[shortonoil]

Wow! I wonder if that's what's driving the cryptocurrencies?

People are obviously looking for alternatives to fiat, but the crytos are denominated in the same fiat that everyone is looking to replace. Cognitive dissonance is running rampant!

A 1:1 EROI is not possible. The waste heat that must be released for the process to go forward must be taken into consideration. For petroleum that is a minimum of 29%, so the minimum EROEI that the process can operate at is 1.41 : 1. Below that the process can not continue, and extraction must cease.

[AdamB]

I believe Science can discern truths and reality.

I agree with you, having used science to do just that. Why do you think I am so confident that the etp equation is a crock? Science, logic, a nose for BS. I am glad we agree that my system for figuring things out is more reliable than yours. You BELIEVING in the etp, versus me applying 2 minutes of investigation and then laughing my ass off about what is claimed to be 10,000 hours of work.

And guess what? Shorty won't even PM me about using it as a footnote, and guess why? THERE ARE NO AUTHORS LISTED ON THE REPORT!!! How is that for amateurs being terrified of their words coming back to haunt them.

Now run along and believe 2+2=5, because that is exactly the kind of capability it takes to not spot what the etp is in 120 seconds, with my background? With your admittedly lack of math and engineering and whatnot, I would estimate if you had a modicum of sense, some basic logic and understanding of how the world works....10 minutes. Maybe 20 if you needed to google up some particulars.

But you didn't claim that. You just claimed that you BELIEVE!!!! Let me mention again what that resembles...and how far it is from, you know, that science stuff.

I believe if I jump off a 30 story building, I probably will die. Belief=Discernment. I believe you have no idea what I am talking about. Carry on

You probably would die from 30 stories. And if someone put your head in a guillotine and promised to only release the blade when the etp comes unglued, you would also die. How about we just simulate this result? When the etp comes unglued, which it looks set to do any minute (if it hasn't already), you just give us the result of your belief, and stop posting forever? If for only having exposed the value of your belief? To whit....none.

[dcoyne78]

Wow! I wonder if that's what's driving the cryptocurrencies?

People are obviously looking for alternatives to fiat, but the crytos are denominated in the same fiat that everyone is looking to replace. Cognitive dissonance is running rampant!

A 1:1 EROI is not possible. The waste heat that must be released for the process to go forward must be taken into consideration. For petroleum that is a minimum of 29%, so the minimum EROEI that the process can operate at is 1.41 : 1. Below that the process can not continue, and extraction must cease.

So you maintain that the only energy input into the petroleum production system is oil?

I believe there is natural gas, coal (in the form of electricity), wind, solar, and nuclear (also in the form of electricity). You need to think more broadly as there are many types of energy used besides oil.

If oil were the only source of energy you might be correct, it isn't, so you are incorrect.

[AdamB]

A major shortcoming of the ETP analysis is that it looks at only a single energy source- oil.
Yes that is a fair assessment Dcoyne.
I too think that could be the weak point in the Etp. It remains to be seen how societies will fare if Oil/energy decreases dramatically and if societies can have some sort of substitutes online to cushion the blow from this eventuality. I tend though to be bearish about the outcome.

Hi onlooker,

It is far from clear that oil output will fall off a cliff, it is more likely that when resources become scarce, prices will increase and the decline in output will be gradual.

And exactly what is wrong with the SAME thing happening that happened before? Prices increase...and there is a supply response to price. And scarce? Define scarce. The IEA has...name a single peak oiler that has assembled a global resource cost curve that we might define both cost, and scarcity, at the same time. Here is the IEA example, and the experts who do this type of modeling, they use these, they don't use bell shaped curves and imaginary decline rates..if they did, they would get answers as wrong as peak oilers have been. Where is the same work from the peak oilers? Then we could all sit down and discuss this like the interesting topic it is.



Here is an example of exactly the kind the modelers were showing at the International Energy Workshop in July. From the IEA again, but the folks doing this back in July were operating at much higher resolution.

These are not problems without solutions, higher oil prices (where price is determined by supply and demand rather than exergy) are likely to make it happen.

Already did for my wife.

Though when the peak arrives there may well be economic disruption as society adapts to the new reality (declining World C+C output).

Peak oil has already happened. The Oil Drum told us so. Why would anyone ever doubt them? Those disruptions were pretty bad that one winter, but then we were over it and buying SUVs again! Not quite the new reality the oil drum thought of, but there are reasons you pay attention to the USGS and not blogs on the internet.

[AdamB]

We do need high EROI energy sources to maintain petroleum production at today's level when the EROI of petroleum falls to 1:1 or find ways to use less petroleum.

There is very little high ERoEI oil remaining.

Fortunate then that EROEI has never had, doesn't have now, and won't have in the future, ANYTHING to with the exploration, development, gathering, refining, distribution and consumption of petrochemicals. Nowhere. Ever.

My statement is absolute and I will stop posting the day someone says "Eureka!!!! OMG!!! We put 500 BTUs of sunlight into this process that only produced 50 BTUs of gasoline.....and even though the inputs were free, and the outputs made me profit...we must STOP!!! Our EROEI is only 0.1!!!"

[AdamB]

Wow! I wonder if that's what's driving the cryptocurrencies?

What? Ponzi scheme crazy like the etp gang suffers from?

[AdamB]

[/img]

So much for needing to wait any longer for etp nonsense to be cleared up.

[onlooker]

So we are diverting our fake mainstream currency into even more fake digital currency but utilizing oh so real precious energy in the process
Beyond crazy

[GHung]

AdamB said; "Peak oil has already happened. The Oil Drum told us so. ..."

Did they really, Adam? Oh,, Wait! From the top of your link:

As everyone knows, there is never a post on The Oil Drum that the entire staff agrees on. Nonetheless, Tony bases his findings on solid research, and a staff survey shows that most agree with a 2008 peak. A post discussing whether an alternate scenario with a second later peak might be feasible is planned for later.

Seems they left the door open to a later peak, but you conveniently ignore that part. Why?

[dcoyne78]

Wow! I wonder if that's what's driving the cryptocurrencies?

People are obviously looking for alternatives to fiat, but the crytos are denominated in the same fiat that everyone is looking to replace. Cognitive dissonance is running rampant!

A 1:1 EROI is not possible. The waste heat that must be released for the process to go forward must be taken into consideration. For petroleum that is a minimum of 29%, so the minimum EROEI that the process can operate at is 1.41 : 1. Below that the process can not continue, and extraction must cease.

So you maintain that the only energy input into the petroleum production system is oil?

I believe there is natural gas, coal (in the form of electricity), wind, solar, and nuclear (also in the form of electricity). You need to think more broadly as there are many types of energy used besides oil.

If oil were the only source of energy you might be correct, it isn't, so you are incorrect.

Often in these EROEI analyses the exercise is done in terms of energy rather than work.

In any case the EROEI for any single energy source determines very little, it is the EROEI for the economy as a whole for all energy sources used that matters.

An example of energy that is produced with EROEI of less than one is electric power. Ignoring line losses etc

For the average power plant about 40% electrical energy is produced per unit of fuel burned in energy terms, so EROEI is 0.4/1=or 0.4. We produce the electrical energy anyway using fuels with EROEI of 10 or more because the electricity is a very useful form of energy for doing work with electric motors and many other things as well.

Oil is also very useful to provide transportation using ICE vehicles, it will continue to be extracted regardless of EROEI as long as people are willing to pay a price that will allow it to be extracted profitably.

The EROEI can fall to less than one, just like electricity, because it is a convenient fuel for transportation (high energy content per unit volume and per unit mass).

[AdamB]

Hi Shortonoil,

The World economy was doing fine when oil prices were over $100/b for 2011-2014, oil prices fell simply because there was an oversupply of oil. Your sinusoid is interesting, but without any theory for why there should be a 12-13 year cycle, it means very little.

The rest of us know. We have been pointing out the value of his confusion with correlation and causation since he first barfed up the nonsense. Here is a perfect example of the validity of his random number generator.

For the World as a whole (rather than just the US) there has not been any study that has shown with statistical significance that economic output will correlate well with the percentage of income spent on crude oil.
When we consider World GDP annual growth rate vs % of World GDP spent on oil from 1961 to 2015 there is little correlation, R squared is 0.0025.

Shorty always designs his data inputs in such a way that his random number generator delivers high r-squared values. Obviously he must be right.

I would also note your sinusoid chart leaves off several data points where the % of GDP spent on crude was about 5% to 8% from 1979 to 1983. That does not really match your sine curve very well, where the maximum on the chart is about 4%.

We know. We've been pointing out all the data he excludes to get this thing to work for better than a year or two now. He uses old USGS data from 2000 rather than the newer stuff because it causes problems, he excludes their assessments of the two other largest known resource pockets on the planet (totaling a trillion barrels + ), he uses estimates of remaining resources and assumes that there are plenty of fields out there with 84% recovery rates already depleted, he uses nominal pricing because he has to, so some of his random number generator is just designed to handle the 2008 spike and pretend the downside is completely generated by something else (hence the reason he can't use real price data, it has a spike during the real energy crisis of the 70's and just like bell shaped curves, can't handle inflection points, that would have required real math and Shorty can't be bothered to check his work with a petroleum engineer to get any of this right, so a mathematician? Hardly.

And only oil matters in energy arguments. That one is just hysterical. How hysterical? This hysterical.

[AdamB]

If oil were the only source of energy you might be correct, it isn't, so you are incorrect.

His paper is available online for free, check it out. Assuming you don't just start laughing and give up because, well, he does have 2+2 MUST = 5 as a conditional for his scheme to work. And no, if oil was the only source of energy, he still wouldn't be correct.

[dcoyne78]

Wow! I wonder if that's what's driving the cryptocurrencies?

People are obviously looking for alternatives to fiat, but the crytos are denominated in the same fiat that everyone is looking to replace. Cognitive dissonance is running rampant!

A 1:1 EROI is not possible. The waste heat that must be released for the process to go forward must be taken into consideration. For petroleum that is a minimum of 29%, so the minimum EROEI that the process can operate at is 1.41 : 1. Below that the process can not continue, and extraction must cease.

So you maintain that the only energy input into the petroleum production system is oil?

I believe there is natural gas, coal (in the form of electricity), wind, solar, and nuclear (also in the form of electricity). You need to think more broadly as there are many types of energy used besides oil.

If oil were the only source of energy you might be correct, it isn't, so you are incorrect.

Often in these EROEI analyses the exercise is done in terms of energy rather than work.

In any case the EROEI for any single energy source determines very little, it is the EROEI for the economy as a whole for all energy sources used that matters.

An example of energy that is produced with EROEI of less than one is electric power. Ignoring line losses etc

For the average power plant about 40% electrical energy is produced per unit of fuel burned in energy terms, so EROEI is 0.4/1=or 0.4. We produce the electrical energy anyway using fuels with EROEI of 10 or more because the electricity is a very useful form of energy for doing work with electric motors and many other things as well.

Oil is also very useful to provide transportation using ICE vehicles, it will continue to be extracted regardless of EROEI as long as people are willing to pay a price that will allow it to be extracted profitably.

The EROEI can fall to less than one, just like electricity, because it is a convenient fuel for transportation (high energy content per unit volume and per unit mass).

[AdamB]

Oil is for all practical purposes, the only source of oil. There are no oil rigs running today soley off power-plant tranmission electricity.

There are. I've worked on them. What is the point of using diesel to run the gensets if you don't need to?

Guess what else? On Bakken wells, oil companies install ESP's instead of pumpjacks sometimes. Guess what ESP stands for? ELECTRIC submersible pump. Did you see the caps? Just so you wouldn't next claim we use oil to pump oil? And guess what else? Those pumpjacks? Guess what motors we install on them to pump oil? Guess what? They aren't fueled with diesel or gasoline either!! They are...ELECTRIC. There, more caps, so maybe you won't be a retard on this topic either.

It is theoretically possible but practically impossible. When more oil is use drill oil then the system is dead.

Considering how easy it is, depending on where you can get enough juice, it goes way beyond theoretical. But then, you wouldn't know that because you have previously told us the high point in your life (pun intended!! ) was getting arrested and then spectating at forest clear cutting events while getting buzzed. Lucky for you, my guess is wouldn't have lasted the day as a floor hand anyway, the oil field doesn't suffer fools the way web forums do.

[AdamB]

AdamB said; "Peak oil has already happened. The Oil Drum told us so. ..."

Did they really, Adam? Oh,, Wait! From the top of your link:

As everyone knows, there is never a post on The Oil Drum that the entire staff agrees on. Nonetheless, Tony bases his findings on solid research, and a staff survey shows that most agree with a 2008 peak. A post discussing whether an alternate scenario with a second later peak might be feasible is planned for later.

Seems they left the door open to a later peak, but you conveniently ignore that part. Why?

You really need to get your reading glasses wrapped around the point of the article, rather than something else supposed presented somewhere else.

I am the last person to deny that when some halfwits declare a peak oil, you gotta ask, "and how many MORE might there be". If you really think you have the chutzpah to discuss the multi-peak sine wave theory of oil production, I'm game. Even better, if you can find the article they SUPPOSEDLY were going to present later, we can discuss that. In either case, I'll win, because multiple peaks are nearly a given nowadays, but the article I referenced, wasn't about the RIGHT idea, but their half assed one that ultimately had them being the butt of jokes at national conferences in the geosciences.

[GHung]

dcoyne78 said; "For the average power plant about 40% electrical energy is produced per unit of fuel burned in energy terms, so EROEI is 0.4/1=or 0.4. We produce the electrical energy anyway using fuels with EROEI of 10 or more because the electricity is a very useful form of energy for doing work with electric motors and many other things as well."

Yikes! If the source fuel used to produce electricity has an eroei of 10, and, all things considered, the process of turning that electricity into work is 40% efficient, then the overall eroei is 4:1 or (10 x .4):1 EROEI only works if a "cradle to grave" calculation is done.

I understand what you are saying; that certain forms of energy are more valuable/efficient/useful than others.

My old goto analogy is this: If it takes more energy to catch a rabbit than you get from eating that rabbit, eventually you'll starve. On the other hand, if you have a field of potatoes that took minimal energy to grow, and you need protein from those rabbits, and can supplement your rabbit energy with carbs from your potatoes to catch more rabbits for their protein, you can come out ahead.

If it takes as much energy (labor) to grow those potatoes as you get from eating those potatoes, you're screwed. Zero net energy from potatoes + negative energy from catching rabbits => you lose weight. It's a crude analogy, I know, but makes the point.

[dcoyne78]

Hi AdamB,

The cost curves are interesting, but eventually output will decrease because there won't be enough demand at the higher oil price to allow profitable extraction of the resource as higher oil prices will make alternatives more competitive. I expect based on peer reviewed literature that a reasonable guess for oil URR is 3000 to 4000 Gb, if the middle of this range is correct (3500 Gb) then peak may be between 2020 and 2030.

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 30179.full

and

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... by_country

[onlooker]

Gazette-bar-chart2.jpg

file:///C:/Users/c/Downloads/energies-02-00025.pdf\

[dcoyne78]

Hi Ghung,

I do not dispute that for the overall economy you need to be net energy positive.

To go back to your analogy as long as the total energy spent growing potatoes and hunting rabbits is less than the energy they provide on the plate, then we survive.

The oil analysis by shortonoil is a rabbits only analysis, we need to look at the potatoes as well.

[onlooker]

"Of course the 3:1 minimum “extended EROI” that we calculate here is only a bare minimum for
civilization. It would allow only for energy to run transportation or related systems, but would leave
little discretionary surplus for all the things we value about civilization: art, medicine, education and so
on; i.e. things that use energy but do not contribute directly to getting more energy or other resources. "