Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Mon 01 Feb 2010, 20:16:20**

lonewolf wrote:Barrel of oil equivalent (boe) = approx. 6.1 GJ (5.8 million Btu), equivalent to 1,700 kWh.
(at 100% efficiency)

1,700 kWh/bbl x 13 x10^6 bpd (import?) to US
= 22,100,000,000,000 Whd
= 22,100 Gigawatt/day
= 22.1 Terawatt/day

HOWEVER!
FROM WIKI :The terawatt is equal to one trillion watts. The total power used by humans worldwide (about 16 TW in 2006) ..."

WTF? 16 TW/yr? yeah right!

ugh. You've got to get your math and units straightened out. Don't feel nbad...it's a very common mistake.

A watt isn't a unit of work...it's a unit of instantaneous power. You have to convert to watt hours, or kilowatt hours, to get your equivalents

The top portion of your math you dropped "hours". It would be correct to say we are burning the equivalent of 22.1 terawatt-hours per day. But even that math is worng...sorry

The total electrical power generation in the united states is about 4 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (according to wiki) almost HALF of that is coal. About 22% is other fossil fuels of various sorts. The rest is nuke, hydro, and alternatives.

If a barrel of oil is equivalent to 1700 kwh (I didn't check, but it sounds reasonable, I think), and we are using about 20 million barrels per day, then we are burning the equivalent of 34 billion kwh per day, or 1.241 trillion kwh hours per year. Part of that is going to run the grid already, of course, so you can't sum the two to get totals.

Anyway: take away our imported oil, and we are losing about 800 billion kwh of work, annually. That's a whole lot of additional grid capacity that's required to offset!

OK, I think my math is right...but you never know. I may have screwed up a decimal somewhere too!

Posted: **Mon 01 Feb 2010, 20:22:28**

lonewolf wrote:Barrel of oil equivalent (boe) = approx. 6.1 GJ (5.8 million Btu), equivalent to 1,700 kWh.
(at 100% efficiency)

1,700 kWh/bbl x 13 x10^6 bpd (import?) to US
= 22,100,000,000,000 Whd
= 22,100 Gigawatt/day
= 22.1 Terawatt/day

HOWEVER!
FROM WIKI :The terawatt is equal to one trillion watts. The total power used by humans worldwide (about 16 TW in 2006) ..."

WTF? 16 TW/yr? yeah right!

16 would be the figure for the USA alone, not the whole world, and I don't believe that is a yearly figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

Posted: **Mon 01 Feb 2010, 20:37:39**

Tanada wrote:
16 would be the figure for the USA alone, not the whole world, and I don't believe that is a yearly figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

You are right. It's not. It's the average rate.

16 terawatts continuous is 16 terawatt hours for each hour all year!

that's 140 quadrillion kilowatt hours energy consumption annually

So many zeros and so many decimal points to move around...I'm sure I missed on somewhere. I need to get this all on a spreadsheet where I can handle and track it. I think I'm right but I did it on the fly with a calculator, so...

Posted: **Tue 02 Feb 2010, 04:03:04**

Phildo wrote:For starters -- Anyone catch the part about Oil Imports = 750 Nukes?

Anyone want to try to do THAT make-believe math?

I doubt whether you'd do the calculations yourself, because you just hope that Martenson is wrong.

Actually, Martenson is about right, if one assumes he meant nuclear reactors, rather than power plants, since many plants have multiple reactors, in the US. In fact, there were 104 reactors in 2008, in 65 power plants, according to the EIA. Overall, they generated 808.97 billion kilowatt-hours. That's an average 21.25 million kwh per day per nuclear reactor (2008 was a leap year). A barrel of oil is equivalent to 1700 kwh. So the average nuclear reactor is equivalent to 12,502 barrels of oil. The crash course uses an import quantity of 10 million barrels (which looks conservative). So, to replace 10 million barrels, the number of nuclear reactors (at 2008 average output) needed is 10,000,000 divided by 12,502, which is almost exactly 800.

Chris may have been using older statistics for his calculations, that might have had a higher average output per reactor, but the figure is close. In terms of the average nuclear power plant, almost 500 of those would be needed (with many having multiple reactors).

Posted: **Tue 02 Feb 2010, 15:39:11**

Tony, you're a such a spolier.

I was hopng Fido would use his other 9 fingers and do some math himself.

Posted: **Tue 02 Feb 2010, 20:08:08**

VMarcHart wrote:Tony, you're a such a spolier.

I was hopng Fido would use his other 9 fingers and do some math himself.

Not much hope of that. His post suggests he probably doesn't have the ability (since the facts were fairly easy to obtain).

Posted: **Wed 03 Feb 2010, 05:13:38**

Looked like you all were having fun with the numbers, so I was not inclined to interrupt. Really did not mean to assign anyone homework :-D

but I think you all are real sports on this. Fun site this is. :-D

But here is what I want to know -- how did you figure out that I only have 9 fingers? I would have counted them as about 9 - 7/8, as only a relatively small part of #10 finger is missing. :-D

-- but that always makes for a funny set of finger prints. In practice, I usually still round it up 10. Could you read the missing finger part through the keyboard? :-D

Towards the supposing part whether "hope" was involved regarding Chris's calcs -- Not really any hope or not involved on my end because as I have poked around I do not think Chris actually did ANY calculations. That is why no footnotes, no references, etc. Closest I have heard the claim was a knock-off from the Oil Drum about a sort of spoof piece the IEEE did about how much energy was in a cubic mile of oil. Things went downhill from there.

I will say this about the approach I would tend to use on the numbers -- it would more likely to be from the bottom up, rather than the top down. That is because when one is attempting to capture and use this sort of comparison of bananas to watermelons math you have to use something that does a practical conversion, such as resulting work compared to resulting work -- not thermal energy to watts which has little to no practical meaning.

Also keep in mind that even Chris acknowledges that some of that oil goes into physical products such as plastics and Petro-Chem, which would not really even map into any energy comparison -- even as misaligned as this Nukes to Oil comparison is.

But if there are no objections, I will let this sit for a day or two more, if anyone else would like to play, and then I will jump back in with some numbers based on the utility or functional use side of things.

In the meanwhile, for some practical comparisons of other folks numbers, you may like this from the comments section on Chris' page >>>

http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/you ... nces/18717

Posted: **Mon 05 Apr 2010, 10:47:55**

Perhaps I can offer some help for some of the investing novices out there...

The cost of oil has reached all time highs. It has been soaring upward from the last six years as the demand of oils is more than its supply. So if you have the desire to invest in oil, the simplest and easiest way would be to invest in shares of oil companies. These assets can be bought like stocks which includes a tiny charge.

Oil is in demand in developed as well as developing countries to support the rate of growth and meet the day to day needs. The overall growth in the world population had increased the demand for oil. Investing in oil is a golden opportunity. However, most people may not know how to benefit from the price hike.

Investing in oil stocks is almost always a good bet; this depends on the amount of risk that one is willing to take. Investors can buy into bigger oil companies as they are safe and diversified. One could also take risks by investing in smaller oil stocks that specialize in exploring and operating in risky locales. Your tolerance for risk will determine which investment is right for you.

There are also a few exchange trading funds that are related to oil, and numerous mutual funds too. The ownership cost is lower in exchange trading funds, and one can easily buy and sell them at anytime during the day.

Trading in oil is an extremely risky job. It is not possible to gain 700% return without taking risks. Do your homework well before investing. There are numerous legitimate fund managers who have created sound oil investments and enabled their investors to make money for many years.

In general investing in oil is a safe investment, thanks to the rising demand. If the amount you are investing is small, then you’ll see better returns from small oil companies, but remember they operate in risky environment. If you’re investing a large sum, then blue chip large companies will pay off in the long run.

Some of the oil companies are willing to form partnerships with good potential investors. As always, proper research must be done before investing money into any company.

Oil is one of the resources in this planet which is in high demand, but since it is a non-renewable resource the oil price is constantly moving upwards. Investing in oil will definitely give great returns.

We have a comprehensive glossary located here as well:
http://www.maxtechoil.com/oil-terms/

Posted: **Fri 26 Nov 2010, 09:06:04**

It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve

Once a year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) releases its World Energy Outlook (WEO), and it's our tradition here at ChrisMartenson.com to review it. A lot of articles have already been written on the WEO 2010 report, and I don't wish to tread an already well-worn path, but the subject is just too important to leave relegate to a single week of attention.

Because some people will only read the first two paragraphs, let me get a couple of conclusions out right up front. You need to pay close attention to Peak Oil, and you need to begin adjusting, because it has already happened. The first conclusion is mine; the second belongs to the IEA.

Okay, it's not quite as simple as that; there are a few complexities involved that require us to dig a bit deeper and to be sure our terms and definitions are clear so that we are talking about the same things.

First, pay close attention to the legend for the chart. Starting at the bottom, note that crude oil from "currently producing fields" (dark blue) is already in sharp decline and is expected to decline from a high of 70 mbd in 2006 to ~15 mbd in 2035; a loss of 55 mbd over 25 years, or 2.2 mbd per year. The next band up (gray) is crude oil from "fields yet to be developed," which we largely know about but have not yet really started producing significantly.

My only comment here is that these fields cannot overcome the expected rate of loss in the dark blue band below them. All of the conventional oil that we know about is now past peak. In order to keep conventional oil flat, we have to move up to the third band (light blue), which goes by the spine tingling name "fields yet to be found" - which will apparently be delivering a very hefty 22 mbd by 2035. In other words, the IEA is projecting that in 25 years, more oil will be flowing from "fields yet to be found" than from all the fields ever found and put into production by the year 2010.

Colin Campbell, one of the earliest analysts of peak oil who has decades of oil field experience, is on record as saying that the "fields yet to be developed" category, originally introduced to the world as unidentified Unconventional in 1998, is a "coded message for shortage" and was, off the record, confirmed as such by the IEA. That coded message is getting easier and clearer to receive by the day.

huffingtonpost

Posted: **Fri 26 Nov 2010, 09:32:56**

Way back I decided the best way to explain peak oil is "if you can't find it, you can't pump it."

More and more it seems we are finding, if not "dry holes" then at best, moist holes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Megap ... tegory.svg

Posted: **Fri 26 Nov 2010, 11:30:58**

Then again petroleum fuel could be replaced with algae biofuel:

The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (40,000 km2).

Posted: **Fri 26 Nov 2010, 12:02:34**

Graeme wrote:Then again petroleum fuel could be replaced with algae biofuel:

Sure could (from your link):

Fundamental thermodynamic constrains make it impossible for such approach to be commercially viable for fuel prices below $800/bbl, even if flawless technological implementation is assumed.

http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseStudy.pdf

Posted: **Fri 26 Nov 2010, 12:13:45**

Graeme wrote:Then again petroleum fuel could be replaced with algae biofuel:

The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (40,000 km2).

How many gallons of algae biofuel are being produced Today and at what price???
From your link:
"Algae fuel can reach price parity with oil in 2017 if granted production tax credits, according to the head of the Algal Biomass Organization.[11"Easy to say as he doesn't define the amount of the tax credits or subsidy.
Algae fuel may well be the liquid fuel of the future but the problem is most of us may not live through the transition period while we wait for the technology to come on line.

Posted: **Fri 26 Nov 2010, 15:23:05**

The Obama's administration's new policy boosting the production and use of corn ethanol (and channeling billions to agribusiness) with their new E15 mandate isn't working out so great either.

Even Al Gore has come out and admitted he made a mistake when he pushed corn ethanol during the Gore-Clinton administration, and criticizing the new push by the Obamites to promote even more wasteful subsidies for corn ethanol.

Al Gore admits he was wrong for pushing corn ethanol

Posted: **Fri 26 Nov 2010, 16:31:20**

I figure the "yet to be found" is wedge is 80 Gb.

That would have to be found over the next 15-20 years if it's to be in production by 2035.

Posted: **Sat 27 Nov 2010, 23:13:12**

There's no question that the production of electric cars (battery and fuel-cell), natural-gas vehicles and vehicles run on algae-based bio-fuels and GTL and CTL will off-set decline in petroleum. Here is another biofuel (pyrolysis oil) that will contribute about 20% of present-day fossil fuel consumption in America.

New process turns bio-oil into common chemicals for manufacturing

Researchers at Massachusetts University at Amherst have created a viable portable processor that can turn biomass fuel into chemicals widely used in industry and manufacturing processes.
The researchers announced the results of their work Friday, the same day a report on their efforts was published in Science, said a press release issued by the University. The portable processor, as seen in the accompanying photograph, is capable of converting fuel made from biomass into what is called "feedstock chemicals."

digitaljournal

Posted: **Sun 28 Nov 2010, 01:14:22**

Graeme wrote:There's no question that the production of electric cars (battery and fuel-cell), natural-gas vehicles and vehicles run on algae-based bio-fuels and GTL and CTL will off-set decline in petroleum. Here is another biofuel (pyrolysis oil) that will contribute about 20% of present-day fossil fuel consumption in America.

New process turns bio-oil into common chemicals for manufacturing

Researchers at Massachusetts University at Amherst have created a viable portable processor that can turn biomass fuel into chemicals widely used in industry and manufacturing processes.
The researchers announced the results of their work Friday, the same day a report on their efforts was published in Science, said a press release issued by the University. The portable processor, as seen in the accompanying photograph, is capable of converting fuel made from biomass into what is called "feedstock chemicals."

digitaljournal

Put up or shut up. Let's see how much these a holes are prepared to put up of their own money.

Posted: **Sun 28 Nov 2010, 05:46:59**

pstarr wrote:Graeme's assertion is so much unfounded crap, but Graeme is protected around here and if you insult his algae scam you incur the wrath of the site owners.

I was.

In any case he is orders of magnitude more intelligent than Carlhole.
From time to time he also posts something reasonable.

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Chris Martenson's Crash Course

Re: The crash course: Chapter 17a: Peak Oil

Re: The crash course: Chapter 17a: Peak Oil

Re: The crash course: Chapter 17a: Peak Oil

Re: The crash course: Chapter 17a: Peak Oil

Re: The crash course: Chapter 17a: Peak Oil

Re: The crash course: Chapter 17a: Peak Oil

Re: The crash course: Chapter 17a: Peak Oil

Re: The crash course: Chapter 17a: Peak Oil

It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve

Re: It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve

Re: It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve

Re: It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve

Re: It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve

Re: It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve

Re: It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve

Re: It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve

Re: It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve

Re: It's Official: The Economy Is Set to Starve