[ennui2]

It's NOT that thermodynamics plays no role, but that ETP overstates its role. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is why Whatever's question is a trick question. It's not a binary yes/no proposition. The devil's in the details.

That's the way bullshit on the internet tends to work. There is a kernel of truth at the center of most bullshit theories but then it's twisted into a specific conclusion that doesn't add up. That conclusion being the prediction of economic Armageddon within 4 years due to cheap oil.

BTW, the same sort of bullshit was used in Richard Heinberg's Blackout/Peak-Everything books, or this famous (now outdated) chart.



Yes, limits to growth is valid. But the second you make specific timing predictions you risk looking like Chicken Little if they don't come to pass on schedule.

[Whatever]

It's NOT that thermodynamics plays no role, but that ETP overstates its role.

That makes no sense, ennui2. It is impossible to overstate the role of thermodynamics when discussing thermodynamic limits. Think about it.

This is why Whatever's question is a trick question.

It is not a trick question.

The only correct answer is YES, virginia2, there must be a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil! The fact that no one, except pstarr, will answer my question is a clue to how disingenuous all of the arguments against the Etp model really are. People don't want to admit there is a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil because that would be acknowledging the basic logic behind the creation of the Etp model. That would make it much harder to claim the model is wrong.

Of course maintaining the position that there is no thermodynamic limit to the price of oil is a possible choice, but it is just stupid. That argument simply denies the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes or no are the only possible answers. There is no middle ground position.

It's not a binary yes/no proposition.

Yes, it pretty much is. Physics is like that. The total immediately available energy is what is responsible for all economic activity. That is an inescapable fact. If the total immediately available energy declines, the economy declines with it. How could it be otherwise?

The devil's in the details.

In your case, the devil is in the simplicity and logic of the Etp model.

whatever, from your (June 11 2016) battle at peakoilbarrel.

Note that Wimbi used to teach Thermodynamics at MIT, in his view EROEI won’t be a problem, I think. I agree with him.

Paul Krugman thinks the economy won’t fall apart, I believe.

Both of these men know far more than me about thermodynamics(Wimbi) and economics (Krugman).

Here Dennis Coyne lies three times . . . in one short post. Wimbi only ever took a few classes at MIT, never taught. Wimbi knows absolutely nothing about thermodynamics (see his comment on wood gas. Even Coyne sees the impossibility). Paul Krugman never made the claim. Wimbi is a alt-energy fanatic, believes that "switching to all renewable can be quick complete, and profitable." He must be young because that will never happen in our lifetime.

Dennis is something special, isn't he?

Many people seem to have a hard time being honest when debating against the Etp model. I wonder why?



---Futilitist

PS, pstarr---I think you must mean June 11 2015, not 2016. I cannot post at peakoilbarrel these days due to being banned for life.

[marmico]

Starr, calculate the 2015 net energy from Bedford's 2012 Method 2 proof? I'll assist. Where Method 2 says "Using the 2012 BTU/$ conversion of 6380 BTU" substitute on the plug and play 5970 BTU. You are on your own for the rest.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_023.htm

Method 1 proof is GIGO. I wait for your calc that Method 2 proof is equally GIGO.

[ennui2]

You have yet to prove that net-energy analysis (of any kind including Pimentel, Hall et al, or ETP) is a bullshit theory.

It's not a bullshit theory in it's most abstract and isolated theoretical way. It just fails to predict to be the grand unified theory that can make specific price/economic predictions. It's not like I'm the only one who thinks it doesn't pass the smell-test. Why single me out rather than, let's say, Rockman. He at least works in the oil patch. His bullshit meter is better than mine.

the conclusion of the downward return of energy is quite obvious

Again with the misrepresentaitons. Dwindling EROEI is a genuine thing. Predicting doomsday in 4 years is a case of just conjuring up self-serving numbers to sell $38 reports.

[Whatever]

You have yet to prove that net-energy analysis (of any kind including Pimentel, Hall et al, or ETP) is a bullshit theory.

It's not a bullshit theory in it's most abstract and isolated theoretical way. It just fails to predict to be the grand unified theory that can make specific price/economic predictions. It's not like I'm the only one who thinks it doesn't pass the smell-test. Why single me out rather than, let's say, Rockman. He at least works in the oil patch. His bullshit meter is better than mine.

His bullshit generator is not quite a match for yours, though. You are making the fallacious argument ad populum in a physics discussion. You have thoroughly demonstrated that you have no understanding of physics, ennui2. You claim the Etp model fails to predict yet it has been remarkably predictive for the last 2 years running. And I am hardly singling you out. I asked you to go away, remember? It is for your own good. You are in *WAY* over your head.



---Futilitist

[StarvingLion]

You have yet to prove that net-energy analysis (of any kind including Pimentel, Hall et al, or ETP) is a bullshit theory.

It's not a bullshit theory in it's most abstract and isolated theoretical way. It just fails to predict to be the grand unified theory that can make specific price/economic predictions. It's not like I'm the only one who thinks it doesn't pass the smell-test. Why single me out rather than, let's say, Rockman. He at least works in the oil patch. His bullshit meter is better than mine.

His bullshit generator is not quite a match for yours, though. You are making the fallacious argument ad populum in a physics discussion. You have thoroughly demonstrated that you have no understanding of physics, ennui2. You claim the Etp model fails to predict yet it has been remarkably predictive for the last 2 years running. And I am hardly singling you out. I asked you to go away, remember? It is for your own good. You are in *WAY* over your head.



---Futilitist

Even Hill with his etp is a denialist like Coyne. Hill says the existing configuration of the oil complex will disappear sometime in the future. Not today...but sometime in the future. Thats what every denialist says while chomping on Doritos chips and ignoring the consequences. None of the clowns at these peak oil sites believes anything they write or else they wouldn't be here.

99% of the world is Programmed to Ignore. They live in an Idiocracy and they don't even know it.

A real worlder is someone who knows its a mad scramble to claim private ownership of the best hydro plants because its the highest EROEI electricity generator around. "Renewables" is a just a fake capitalism ploy to tap hydro electric and declare them self King of the World. Everything else (including gas) goes bankrupt.

[radon1]

Is there a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

I think its a trick question. If I say No, I'm implying physical law has no role at all in determining the price which is absurd, .

It's not a trick question. He is not asking whether "physical law has a role in determining price of oil". He is asking "Is there a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?". Pretty straightforward question. And the answer is also pretty straightforward - no, there is not. The things that "are implied, or may be implied in the question, or may be meant" are pure speculations.

Not clear what this argument is all about. Does hunger have a role in determining prices? What else? Tell me, what doesn't.

[ennui2]

I agree that oil consumption have continually improved, made efficient. However neither improvement can possibly outweigh the final accounting. When all the oil in the world is used in the production of all the oil in the world . . . then there is no market price. As there is no market. Economy and entropy meet in a bottomless void of empty promises, squashed dream and emotional denial.

And you too are resorting to color-coding instead of argumentation.

We're not as close to using all the oil in the world to make all the oil in the world as ETP's bogus statistics says we are, period.

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The Oil Drum was full of those kinds of "truthy" statistics and look what happened to them.

[Whatever]

Yes, limits to growth is valid. But the second you make specific timing predictions you risk looking like Chicken Little if they don't come to pass on schedule.

I am driven by an insatiable curiosity to understand my world, no matter what answers I might find. You are ruled by fear.

We're not as close to using all the oil in the world to make all the oil in the world as ETP's bogus statistics says we are, period.

How the hell do you know that? You are just stating your own personal, baseless, unsupported opinion about an innovative physics model that you obviously do not even understand. Pathetic. Why should anyone believe you?

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

And then there's physics, ennui2. You obstinately refuse to believe all scientific approaches to understanding our energy situation. What good is that? You are an automatic, knee jerk denial machine. No one with half a brain could possibly take you seriously. Maybe you should post another stupid animation loop at this point.



---Futilitist

[StarvingLion]

Futilitist,

The etp model is a copout and defeatist. Its nature of critiquing a complex process involving long transportation results in a demotivating attitude that drilling in the deep ocean is just too damn hard so lets instead be "informed" by a computer generating squiggly lines on a display monitor while we dream on about impossible local economies.

The etp model uses physics and chemistry as a crutch to lean on when its predictions miss the mark. If you are really focused on physics and chemistry, go deep water drilling where the real action is.

[kublikhan]

We're not as close to using all the oil in the world to make all the oil in the world as ETP's bogus statistics says we are, period.

How the hell do you know that?

Energy consumed by the oil & gas industry is reported to the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP). You can then use their total energy produced to calculate how much of energy they consume per unit of output. Turns out, the oil & gas industry only uses about 8%-18%(depending on how you measure) of the energy it produces. The remaining 82% of the energy is used by consumers:

Oil and gas companies have a strong financial incentive to save energy, because of the large share of energy in the overall cost of operating their facilities. Efficient energy use reduces costs along the whole supply chain and makes energy more affordable to consumers. In fact, the industry manages to keep energy consumption from production and supply of a standard gasoline or diesel product to less than 18%* of that consumed throughout their life (N.B. efficiency per unit of output, a broader term for all petrochemicals produced, is greater still). the remaining 82% is consumed by end use. For example, a 10% improvement in the efficiency of oil use in transport and other end uses would save the equivalent of one-half of all the energy used by the oil and gas industry worldwide.

*See CONCAWE’s well-wheels study

IMPROVING ENERGY USE FROM PRODUCTION TO CONSUMER

We focus on total energy expended, i.e. all the energy, regardless of its origin. The unit used is MJ expended total energy per MJ finished fuel (LHV basis). For example a figure of 0.5 means that making the fuel requires 50% of the energy that it can produce when burned. This total energy figure gives a truly comparable picture of the various pathways in terms of their ability to use energy efficiently.

WELL-TO-WHEELS ANALYSIS

[Whatever]

Is there a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

I think its a trick question. If I say No, I'm implying physical law has no role at all in determining the price which is absurd, .

It's not a trick question. He is not asking whether "physical law has a role in determining price of oil". He is asking "Is there a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?". Pretty straightforward question. And the answer is also pretty straightforward - no, there is not.

Your answer is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. It must be false. There must be a maximum sustainable thermodynamic limit to the price of oil. Here is why:

Consumers are the end users of oil. They must pay the full cost of the production, refining and delivery of oil. The economy runs on the energy it gets from oil. The total immediately available energy determines the level of world economic growth. The level of world economic growth determines how much money consumers have to spend on oil. Consumers cannot spend more money than they actually have.

If there were no maximum thermodynamic limit to the price of oil, that would imply that the price of oil could rise to infinity. Of course that is impossible since consumers cannot spend more money than they actually have. If you then claim that there are many other things that can limit the oil price to less than infinity that is fine, but these things cannot possibly result in a sustainable oil price that is higher than the maximum thermodynamic limit.

All human activities and decisions take place within the bounds of the physical laws of the universe. No matter what humans may imagine is possible, the laws of thermodynamics cannot be superseded.

Not clear what this argument is all about. Does hunger have a role in determining prices? What else? Tell me, what doesn't.

You claim lots of things can play a roll in determining the daily price of oil. But none of those things can can raise the price above the maximum sustainable thermodynamic limit. Get it?



---Futilitist

[Whatever]

Futilitist,

The etp model is a copout and defeatist.

The Etp model is a physics model of the oil depletion process. It doesn't have a personality.



--Futilitist