Love it!
When confronted with a conspiracy theory, double-down with an even bigger one!
"Humans never landed on the moon."
"What? You believe that the moon exists?"
When confronted with a conspiracy theory, double-down with an even bigger one!
"Humans never landed on the moon."
"What? You believe that the moon exists?"
Moon landing deniers will never believe. You could take them to the Moon in a rocket, land them, let them walk around and bring them back and they still wouldn't believe it. They would claim the entire thing was faked.
You can fix ugly, you can fix weak, you can even fix ignorance, but there's no fixing stupid.
You can fix ugly, you can fix weak, you can even fix ignorance, but there's no fixing stupid.
There was a report written in the 1950s that predicted we would run out of oil in a few decades. It was known as 'the Putnam Report" and has proved to be very far off the mark at predicting fossil energy availability into the future. I did try to find a copy to post, but did not succeed.
I think it is obvious that we could eventually run out of fossil fuels that can be exploited economically. But, predicting when that will/would actually happen is not a skill that has been demonstrated, before, and I doubt now.
Still, there are other problems with using fossil fuels, particularly the greenhouse gas effects, that are driving people to look for and try to implement alternatives. I think that is more the reason for the plateauing extraction rates on the global scale. But, some nations are still ramping up extraction of home deposits to promote industrial growth.
So, it is not clear to me that we will run out of fossil fuels soon enough to prevent climate damage we hope to avoid. Looking at CO2 levels in geological data seems to indicate there can be far more CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the climate then was warmer and sea level was much higher.
So, I am just seeing this is 2 separate arguments for working to reduce fossil fuel use.
That would be a lot easier to do if we could also reduce the population that is using energy sources of all types, fossil and renewable.
I think it is obvious that we could eventually run out of fossil fuels that can be exploited economically. But, predicting when that will/would actually happen is not a skill that has been demonstrated, before, and I doubt now.
Still, there are other problems with using fossil fuels, particularly the greenhouse gas effects, that are driving people to look for and try to implement alternatives. I think that is more the reason for the plateauing extraction rates on the global scale. But, some nations are still ramping up extraction of home deposits to promote industrial growth.
So, it is not clear to me that we will run out of fossil fuels soon enough to prevent climate damage we hope to avoid. Looking at CO2 levels in geological data seems to indicate there can be far more CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the climate then was warmer and sea level was much higher.
So, I am just seeing this is 2 separate arguments for working to reduce fossil fuel use.
That would be a lot easier to do if we could also reduce the population that is using energy sources of all types, fossil and renewable.
We have all the energy we need for demand and a long future. Unbelievably abundant, renewable and emission free. And the best part is how cheap it is. No mining no transportation. No stockpiling or storage needed.
Just drill a little deeper for this hot clean gold.
Just drill a little deeper for this hot clean gold.
There are 2 problems with deep geothermal energy. First, we have not (yet?) demonstrated the technology to reach it. Second, it is not extractable in unlimited amounts in any particular well.
Drilling into hot rock to extract the heat energy causes the rocks around the well to be cooled by the extraction process. For a steady state extraction process, only the amount of heat that can flow through the adjacent rock per unit time can be extracted for an indefinitely long period of time. Fracking can help expand the area of the heat transfer to the well, but ultimately, there is a limit to how much power you can pull out of a well near an existing power plant on the surface.
Still, it seems to be a good technology to try. We just aren't in a position where we should be "betting the farm" on it working and allowing us to continue as we are doing, without concern about limits.
Drilling into hot rock to extract the heat energy causes the rocks around the well to be cooled by the extraction process. For a steady state extraction process, only the amount of heat that can flow through the adjacent rock per unit time can be extracted for an indefinitely long period of time. Fracking can help expand the area of the heat transfer to the well, but ultimately, there is a limit to how much power you can pull out of a well near an existing power plant on the surface.
Still, it seems to be a good technology to try. We just aren't in a position where we should be "betting the farm" on it working and allowing us to continue as we are doing, without concern about limits.
Very valid points. Let me counter a few.
New tech will be needed for sure. What doesn’t. It’s expected.
It’s not abundant at present wells. Our present wells are 1st grade attempts. Very limited pockets and will have temp effects that you speak of.
What I speak of has very little in common with current geothermal. And none of those effects you speak of are of concern with this deep water. No heat is taken or loss around well head area. The product is not reduced until surfaced.
These would be deep ten mile wells. We go now to 5 miles for oil. Man goes down 2 miles for gold.
We can learn to punch 10 mile holes. This is a world wide crust reservoir. Of super heated water. Our fossil fuels heat water for juice. You could not ask for a better solution.
It will have byproduct problems, but nothing that can’t be mitigated with cheap power. And wells can be sunk anywhere.
Not at the present time of course but those concerned have the perfect solution for energy in which no argument should prevail. And time is short. From what I have been told.
New tech will be needed for sure. What doesn’t. It’s expected.
It’s not abundant at present wells. Our present wells are 1st grade attempts. Very limited pockets and will have temp effects that you speak of.
What I speak of has very little in common with current geothermal. And none of those effects you speak of are of concern with this deep water. No heat is taken or loss around well head area. The product is not reduced until surfaced.
These would be deep ten mile wells. We go now to 5 miles for oil. Man goes down 2 miles for gold.
We can learn to punch 10 mile holes. This is a world wide crust reservoir. Of super heated water. Our fossil fuels heat water for juice. You could not ask for a better solution.
It will have byproduct problems, but nothing that can’t be mitigated with cheap power. And wells can be sunk anywhere.
Not at the present time of course but those concerned have the perfect solution for energy in which no argument should prevail. And time is short. From what I have been told.
Yes, and the technology is over 3,000,000,000,000 years old!
I have seen the future, and it is powered by current photosynthesis.
If by "recently," you mean the past hundred years or so, yea.
But we're currently consuming 1.7 planets worth of resource, and are expending 40% more energy than that captured by all the photosynthesizing plants on the planet. There are ten calories of petroleum consumed in bringing you just one calorie of food.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
I understand what you’re saying. And with the filtered information that you have I understand your concern. All information today is heavily painted with an agenda. A painted explanatory narrative.
With the information I have gleaned, the resources and energy we consume is not surprising or unexpected. I find the photo energy comparison interesting. Higher life forms, the predators, consume animal protein, a much higher energy density than flora photo.
The energy we consume has benefit and is not wasted. It removes much toil and risk and gives us free time. There is no disadvantage, it increases life span. And increases quality, we try.
A great blessing for the human race. A new blessing. A different blessing.
A.I. will demand much more power. A.I. be a demand like electricity is itself. A must have. It will do all the thinking and planning for you. It will take care of all your needs.
The present hardships of today shown to reinforce these threats are man made problems, not resource problems. We have plenty of food and medicine, what we don’t have is safe route access to the problem. That’s a political problem, not a resource problem.
The peak resource agenda fails to inform you that we can only harvest 40% of oil, leaving 60%, more than half behind in the well. Fracking took it to 40%. Some new tech will retrieve more.
Lot’s of half true information for these threat agendas. And the same for agriculture and population predictions.
Threats of climate change and resource depletion is not new. And has always been wrong in the past.
And many of the present energy policies currently criticized……...came from past academic predictions. For a more secure problem free future.
We’re chasing our academic political tail and no one sees it. Who really believes fossil can be replaced with windmills and solar panels? How much mining and transportation and processing will it take? It’s ridiculous.
And China and India are not listening. And so, others will not listen. The world will use fossil till something is cheaper and faster. The demand is now.
It’s just an opinion from my experience.
With the information I have gleaned, the resources and energy we consume is not surprising or unexpected. I find the photo energy comparison interesting. Higher life forms, the predators, consume animal protein, a much higher energy density than flora photo.
The energy we consume has benefit and is not wasted. It removes much toil and risk and gives us free time. There is no disadvantage, it increases life span. And increases quality, we try.
A great blessing for the human race. A new blessing. A different blessing.
A.I. will demand much more power. A.I. be a demand like electricity is itself. A must have. It will do all the thinking and planning for you. It will take care of all your needs.
The present hardships of today shown to reinforce these threats are man made problems, not resource problems. We have plenty of food and medicine, what we don’t have is safe route access to the problem. That’s a political problem, not a resource problem.
The peak resource agenda fails to inform you that we can only harvest 40% of oil, leaving 60%, more than half behind in the well. Fracking took it to 40%. Some new tech will retrieve more.
Lot’s of half true information for these threat agendas. And the same for agriculture and population predictions.
Threats of climate change and resource depletion is not new. And has always been wrong in the past.
And many of the present energy policies currently criticized……...came from past academic predictions. For a more secure problem free future.
We’re chasing our academic political tail and no one sees it. Who really believes fossil can be replaced with windmills and solar panels? How much mining and transportation and processing will it take? It’s ridiculous.
And China and India are not listening. And so, others will not listen. The world will use fossil till something is cheaper and faster. The demand is now.
It’s just an opinion from my experience.
No, I don't think you do.
It has a benefit to those living today. However, the energy we consume today is a liability to those trying to live tomorrow, because it is non-renewable and because it is causing increasing global warming.
Do you have children? Do you care that this past record-breaking summer may be considered a "cool" year in the future?
This is terribly simplistic.
Oil shale capable of fracking is only found in a few places, most of them in North America. When Ghawar starts drying up, the Saudis cannot frack it to get more. But they are able to get much more than the 60% number you appear to have invented.
I suggest you read Art Berman to gain some perspective and balance in your views.
There is no "peak resource agenda." There are peak resource facts. Nobody is getting rich off of trying to warn people about the dilemma we face. The only ones getting rich are the ones who are causing the dilemma.
One thing you don't seem to know about or appreciate is the energy cost of obtaining energy. In a conventional field such as Ghawar, it is possible to obtain twenty or more units of oil for every one needed to drill and process the crude.
Fracking and other unconventional techniques are more in the range of five units obtained for every one invested.
Please inform us what the energy returned on energy invested will be for the "new tech [that] will retrieve more." Otherwise, your assertion is simply techno-cornucopian posturing.
Driven by Howard Odum's seminal work on embedded energy, many believe that civilization cannot continue with a ratio of 3:1 or less. That's less than the return on biodiesel, and much less than the return on ethanol. It's barely above what fracked wells are returning now, which is why investment money for fracking has dried up.
Easy to say when you don't provide any evidence. I've given you Meadows, Berman, and Odum. What do you have? Anything?
Agriculture currently requires some 17% of energy resources. Ten calories of fossil energy are expended to bring you one calorie of food energy. What could go wrong with that? Food production has already peaked in countries with the highest energy costs.
Agriculture leads, population follows. Or do you think we can continue to solve our problems with ingenuity without some 2,000 calories a day?
You're making stuff up. Stop it. Or document it. Which you cannot.
M. King Hubbard pegged 1970 as the year for peak conventional oil in the US. He made this prediction in the 1950s. He was spot on.
It is true that the US hit a second peak with fracked oil. That is not what Hubbert was predicting.
Many analysts are saying we are at or near the second peak. Fracked wells come up quicker, plateau, and then collapse quicker than conventional oil.
It appears we have already passed peak fossil energy, as the numbers have been "cooked" to keep from hitting peak oil volume, which people know about. A "barrel of oil" contains about 10% less energy than it did ten years ago, because of the influence of lighter fracked oil, but also because nonsense like "natural gas condensate" and "refinery gain" have been recently included in the total. These are lighter hydrocarbons that do not contain as much energy.
We are clearly on a plateau now. When the Permian goes into decline, the world will go into decline. Please read Art Berman. You seem to have a lot of confidence in what you admit is just your opinion, so it would be helpful for you to read at least one oil-industry analyst. I'm not going to do your homework for you, since you've referred to nothing besides your opinion.
At last, something we can agree on!
As you note, and as an Odum emergy analysis confirms, solar panels and wind turbines are soaked in oil. As oil goes into decline, so must so-called "renewables," which are the only thing propping up energy production growth at this point.
Perhaps you can look this over, and prepare some referenced evidence to support any refutation you care to make. At least a link to Lombard (economist) or the one or two others who believe in infinite oil.
Last edited:
OK. I believe your disagreement re-enforces mine. And mine re-enforces yours. It’s a repulsion.
Some things just don’t fit together.
I guess it comes down to a question of faith, or the value, then the filtering, of information.
A scale of validity.
We have different non intersecting slopes. Which would be impossible to graph. Two separate spaces would be needed.
Another human condition. Or the same old human condition.
Some things just don’t fit together.
I guess it comes down to a question of faith, or the value, then the filtering, of information.
A scale of validity.
We have different non intersecting slopes. Which would be impossible to graph. Two separate spaces would be needed.
Another human condition. Or the same old human condition.
"My opinion is as valid as your years of research."
In other words, you are too lazy or disinterested in evidence to do some research that might challenge your beliefs.
Got it.
Here's a concept to add to the discussion: "Solar Breeding"
There was a 'solar breeder" project in Frederick Maryland for multiple years, until it went bankrupt. It's purpose was to make solar cells using the energy from solar cells. Seems like a good idea, but it struggled financially, even with some substantial cash infusions during the Obama administration. (It was started long before Obama was elected President of the U.S.)
Now, there is the Sahara Solar Breeder Project that "aims to power half the world by 2050" using solar power and the sand in the Sahara Desert. Note the 2010 date of the publication.
Here's another on the same project, dated 2021: https://theconversation.com/solar-p...ut-damage-the-global-climate-heres-why-153992 . It is concerned with environmental changes caused by the project concept.
Comments?
There was a 'solar breeder" project in Frederick Maryland for multiple years, until it went bankrupt. It's purpose was to make solar cells using the energy from solar cells. Seems like a good idea, but it struggled financially, even with some substantial cash infusions during the Obama administration. (It was started long before Obama was elected President of the U.S.)
Now, there is the Sahara Solar Breeder Project that "aims to power half the world by 2050" using solar power and the sand in the Sahara Desert. Note the 2010 date of the publication.
Here's another on the same project, dated 2021: https://theconversation.com/solar-p...ut-damage-the-global-climate-heres-why-153992 . It is concerned with environmental changes caused by the project concept.
Comments?
Sure. The answer is simple..... white solar cells!
Looks like the article is using an ounce of logic by stating...
"The panels are usually much darker than the ground they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate."
But another ounce might look at the net heat dumped into the atmosphere when the electricity from the panels offsets the heat and emission contributed by fossil energy production.
My guess, without straining any of the ounce I have left, is there would be little net gain when all things are considered, including the environmental impact in making and maintaining those panels.
I think it was the DoE director under Obama who suggested white roofs. I did the math years before this idea and the result is as beneficial as it is frugal, IMO. IIRC, however, he was laughed at. [He should have suggested beige.
]
Last edited:
I think it would have great environmental impact. I think wind mills have a negative environmental impact. You’re steeling someone else’s wind and the water in it. I hope they sue.
From what I’ve read the heat of the panel greatly effects the life of the panel. It would require constant replacement and disposable panels. Just the installation cost would be prohibitive. The amount of mining, transportation and refining would take lots of energy and emissions.
And you can bet that extra heat will effect the climate. And dust dispersion. Who is going to dust the panels? And shovel the sand?
Solar and wind are terribly inefficient for grid power. From both a dynamic and a resource overhead point of view. Much mining and refining for a small return of energy production.
But the Sahara does have some interesting possibilities. I have read several articles that have found that grinding quartz glass down to 1 um, the quartz will radiate absorbed heat out on the 10 um IR slot, directly into space. Tuned with size. This dust can be applied to paints and films.
They have passively achieved 30 degree F drop on surfaces from ambient air. Some of these proof of concept experiments have dropped below dew point and produced water too.
The Sahara is 96% quartz. Let’s grind a patch of it down and see if we can make some wind, hopefully bring some moisture in with it.
Imagine this dust being in blacktop and concrete. Imagine a two surface covering. One rolls on top the other. One for absorption and one for emission. A two way heat valve.
They are making great improvements with other passive energy methods also. Both heat and current.
As for dependable grid power drill deep.
From what I’ve read the heat of the panel greatly effects the life of the panel. It would require constant replacement and disposable panels. Just the installation cost would be prohibitive. The amount of mining, transportation and refining would take lots of energy and emissions.
And you can bet that extra heat will effect the climate. And dust dispersion. Who is going to dust the panels? And shovel the sand?
Solar and wind are terribly inefficient for grid power. From both a dynamic and a resource overhead point of view. Much mining and refining for a small return of energy production.
But the Sahara does have some interesting possibilities. I have read several articles that have found that grinding quartz glass down to 1 um, the quartz will radiate absorbed heat out on the 10 um IR slot, directly into space. Tuned with size. This dust can be applied to paints and films.
They have passively achieved 30 degree F drop on surfaces from ambient air. Some of these proof of concept experiments have dropped below dew point and produced water too.
The Sahara is 96% quartz. Let’s grind a patch of it down and see if we can make some wind, hopefully bring some moisture in with it.
Imagine this dust being in blacktop and concrete. Imagine a two surface covering. One rolls on top the other. One for absorption and one for emission. A two way heat valve.
They are making great improvements with other passive energy methods also. Both heat and current.
As for dependable grid power drill deep.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
This Week In Space podcast: Episode 141 —Holiday Special 2024
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Planes, drones or UFOs: What are people seeing in the New Jersey sky?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 22
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram