Apocalypse Soon?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Futilitist, Jan 1, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Not much. Essentially none from Brazil due to tariffs and quotas. Certain Caribbean island and lands do have larger quotas. Sugar could be imported at the world price, about five times lower than the US sugar price and made into cheaper alcohol, in the US, but the US corn and sugar industries have control - so Americans pay more for both and also in taxes supporting these subsidies (Corn is the largest farm subsidy in large part because Senator Glaser of Iowa is head of the ways and means committee, which must clear all the Congressional expenditures)
    American voters are being "doubly' had and too dumb to know it with both sugar and alcohol, in prices, taxes and trade.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Are you actually quoting someone who is claiming that vehicles are "five times as efficient" on sugar ethanol than on corn ethanol? It's chemically identical.

    You have some good points but I'd avoid using those sort of "all spin no fact" pieces.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No they are referring to cost of growing I think. Cheaper land & labor and much less fertilizer than required to compensate for Iowa´s shorter growing season. Look at this 7 year old and now long thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...US-voters-be&p=1076237&viewfull=1#post1076237 In it somewhere, you can read quotes of the Noble Prize winning soil biologist´s paper telling that soil microbes convert most of the intensively used Iowa fertilizer into NOx, which is much more damagine to both health and the environment than CO2.

    Here is a different (from Dartmouth Un business school paper) source saying the same thing:
    Not surprizingly, the Un. of Iowa, tells a different story from disinterested Darthmouth business school. Some of the above facts may have changed - There was a try that passed in the Senate, to cancel the $0.54/ gallon duty and I think the quotas have been increased. The EPA has mandated even certain amount of cellulosic alcohol be added to gasoline - but that is currently impossible and without imports even the mandated blending would be impossible - US is already converting 1/3 of its corn into alcohol - you see why corn exports are lower and food prices are higher than they need be?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    They quite explicitly said "vehicle fuel efficiency." That has a specific meaning, and it's how far a car can drive on a given amount of fuel, often expressed in miles per gallon.
     
  8. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    ...and 5x more efficient would make for about a 150% efficient car engine!
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is not a complete quote. Here is what they actually said:
    "By using sugar ethanol in place of, or even in conjunction with, corn ethanol, vehicle fuel efficiency can be further boosted. In fact, sugar ethanol is up to five times more efficient than corn ethanol and nearly as cheap on the world market."

    I can see how this is badly worded and if one did not know 150% improvement is impossible or the ETOH is ETOH regardless of the source one could be mislead. What they said is that BOOST in vehicle fuel efficiency is up to five times greater than with corn based alcohol; not a claim about over all fuel efficiency. That "boosting claim" could only be true if sugar cane and corn based alcohols are not pure ETOH. In fact they are not. You cannot get pure ETOH by distillation. At best you can get the azeotrope, and you would not even get that if there are more complex compounds than H2O in the mix being distilled, which of course there are:
    There are other and different chemicals produced by the fermentation of corn from the fermentation of sugar cane. Tiny fractions, as is the case with water, of other and different chemical component can significantly effect the combustion boost power given to gasoline in a piston engine.

    I don´t know if their claim is true or not but it certainly could be as distilled fermentation liquor of corn is significantly different from distilled fermentation liquor of sugar cane. Perhaps not much in total energy content, but in the ability to effect the combustion of say pure octane, it may be. It is strange, and hard to understand, but even in the same engine (no change in compression ratio), adding some or sugarcane based alcohol does boost the power about 3%* despite having only 70% of the energy content. I´m not a chemist and not willing to search to find out why but quite small chemical differences between what is called sugarcane alcohol and corn alcohol may produce much larger and different boosting effects.

    * That 3% is from memory a few years ago when wife bought a new car. Just as in US, there is a window sticker, but it Brazil is gives the power for both gasoline and alcohol separately. I remembered it as more power with alcohol in same car made no sense to me.
     
  10. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    The full quote doesn't really help any. The first sentence really does have a specific meaning that should be thermodynamic efficiency unless otherwise stated. The second sentence may or may not be talking about another type of efficiency, but since it doesn't say what type we have to guess. Since it mentions "efficiency" separate from an economic implication, we must assume it isn't a type of economic efficiency ($ per mile for example). Without clarification, it is typically best to assume one is talking about thermodynamic efficiency.
    Er - it was 500%.
     
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Or continuing the discussion of the prior sentence about which (sugarcane or corn alcohol) is more efficient in boosting engine performance.* I think one is forced to this interperation as you and Billvon noted, the other interpretation (improves MPG efficiency five fold) is impossible. My main complaint is they are not clear as to what is boosted five fold compared to the boost corn based alcohol gives. Is it peak power level (as I suspect) or mpg?

    For example corn alcohol might boost peak power by 0.5% and sugarcane by 2.5% for a five fold greater boost. I think what tends to limit peak power is "knocking" and know sugarcane alcohol really helps prevent that. Alternatively perhaps they do mean that the mpg in one case is boosted 0.5% and in the other by 2.5%. Even after eliminating the "impossible interperation" you cannot be sure what they speak of.

    * Note the badly worded, unclear sentence starts with: "In Fact" which is a clear signal that they are continuing the prior sentence discussion and amplifying on it.
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Biggest conventional oil discovery in more than three decades to begin production in late 21013 or early 2014.*
    Oil is "fungible" so even though China get big new supply for at lest three decades, that makes more oil available for western countrie, not as fortunate as the US with rapidly growing oil production.

    PS like the bumbee bee, which scientists have proven can not fly due to the turbulence its small rapid beating wings make, China does not know 100% accurate Futilitst has proven "peak oil" occured back in 2005.

    *although this Wiki link says "in 30 years & 2013," another very recent link says "biggests in 40 years with first production in 2014."
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Not sure what this is supposed to prove, except that it shows the oil that is easy to get is gone, and they are looking to difficult to get sources. A million barrels a day from Kashagan Field is one estimate I read. (The US consumes 10 times that amount a day).
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    That's very good news. It gives us more time to transition to alternatives.
     
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Re post 812, where you claim (Futilist)* that you made a list of twelve items. A list is a sequence of connected, contiguous, adjacent elements. It is not disparate items, spearated by other items and having diverse character. In the subject post you have a list of ten items and two separate items are mentioned. Once again you display a character defect that prevents you from ever admitting to an error. Your standard response, as in this case, is to accuse your accuser of the same error. Frigging sick!

    *I have no intention of of typing your full silly name any more. Futilist is easy to type, the alternative you favour is a pain in the carpal tunnel. If you don't like this, change your name - Lying Bastard would be an informative alternative.
     
  16. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    1. The economy is not healthy. Since late 2008, the economy has been propped up by massive stimulus and ultra low interest rates. At the same time oil prices remain too high.

    2. Oil production is only rising very slowly. If oil production were rising like it would be expected to do in a healthily growing economy, it would rise enough to bring oil prices down to healthier levels.

    3. The fact that oil prices remain too high for healthy economic growth indicates that producers are having some trouble keeping up. And speculators were not the cause of the oil spike. Why are oil prices so high?

    4. Most economists are ignorant with respect to peak oil and even basic physics. It is no surprise that most economists don't expect an apocalypse in the next few years. The economy is a dynamic non linear system that has been pushed outside of it's normal operating envelope. When it snaps, it will be sudden and largely unexpected.

    [HR][/HR]

    Here is a good resource for the latest data on oil production numbers, updated monthly:

    http://peakoil.com/production/stuart-staniford-monthly-oil-supply-update

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Yep. As it has after every recession. It's called Keynesian economics.

    ============
    Southern California gas prices continue dropping
    Ed Joyce | April 29th, 2013, 11:55am

    Gasoline prices continue to drop in Southern California. The Automobile Club of Southern California said Monday the average price is $3.90 for a gallon of self-serve regular in L.A. County and $3.87 in Orange County.

    The average price of gasoline in Los Angeles County dropped again Monday to $3.90 for a gallon of self-serve regular. It's the 26th consecutive decrease, according to the Automobile Club of Southern California.

    The average is its lowest since Jan. 31 and 27 cents below what it was a year ago, according to figures from the auto club.

    The Orange County average price also dropped two-tenths of a cent Monday, one day after a 15-day streak of dropping prices ended when the average was unchanged. The Orange County average of $3.87 is the lowest since Jan. 31
    ====================

    Why would it rise faster than demand?

    Oil production is rising, gas prices are dropping, economic indicators are rising. The Dow is hitting record highs. Hiring is up, consumer confidence is up. You have to spin very hard indeed to try to claim that those are signs of an impending catastrophe.

    Nonsense. It indicates that oil companies are making plenty of money, though.

    Cause we're running out of cheap oil.

    Yep. Just like the last 50 or so economic apocalypses that were predicted. The economy stubbornly refuses to implode, though, even when dreamy-eyed visionaries demand it do so.
     
  18. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    What a total waste of time it is to answer your bullsh!t again! You are a troll with a vendetta.

    I listed 12 references for my claim.

    The first reference was geologist Collin Campbell. I then included a quote from that reference. Including a quote does not break the continuity of the list. That is just stupid.

    The second reference was an animated film by the Post Carbon Institute. The fact that this reference is a video does not break the continuity of the list. That is also just stupid.

    I then completed the list, for a total of exactly 12. I even numbered the references in red to make it clearer for you. I invite the readers to take a look for themselves at post #812.

    I have made no error whatsoever. To accuse me of "display(ing) a character defect that prevents (me) from ever admitting to an error", based on the above, is beyond ridiculous. It is silly and offensive at the same time.

    And you are the one who is "Frigging sick!". Why do you keep attacking me?

    Lying Bastard? I guess we can add that to the list of your latest offenses toward me. These offenses constitute a case of severe violation of the rules of this site. You are leaving a trail. I ask you, once again, to cease and desist.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 1, 2013
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes, actually many more references than that you have quoted in various posts and you quoted from two more references in the post in question; however, that post has only one LIST of 10. Prehaps you don´t know what a list is? I suspect you do, and as Ophiolite noted, just prefer to lie and blame others when they point out you are not telling the turth, again.
     
  20. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    If the economy were healthy, it would not need stimulus.

    $3.90 a gallon is still too high, especially for people in Southern California who have to drive so much.

    Your question makes no sense. Induced by high oil prices, producers should be expected to bring more oil to market, thus moderating prices.

    You have to spin very hard indeed to try to claim that those are signs of a healthy economy. Oil production is rising very slowly, keeping oil prices too high. Gas prices are dropping a bit over the last couple of weeks. So what? Due to recent Fed policies, the Dow is now irrelevant as an indicator. "Hiring is up" is a highly debatable claim. "Consumer confidence is up" is also debatable. Consumer confidence has only recovered to about half of it's pre recession levels.

    Is that all you got?

    Oil companies could make more if they produced more. Each oil company has the incentive to seek higher profits.

    Yes. And running out of cheap oil is having negative economic consequences. And the consequences will only get more severe as we approach the world all liquids peak.

    Your answer above is very tiresome. Do you have any idea how many times you have used a variant of this? And you are avoiding the question.

    What about the fact that the economy is a dynamic non linear system that has been pushed outside of it's normal operating envelope? Dynamic systems rapidly seek equilibrium when they cross a tipping point. Equilibrium is punctuated.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    I made a list of 12. The graphic design of the list, which included an extended quote and a video, is all that you are complaining about! What a joke! How dare you join Ophiolite's vendetta against me. You are supposed to be a moderator here. I have not lied! I demand an immediate apology from you.

    ---EDIT

    Upon reconsideration, you don't need to apologize to me for calling me a liar. You won't anyway. Instead, we can just agree to disagree about what constitutes a list of 12 references. Believe what you want to believe. I think the readers can count.

    This is a total waste of time.

    I wish to get on with a serious discussion on the topic of apocalypse soon. Let's stick to that topic from here on out, shall we?

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    The economy has been getting government stimulus ever since 1776, when the government pumped money into the economy to buy guns to fight a war. It's been going on ever since.

    It's just fine for me and for hundreds of people at the place I work. You just live too far from work.

    Correct. And what has actually happened? Induced by high oil prices, producers brought more oil to market, thus moderating prices.

    No, those are by definition signs of a healthy economy. That's why they are called "economic indicators." To claim otherwise you would have to start redefining words. (And to be clear I don't put that past you - but you'll look even more foolish when you start to define "up" as "down.")

    Yet they are dropping, and the economy is recovering. Thus while they are too high FOR YOU, they are not too high for an economic recovery - by definition.

    No, they couldn't. OPEC learned this about 40 years ago.

    There is no "normal operating envelope." There are no specs. There is just the envelope that you are used to.

    For example, 9/11 was outside any ordinary envelope. We recovered from that. The Arab oil embargo - same thing. The dot com bubble -same thing. All those events were outside anything the economy had seen before. Always recovered, since it's not an engineered system that breaks when operated outside ordinary conditions.

    Correct. And this has happened dozens of times before. A new equilibrium is reached. Some people make money, some people lose money, and the world keeps spinning.
     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    (1) An item in a LIST does not quote a page or contain a video. I am not join Ophiolite, but was the first to note that your "list" has only 10 items. To be kind, I said: "10 is as good as 12." You are the one trying to re-define "list" as page long quotation of text and an a video as two items also in your list. Your list is the 10 items listed at the end of that multi-page text with one item on each line. A list rarely exceed one line per item. Here is an example of a list;

    1 eggs
    2 milk
    3 hamburger
    4 butter.... etc.

    (2) No you have many times shown you want to ignore, not discuss, well documented facts you don´t like so you can continue to preach your obsolete doctrines, now well established to be wrong.

    For example, instead of admitting big trucks switching to natural gas and cars driving less and more tele-commuting to work and some cars switching to non-oil energy sources, and US car fleet MPG improving ~2.5% annually as the old cars are traded in or scrapped for modern higher efficiency cars, that this is currently decreasing demand for oil, you complain that production of oil is not increasing as you think it "should" or speak only of conditions that were true a decade ago.

    Oil production can only match demand - what will be bought at current prices. That is all that can be produce as there is no way to store what will not be bought. If it were produced anyway that would just drive the prices quickly down and lower oil company profit margins, which are already set to the optimum ROE they can make. I.e. their costs are almost directly proportional to their production volume and if sold at lower prices their costs don´t decrease, If anything they will rise, dropping their ROE and stock´s share prices. In any given market there is an optimum production volume to make ROE max. Oil companies know this, even if you don´t.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page