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
    It would be a cost to the government IFF the company were to go bankrupt, but only then would a single dollar leave the US treasury. Even then that dollar would NOT go to the power company, but to the lender. What the loan guaranteed does is lower the power company´s borrowing costs and that lowers the electric bills the customers must pay.*

    SUMMARY: There is zero possibility, under even very improbable circumstances, that the US will or is giving dollars (subsidizing) the power company.
    Your claim with no evidence, is simply FALSE. It is OK to support Futilitist, but don´t adopt his policies - make unsupported false claims.

    * I don´t remember the break down of the bill for nuclear generated power, but am sure it is at least 90% is for the repayment of the borrowed capital. Probably ~5% for salaries and 3% return to the stock holders as dividends and 2% the cost of the uranium fuel - just a quick guess. So anything that helps reduce the cost of the capital is a huge benefit to the customers.

    In a few years, when highly enriched U235 from old bombs, is no longer available to simply blend in with the lower enriched uranium, then the fuel cost fraction will rise as enrichment ("separation units") is expensive. The number of separation units to enrich from 19 to 20% is much greater than the number of separation units required to enrich from 1 to 2%. Thus, even with disarmament of nuclear weapons U235 availble, the natural uranium is stll enriched and then the old bomb matterial "tops off" to the required enrichment level.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    I have never made any false claims on this thread and you know it. It is not acceptable for you to use your moderator status to treat me so unfairly. Stop trying to smear me just because you are losing the debate. I have flagged your comment above for moderation.

    You are also being unfair to spidergoat.

    You are the one who is making the false claim. You claim that any opinion you have is the revealed truth, and anyone that disagrees is a making a false claim.

    Your constant need to resort to personal attack just shows how weak your arguments really are. I think the readers are sophisticated enough to see through your bullsh!t. Stop embarrassing yourself and this forum.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 4, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    23,198
    You have made many false claims. The easiest for anyone willing to check is this one, now made bold:
    The fact is that just the day before, in post 571, you again said "peak oil" in 2005, with no qualifying use of the word "conventional" as you FASLELY claim in post 585, just quoted.

    In fact NEVER, (NOT "always") in all your prior post about peak oil occuring in 2005 did you use the world "conventional." - You continuing to claim you did is simple straight out lyng as any one can check!

    Also the very claim that peak oil occured in 2005 is false; however, not absolutely proven yet by the growing production of oil in US and elsewhere.

    This post 942 claim "I have never made any false claims on this thread and you know it." Not only do I not "know it" I have MANY times pointed out that you are lying here and in other claims - making that three false claims. (BTW, three strikes and you are out.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    At that point in the thread, we were speaking in an entirely different context. You simply lack the familiarity with the topic to understand why, so you knee jerkingly jump to accusing me of lying.

    And we have covered all of this in laborious detail already in this thread, and you bring it up yet again. No one wants to read this bullsh!t. You are doing anything you can to destroy this thread. You are acting in an extremely unethical manner.

    It is not a false claim with respect to conventional crude oil. It is widely made. It originates from highly respected geologist Kenneth Deffeyes. The IEA essentially confirms this claim (2006). US growing production is mostly not conventional oil.

    My claim that I have never made any false claims is not a false claim. This is just stupid.

    What is that supposed to mean? Are you going to use your moderator power to unfairly censor this debate?

    It's hard not to notice that we are off topic once again.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 4, 2013
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes, and I will keep bringing up as new readers need to be warned that YOU LIE, and never even apologize from them but defend your lies.

    Perhaps, but your claim, often defended, was about "oil" not restricted to "conventional oil" until thread had reached post no. 585! Your defense of the claim was at least plausible more than half a decade ago as many believed peak oil had or soon would occur back then. - Kenneth Deffeyes´s data is now at least 8 years old and has been overtaken by several large new discoveries of conventional oil (only two of which total 13,900 MILLION barrels) plus the development and continuing advances of "fracking technology."

    Rather than always cite obsolete IEA publications, why not consider their most recent annual report (November 2012) which states:
    Answer to that "why question" is that your IEA source has repudiated / reversed its 2006 opinion, which your continue to quote about peak oil having happened in 2005 or 2006. I think you know this, so must put the continued quoting of obsolete statements down as just another of your many lies. Why I warn new readers.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2013
  9. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    You are the liar.

    No one cares. I clearly didn't lie.

    That is exactly what I said. Conventional crude oil production peaked in 2005 or 2006.

    The IEA has not "repudiated / reversed its 2006 opinion", as I clearly show above. Please provide a source for your claim. If you can't, then you are lying.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 4, 2013
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Prove that, by quote of me lying, giving post number, as I have proven you lied in post 585. If you can´t then that is just another self-serving defensive lie - so many I have lost count.

    Why no comment about my saying your continued quoting of IEA´s 2006 view about "peak oil" is also a lie when they have reversed their earlier statement?
    See my post 945 quote from their November 2012 WEO, their latest annual report, which they call the WEO (World Energy Outlook) series.
    No, only after post 585 did you start to say "conventional oil." In post 585, you falsely claimed you had said conventional oil "from the beginning" - but as anyone can check, most of your posts* claim oil, not conventional oil, peaked in 2005.

    * ALL of your "peak oil" posts before post 585 ONLY speak of oil, not conventional oil.

    You called me a liar - I waiting still for you to give the post number of where I lied, and tell what was the lie.

    IEA said: "The net increase in global oil production is driven entirely by unconventional oil."
    Then Futilitist said: "That is exactly what I said." (but only after post 585.)

    So what happened to your claims the world would have 90+% die due to lack of affordable oil? Are oil prices not dropping now and easily affordable as in real, inflation corrected terms, gasoline is as cheap as it was in 1918! You are now admitting that the oil supply at prices the IEA thinks people can AND WILL pay is INCREASING!

    Not only admitting, but claiming that is exactly what you said !!!!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2013
  11. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    That would, in this case, be post #945

    That is exactly what I said. You comedically made that statement bold in your post own post!!! It totally contradicts what you claim. :bugeye:

    Conventional crude oil production peaked in 2005 or 2006. That is a true statement. If you claim otherwise, you are lying.

    The IEA has not "repudiated / reversed its 2006 opinion", as I clearly show above. Please provide a source for your repeated claim. If you can't, then you are lying.

    And you are acting more like a troll than a moderator.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I don´t say "otherwise" -what I have said many time is that perhaps conventional oil did peak half a decade or so ago, but no one knows as large new (at least 13,900 MILLION BARRELS) have been found. Perhaps the peak of conventional oil is yet to happen.

    Conventional oil is ususally cheaper to produce. It is certainly possible, especially from the new deep ocean "bottomless" oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, that so much of conventional oil will flow from it that production of fracking oil will terminate, as more costly. The rapid switching of big trucks to natural gas and more mpg efficient cars, driven less may continue to reduce demand and let a modest number of wells taking this newly found convention oil to market, ALONE, meet the demand for oil. I have no crystal ball so don´t know how low the demand for oil will fall, how low the price will sink, how much or or how rapidly the new conventional oil will be produced.

    You seem certain you know what will happen (90+% of world population will die, etc.) but your crystal ball is broken, only your lying ego survives.

    Please be more specific. What is it I am claiming, or have claimed in posts prior to 945, that is self-contradiction? In post 945, I quoted the IEA´s WEO, Novemeber 2012 report telling of the expected NET INCREASE in oil producion and said it was essentially lying for you to keep quoting their report from 2006, which according to you (I have not read it.) supports your claim that oil production peaked in 2005 or 2006.
     
  13. Anew Life isn't a question. Banned

    Messages:
    461
    i wonder if oil somewhat comes from peeing in waters
     
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    You are probably joking, but here is a serious answer: No. although the Russians* and Thomas Gold´s view that oil wells up from the deep interior of the earth is not 100% dead, yet, and does have some isotopic support, most everyone believes it comes from organic material that sinks in salt water, gets covered with mud or other settlements so does not promptly decompose /oxidize. Then is subducted with the tectonic flows deep enought into the earth to be transformed into what we call petroleum. (oxygen not being available to break it down into oxides, like CO2, until man brings it back to the earth surface).

    T. Gold is now dead, but was at Cornell while I was and I heard him give his reasons in a couple of talks. (about the relative isotopes, etc data.) He put all his "eggs" in one basket. He predicted that nearly limitless oil would be found deep at a spot in Sweden where the shock waves from large meteor strike, "eons ago" had shattered the deep granite layers and that would let the deep oil flow up. They drilled and broke lots of drills going into that shattered granite, but found not even a trace of oil (except tiny bit that came off the drill pipe string.) Finally, after more than a year of drilling, his financial backers said "not a dollar more."

    * the USSR had several "scientific" dogma, based on their belief that nothing could keep USSR style communism for being the future of mankind. (Running out of oil was not politically consistent with that belief. Nor was the idea that humans could not be shaped to have no greed, etc. to become the "new soviet man." ("From each according to his ability - to each according to his needs") This "only environment matters belief" starved to death more than a million people, when applied to seeds - genetics was of no import - only good fertilizer, good cultivation etc. mattered.)
     
  15. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    It is a lie for you to say that I ever quoted from the IEA's 2006 report. The IEA only admitted the peak of conventional crude oil grudgingly in 2009 or 2010. There was a big controversy over it. You are completely unaware of that controversy because you are completely ignorant about peak oil generally.

    Here is a chart from the WEO 2010:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But here is the part of post #945 that is contradicted by your source:

    The report you quoted does not show that the IEA "repudiated / reversed its 2006 opinion" in any way. "Repudiated" and "reversed" are very strong words. The IEA has never made such a statement. Please provide another source for this obviously false claim. If you can't, then you are lying.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Messages:
    1,586
    For those who are interested, here is graph showing world oil production from 2000 until 2012:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is total crude and condensate. It includes both conventional and unconventional crude. The rise since 2009 has been almost completely composed of US produced tight oil. If it weren't for that extra production of much more expensive tight oil, we would have already started down the depletion slope. Because of tight oil, we are still on a bumpy plateau.

    We are very near to entering the depletion phase, where oil production declines relentlessly. I have seen forecasts that call for the onset of depletion between now and the end of 2015. The economy has only been able to manage very slow growth since the end of the recession. I do not believe the economy can survive depletion.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 5, 2013
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I have already told that I have never read the IEA saying that peak oil occured in 2005 (or anything else) - I only assumed your were being truthful when you claimed both Kenneth Deffeyes and the IEA supported your claim, recently that peak conventional oil occured in 2005 or 2006 and earlier that just the oil peak occured in 2005.

    I did read, and quoted from in post 945 part of the IEA´s Novemeber 2012 report where they say net oil INCREASE is expected thru 2020, at least, and logically (still assuming you were being truthful) knew this was a reversal from at least your claim the IEA supported your statement about peak being in 2005.
     
  18. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    You are so confused.

    The IEA supports the claim that the peak of conventional crude oil production occurred in 2006. They have not made any reversal. You claimed they made a reversal. That is either a mistake or a lie.

    According to your own source:
    That means that conventional crude oil production is in decline and any overall increase in production is due entirely to unconventional oil. Why can't you get that through your thick skull?

    You claimed that the IEA "repudiated / reversed its 2006 opinion". That is not true, yet you claimed it to be true. The article you referenced contradicts you and confirms that conventional crude oil production did peak in 2006, with any net increase in production due to unconventional oil. That is the opposite of what you said. You either made a mistake or you were lying. You decide.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    because it isn't necessarily true.
    the production of crude could remain steady and still result in the unconventional crude net increase.
    there are also the terms "net increase" and "gross increase" that i haven't seen defined.
    when dealing with paychecks gross is the actual amount you earned while net is the amount after something (taxes) has been taken away.
    is this the same?
    take away crude production and you still have an increase in unconventional crude.
    in this regard it isn't known whether conventional crude production is increasing or decreasing or remaining steady.
     
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I only with in the last month first read any IEA WEO report (in part) - the most recent one of November 2012 so I did not know if they had (or had not) supported your claim about peak oil (not about peak conventional oil, because you only began to use the qualify "conventional" later). My mistake was to believe you; take what you said about IEA supporting your claim about peak oil in circa 2005, as truth.

    You said peak oil happened in 2005 and that respected Kenneth Deffeyes agreed that it happened in 2005 AND that the IEA also agreed that happen in 2006. I now understand that you were not being careful when saying only "peak oil" and expecting people to understand you really meant "conventional oil” production peaked in 2005 or 2006. (In defense of your post 585 lie, you have argued that back then non-conventional oil was relatively little produced so “everyone knew” you were referring to “conventional oil” without the use of the word “conventional.” Even if that is correct, to say in post 585 that you ALWAYS used the word “conventional is a lie, as often you did not.)

    I agreed that at least until the present the conventional oil production that occurred back then has not been exceeded but take a wait and see attitude on the question as to whether or not it will be exceeded in the future. Conventional oil from the "bottomless" (more than 1000 foot thick* and very large in area oil bearing layer) recently found deposit in the deep Gulf of Mexico, may be cheaper to produce, and with many more wells tapping that resource, terminate the more costly to produce "fracking oil" which currently is the main new oil production. Also the production of "fracking oil" may get curtained because of the risk of contamination to ground water supplies, or even the shortage of water. Summary: It is by no means certain that peak conventional oil has occurred already.

    In the IEA´s November 2012 WEO report, they are completely clear, carefully distinguishing between conventional and non-conventional oil sources. They probably were in the earlier one you read and claimed supported your often made statement (without use of "conventional") that "oil production peaked in 2005 or 2006."

    Again "my mistake" was to believe you were accurately reporting what the IEA said ~six years ago. If they had said what you claimed they did ( that "Oil production peaked in 2006.") then what they do say in the latest WEO, is a reversal of that "Oil production peaked in 2006."

    I should have known better than to trust you to be accurately reporting what the IEA said ~six years ago.

    * Most commercial oil bearing layers are only 20 or less feet thick. So 1000+ feet thick** with more than 13,000 MILLION barrels of oil already proven is amazing and very promising to be a new source of "cheap oil" which may put the "oil frackers" out of business in a few years even if water contamination and supply problems do not. I.e. peak conventional oil will surely come someday, but that may be in the distant future as demand keeps falling with the switch of big trucks to natural gas and more mpg efficient cars are driven less.

    ** Bottom of the oil layer is where contact with water is made, but that has not yet been found. – They stopped drilling after going thru 1000 feet of oil bearing layer. It could be a 2000 foot thick oil layer, etc. – no one knows! Economically drawing oil from a 1000 foot thick layer is more than enough for very rapid production. If there is more oil below, at higher pressure, it will flow up and refill the 1000 foot layer as oil is taken from it. - No need to drill even deeper to find the bottom, so they did not.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2013
  21. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Let's clear up some confusion...

    Since there seems to be so much confusion on this thread, I thought I would take some time to clear a few things up.

    Here is a story confirming that the IEA has acknowledged that world conventional crude oil production peaked in 2006:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-28/age-of-cheap-fuel-is-over-iea/2695928

    Age of cheap fuel is over: IEA

    Notice that IEA chief economist Fatih Birol uses the same informal way of referring to the peak as I did. He leaves out the word conventional because he assumes it is understood in the context. Are you guys going to accuse him of lying, too?

    Here are some graphs to help people get a handle on how much of the recent oil production increase is due to unconventional oil vs conventional oil:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is also consistent with the IEA article Billy T referenced:

    Also notice that conventional crude oil production is actually declining in the graph above (73,764 kb/d in June 2005 and 73,564 kb/d in June 2012).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The green line in the graph above is crude and condensate. It is composed of both conventional and unconventional production. The black line is all liquids. Notice how the black line is rising faster than the green line. Also notice how all liquids production has flatlined since the beginning of 2012.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Messages:
    1,586
    So you admit you made a mistake, but you blame me for it. That is a very immature thing to do. The real reason for your mistake is your general unfamiliarity with the topic.

    For example:

    You seem pretty sure of yourself for having just read (partially) your first IEA WEO report! I've been reading them since 2006.

    And:

    In the above two quotes, you clearly refer to the IEA and the WEO as separate organizations. Of course they are not. Anyone who is familiar with the topic of peak oil would know that. The IEA publishes a report each year called the WEO! This shows very clearly that you are not very familiar with the topic of peak oil. I noticed your confusion when you first posted the last two quotes above, but I didn't want to embarrass you at the time, since you had just joined the conversation only a few posts before. But since you are using your confusion to accuse me of lying, I thought it would be OK at this time to highlight your ignorance.

    Blaming others for your own mistakes is very uncool.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Driving dropped with the recession and people learned to drive 8% less.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Note the real price is less AFTER "peak conventional oil" of 2005/06 !
    Gasoline price is now about the same price, corrected for inflation, as back in 1918! and back then alcohol was widely used pure as fuel. We could use ONLY it for cars.
    "Improved energy efficiency" = Use less Fossil fuel. The current declining demand for oil is accelerated down more rapidly as not only driving less in more efficient cars. - Fleet ~2.5% more efficient than each prior year and 124% more efficient than fleet of 1070s (30.2/13.5 = 2.24) but also big trucks will not be using any diesel in 5 years and significant part of world´s cars will run on sugarcane alcohol (~70% now do in Brazil) or natural gas or electric batteries*.
    The "oil age" is starting to end, and none too soon, from a global warming POV. Currently 93% of oil is used for vehicle fuel.
    In a decade oil consumption can be cut by 80% if governments get behind sustainable sugarcane alcohol (cheaper and slightly CO2 negative) and other alternatives.

    * Perhaps, even fast "swap out" of Al plates in the new Israeli design for the Al-air battery. The plates may be cheaper than gasoline per mile driven. If they get "recharged" with zero CO2 release by hydro-electric energy, even in Norway or Brazil as ocean transport is very cheap especially for items, like Aluminum, which are 3 times denser than oil with much higher value per pound.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page