #101.

[peripato]

Hint: Here is the systematic error that you (and others) commit. Say you evaluated 100 different alternatives to oil and all proved unworkable. What does that tell you about Technology #101? A: Nothing!

So sit back, relax and wait for #101.

Technology is not energy.

[smallpoxgirl]

So sit back, relax and wait for #101.

101 being? Harnessing the wind power from the tooth farie's wings?

If 1-100 increasingly hairbrained schemes all prove utterly unworkable, it leads one to believe that there might not be a workable solution.

[Dezakin]

Technology is not energy.

Sure it is, if you'll recall its been demonstrated the capacity for nuclear for long enough to get to whatever comes after it.

[peripato]

Technology is not energy.

Sure it is, if you'll recall its been demonstrated the capacity for nuclear for long enough to get to whatever comes after it.

Huh? Technology is just a transformer of existing energy sources.

[Dezakin]

Huh? Technology is just a transformer of existing energy sources.

I suppose. Sounds like a semantic game. I'm not sure I would label the slow march of all heavy elements to iron across the eons as an energy source without the technology to exploit it.

[peripato]

Huh? Technology is just a transformer of existing energy sources.

I suppose. Sounds like a semantic game. I'm not sure I would label the slow march of all heavy elements to iron across the eons as an energy source without the technology to exploit it.

Nothing semantic about it. Technology cannot create energy, only exploit it, unless you believe in perpetual motion.

[funzone36]

Optimist, I only proved that they won't help peak oil. It doesn't mean they are unworkable. They do work. They just can't replace oil. In other words, they can't be implemented on a large scale.

Although some of the information has been brought up before, my goal is to unite them all into one post to deliver a strong message.

If you haven't noticed, I edit my post and input stuff that is missing. I also input additional important info from time to time.

Positive or negative comments doesn't matter to me. As long as you can motivate or help me develop my post, I'm happy with it. My post is meant for future distribution for raising awareness.

[Andy]

Excellent post Funzone. There are some individuals who are apparently incapable of comprehending that we live on a finite mass of gases, liquids and solids that we call planet earth. That means that unless we find a way to live outside of its protective cocoon, we will eventually be had in by its material resource and waste processing limitations. This means that any technology and philosophy not compatible with steady state cycling (fossil fuels, nuclear fission including breeder technology and constantly expanding populations) will eventually FAIL!!!!!!!!!

For example if we go down the fossil fuel route, we know that with the philosophy of exponential growth, they will be used up or will dump so much pollutants in the biosphere that our survivability will be compromised.

If we go down the nuclear route, we are not assured that we can husband the plants, reprocessing facilities, waste etc. to assure our long term survivability. To actually prove that this can be done, we need hundreds to thousands of years and cannot afford to make mistakes along the way during that time period. REMEMBER, we are humans and will make mistakes. We also need to be mature and responsible enough to not start playing games with the offensive toys of this industry (weapons) over similar timescales. This has never been done in the entire recorded history of humanity.

Finally, unless we get the idea that at some point, growth will no longer be possible, all technologies and their corresponding impacts will be overwhelming (renewables, nuclear, fossil).

The only sustainable solution is cessation of the growth philosophy including population growth, and economic growth at some point along with a simultaneous deployment of the steady state flow technologies at moderate scales. The technologies that qualify fall under either the natural earth heating (geothermal sustainable harvesting), tidal and the energy supplied by our fusion reactor 93 million miles away in the form of sunlight, wind, oceanic waves, currents, thermal gradients etc. etc.

[orz]

We don't need invention #101. The descripitons on solar and nuclear power are fallacious anyway. If I copied all the links from LATOC and posted them in a thread will I get a cookie too?

If you haven't noticed, I edit my post and input stuff that is missing. I also input additional important info from time to time.

Please read the 23 page discussion on nuclear fission, before writing it off.

This means that any technology and philosophy not compatible with steady state cycling (fossil fuels, nuclear fission including breeder technology and constantly expanding populations) will eventually FAIL!!!!!!!!!

Eventually the Earth will become a cold lifeless ball of mass. Why don't we just shoot ourselves now and get it over with? If nuclear fission has the ability to support us for even 100 years then that's long enough.

unless we get the idea that at some point, growth will no longer be possible,

Growth on this planet may no longer be possible, but growth will always be possible. Any system that confines us to this planet is irresponsible and reckless and a system which does not allow for growth does that.

[funzone36]

The descripitons on solar and nuclear power are fallacious anyway

Can you please explain why? I will freely re-edit my post only if you include reasons why.

Growth on this planet will always be possible as long as we are in the sustainable limit. Growth on this planet will always be possible after the oil crash because nature will eventually take care of itself. Of course, the only drawback is that it takes thousands of years.

Unfortunately, growth will never be the same because we drove so many species to extinction.

Humans will always be humans. Unless dinosaurs come back, there is nothing that can control our growth so that we are in the sustainable limit.

[orz]

For nuclear, check out the thread on uranium supply. The issues of waste disposal, energy cost to construct and fuel suppy are all debated there, with many articles presented that show that nuclear is a viable option to replace (at least) all our electricity needs, and potentially much of the fuel too.

My issue with you on solar is not about the area you need to cover(about 3% of landmass with 15% efficient cells), but with your later arguments that they are unfeasible to make without plastic and rare elements. There's a thread further down in this section on it, I'll dig it up tomorrow.

As for the growth issue, how do you propose that "sustainable growth" can occur in a finite environment? How exactly are you defining growth?