pstarr wrote:I am an ecological doomer.
Who just happens to deny/downplay climate change. Forgive me if I don't pin a medal on you. You and Plant should go fly to Greece together for all your false-piety.
pstarr wrote:I am an ecological doomer.
And right here we see someone made a boo boo with their math. If you want to replace X amount of fossil fuel output with renewables, you do not need X amount of ffs to use as input to make the renewables. You need to invest only X/18 of the energy to get the same output:pstarr wrote:onlooker, that's an important link that everyone needs to read. The various papers on "Energy Payback Time" show that alternative energies are ultimately not useful because they require too much fossil fuels, more than otherwise.
The build-out and replacement of oil power with solar power is impossible. We would need to use 2x oil energy during build-out. Twice as much fossil fuels would be burned up. 1x to keep the current system running, and 1x to construct the alternative system at the same time.
If we have to use fossil fuels to manufacture renewable plants, doesn't it mean that renewables are useless?Broadly speaking, we therefore have two options:
1) keep using all the oil (and other fossil fuels) directly as FEEDSTOCK fuel in conventional power plants. In so doing, we would get out roughly 1/3 of the INPUT energy as electricity (electricity production efficiency in conventional power plants being ~0.33). This would be the "quick and dirty" option, that maximizes the short-term (almost instantaneous, in fact) "bang for the buck".
2) Use the same amount of available oil (and other fossil fuels) as (direct and indirect) INPUT for the production of PV plants.
Building and deploying a modern crystalline silicon PV system requires approximately 3 GJ of primary energy per m2. What this means is that the c-Si PV system would provide an output of electricity roughly equal to 18/3 = 6 times its primary energy input, which corresponds about 6/0.33 = 18 times the amount of electricity that we would have obtained, had we burnt the fuel(s) as FEEDSTOCK in conventional power plants (option 1 above), instead of using them as INPUT for the PV plant.
A planned long-term investment might be advisable, for instance, aimed at bringing about a gradual transition. The latter is in fact what many have been advocating, often only to be met with rather negative ‘gloom and doom’ reactions by others on a number of prominent discussion forums. It seems as if, in the minds of the latter, the desire to show that ‘the emperor has no clothes’ (i.e. that PV and other renewables are not yet, and might never be in full, a real, completely independent and high-EROI alternative to fossil fuels) overrides all other considerations, and prevents them from realizing/admitting that, after all, it may still be reasonable and recommendable to try and push this slow transition forward.
Who just happens to deny/downplay climate change. Forgive me if I don't pin a medal on you. You and Plant should go fly to Greece together for all your false-piety.
A separate report from a global NGO called BankTrack finds that even though coal appears to be on its death bed, financing for coal-fired power plants is still alive and well.
Yoshua wrote:Economy vs. Etp
Net profit = Net Energy Gain
The shale oil and gas companies can't make a Net Profit since there is no Net Energy Gain from their operations.
The Cash Flow is coming from the Federal Reserves printing press.
shortonoil wrote:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-1 ... l-industry
marmico wrote:The ETP Model entitled Depletion: A determination for the world's petroleum reserve dated March 1, 2015, clearly states in the abstract:
The ETP function generated is an accurate predictor of historic and future petroleum prices, production, and the depletion status of the world's petroleum reserve.
Now that the future petroleum price is dead could we please have the posting of the future production status so everyone can ben dover in laughter. I can wait another year for the posting of depletion status of the world's petroleum reserve.
onlooker wrote:I think it is the more pessimistic posts emanating from ZH that are bothering you. That manifests a bias against them
AdamB wrote:dcoyne78 wrote:Hi Rockdoc and Rockman,
A good site giving data on average well productivity is
https://shaleprofile.com/index.php/2017/11/27/permian-update-through-september-2017/
And where might the "average" formation in the Permian be located? Its depth and porosity? Thickness? Thermal maturity? Can you map this average formation, can't say I've ever seen it listed anywhere in the BEG Report of Investigations No. 271, the folks who probably keep a decent list of such things!
An "average" American has 1 testicle and 1 breast, but are terribly difficult to find as well.
onlooker wrote:The Royal society is a compromised institution as it is an elite one. The elites would be the last ones to sound the alarm as they most benefit from BAU
dcoyne78 wrote:AdamB wrote:dcoyne78 wrote:Hi Rockdoc and Rockman,
A good site giving data on average well productivity is
https://shaleprofile.com/index.php/2017/11/27/permian-update-through-september-2017/
And where might the "average" formation in the Permian be located? Its depth and porosity? Thickness? Thermal maturity? Can you map this average formation, can't say I've ever seen it listed anywhere in the BEG Report of Investigations No. 271, the folks who probably keep a decent list of such things!
An "average" American has 1 testicle and 1 breast, but are terribly difficult to find as well.
Hi AdamB,
This is based on output data of all the horizontal wells completed through August 2017 in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico.
The data you are looking for is proprietary and I do not have access to.
dcoyne78 wrote:
The economics of the completed wells will be based on average cost and average output, this gives a picture of the average for the LTO industry in the Permian basin.
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests