Oil Problems comin' round the mountain

[grmorton]

Today I read an email tout for wind power companies. Apparently wind power can now give oil a good battle in many areas now, partly because of technical advances.

Oil and electricity are not used for the same things, so how wind generated electricity will give oil, a transportation fuel a competition without widespread electrical cars and a plug at every parking space at work, I don't know.

[Augustine2004]

Oil and electricity are not used for the same things, so how wind generated electricity will give oil, a transportation fuel a competition without widespread electrical cars and a plug at every parking space at work, I don't know.

I should have said 'fossil fuels' instead. Coal, natural gas, gasoline, etc. Better yet, just 'other forms of energy.'

[grmorton]

I should have said 'fossil fuels' instead. Coal, natural gas, gasoline, etc. Better yet, just 'other forms of energy.'

Wind is good. Unless it kills of the African vultures in Spain--which it will do.

"Vulture clash," New Scientist, Sept 5, 2009, p. 7

"They recorded the number of Egyptian vultue carcasses with collision injuries found around 675 wind turbines in Spain between 2004 and 2008. They then plugged this information and data on wind turbine locations and vulture nesting sites across Spain into a computer model to predict what will happen to the entire population of Spanish birds over the next 100 years. The results sugggest that if the nubmer of wind turbines stays the same as it is today, the population will go extince 10 years sooner than if there were no wind farms."

© source where applicable

Ain't environmentalism wonderful??

[shadowmaster]

Oil and electricity are not used for the same things, so how wind generated electricity will give oil, a transportation fuel a competition without widespread electrical cars and a plug at every parking space at work, I don't know.

With some effort, electricity can be used produce hydrogen gas -- a potentiall useful fuel.

[nickcopernicus]

Glenn,

I'm so glad you started another thread on this because, I read some disturbing crap the other day from NY Times.
Michael Lynch makes some bold assertions that merit discussion.

Namely:

Peak Oil a Waste of Energy (NYT)

A careful examination of the facts shows that most arguments about peak oil are based on anecdotal information, vague references and ignorance of how the oil industry goes about finding fields and extracting petroleum.

© source where applicable

He breaks Peak oil arguments down into three sections
1) Rate of Discovery
2) Political instability
3) Half of all the world's total oil has been used.

He claims that the problem with the rate of discovery argument belies an igonrance of how newly found oil fields are calculated. Since you work with oil, I'm sure you'd havea response to that. Lynch goes on to state that technology continues to make it easier to extract oil from previously ineffecient finds. He finally claims

ibid

In the end, perhaps the most misleading claim of the peak-oil advocates is that the earth was endowed with only 2 trillion barrels of “recoverable” oil. Actually, the consensus among geologists is that there are some 10 trillion barrels out there. A century ago, only 10 percent of it was considered recoverable, but improvements in technology should allow us to recover some 35 percent — another 2.5 trillion barrels — in an economically viable way. And this doesn’t even include such potential sources as tar sands, which in time we may be able to efficiently tap.

© source where applicable

What say you?


Edit to add: I read some responses here. And it seems Lynch was full of so much hubris

Cheers,

Nick

[grmorton]

With some effort, electricity can be used produce hydrogen gas -- a potentiall useful fuel.

Yes, but you lose energy every time you convert from one form to another. I am not sure how much is lost in the converstion of electricity to hydrogen, but there is some.

And then, there is the wonderful ability of hydrogen to corrode things it touches and leak from all but the most expensive containers. Some studies I have seen worry about how much hydrogen will be lost in pipelines trying to distribute it. And the current natural gas pipelines won't be able to carry hydrogen--they are too leaky for hydrogen. They can hold the bigger molecule of methane but not the tiny hydrogen molecule.

[grmorton]

Glenn,

I'm so glad you started another thread on this because, I read some disturbing crap the other day from NY Times.
Michael Lynch makes some bold assertions that merit discussion.

Namely:

Peak Oil a Waste of Energy (NYT)

A careful examination of the facts shows that most arguments about peak oil are based on anecdotal information, vague references and ignorance of how the oil industry goes about finding fields and extracting petroleum.

© source where applicable

He breaks Peak oil arguments down into three sections
1) Rate of Discovery
2) Political instability
3) Half of all the world's total oil has been used.

He claims that the problem with the rate of discovery argument belies an igonrance of how newly found oil fields are calculated. Since you work with oil, I'm sure you'd havea response to that. Lynch goes on to state that technology continues to make it easier to extract oil from previously ineffecient finds. He finally claims

ibid

In the end, perhaps the most misleading claim of the peak-oil advocates is that the earth was endowed with only 2 trillion barrels of “recoverable” oil. Actually, the consensus among geologists is that there are some 10 trillion barrels out there. A century ago, only 10 percent of it was considered recoverable, but improvements in technology should allow us to recover some 35 percent — another 2.5 trillion barrels — in an economically viable way. And this doesn’t even include such potential sources as tar sands, which in time we may be able to efficiently tap.

© source where applicable

What say you?


Edit to add: I read some responses here. And it seems Lynch was full of so much hubris

Cheers,

Nick

Having debated Lynch on the internet and in private emails, his point often seems to boil down to the fact that no production curve exactly matches Hubbert's curve. He seems to think that he makes a big point that if the production curves only approximate Hubbert's curve then Hubbert is totally wrong. There are all sorts of reasons production doesn't follow precisely to the 6th decimal point the curve predicted by Hubbert--economics, politics, shut-ins etc.

Secondly, Lynch constantly conflates resources with reserves. At some point the energy required to get oil out of the ground will be 1/3 of a barrel to get a barrel. That sounds like you are making a profit but practically we lose about 2/3 of the barrel to the 2nd law of thermo when we use it, so when it takes 1/3 of a barrel to get a barrel, you are breakeven energetically. So, much of the oil Lynch depends upon will never come out of the ground.

[NeilUnreal]

I'm reminded of that old joke:

"We lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume."

For some reason, people are quick to believe this when it comes to energy.

-Neil

[Augustine2004]

Some electricity is used in the production & distribution of useful natural gas. It has been for years. I don't know how much electricity, though. Perhaps not much, though. How much electricity do oil refineries consume?

[grmorton]

Some electricity is used in the production & distribution of useful natural gas. It has been for years. I don't know how much electricity, though. Perhaps not much, though. How much electricity do oil refineries consume?

Electricity is used for pumps to pressure the gas up along the way. I don't fully understand why you want this, but in 2005 the US used 48,891,000,000 kWh in refineries. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...eum-refineries

Unfortunately I have serious computer problems at the moment and can't open excel so I can't tell you how many barrels that is equivalent to.

[Augustine2004]

Electricity is used for pumps to pressure the gas up along the way. I don't fully understand why you want this, but in 2005 the US used 48,891,000,000 kWh in refineries. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...eum-refineries

Unfortunately I have serious computer problems at the moment and can't open excel so I can't tell you how many barrels that is equivalent to.

Sorry to be so unclear. That was in response to Shadowmaster's post http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...3&postcount=94. I thought that the electricity consumption in refineries might give us some idea of how much electricity is used in the natural gas industry. I'm not sure why Shadowmaster would make that post, unless he overlooked the obvious point that electricity is much used in the energy biz for various things.

[shadowmaster]

Sorry to be so unclear. That was in response to Shadowmaster's post http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...3&postcount=94. I thought that the electricity consumption in refineries might give us some idea of how much electricity is used in the natural gas industry. I'm not sure why Shadowmaster would make that post, unless he overlooked the obvious point that electricity is much used in the energy biz for various things.

It was a reply to:

Originally posted by grmorton
Oil and electricity are not used for the same things, so how wind generated electricity will give oil, a transportation fuel a competition without widespread electrical cars and a plug at every parking space at work, I don't know.

With some effort, electricity can be used produce hydrogen gas -- a potentiall useful fuel.

In other words: electricity can be used to produce (hydrogen) fuel. It need not be a bunch of electrical outlets, although that may not be so ridiculous.

[grmorton]

It was a reply to:

Originally posted by grmorton
Oil and electricity are not used for the same things, so how wind generated electricity will give oil, a transportation fuel a competition without widespread electrical cars and a plug at every parking space at work, I don't know.

With some effort, electricity can be used produce hydrogen gas -- a potentiall useful fuel.

In other words: electricity can be used to produce (hydrogen) fuel. It need not be a bunch of electrical outlets, although that may not be so ridiculous.

Of course it can, but is that the most efficient way to use your energy? Efficiencies count in this game.

[shadowmaster]

Of course it can, but is that the most efficient way to use your energy? Efficiencies count in this game.

True but what is your solution to no fuel for vehicles ... bicycles?

[oxmixmudd]

Having debated Lynch on the internet and in private emails, his point often seems to boil down to the fact that no production curve exactly matches Hubbert's curve. He seems to think that he makes a big point that if the production curves only approximate Hubbert's curve then Hubbert is totally wrong. There are all sorts of reasons production doesn't follow precisely to the 6th decimal point the curve predicted by Hubbert--economics, politics, shut-ins etc.

Secondly, Lynch constantly conflates resources with reserves. At some point the energy required to get oil out of the ground will be 1/3 of a barrel to get a barrel. That sounds like you are making a profit but practically we lose about 2/3 of the barrel to the 2nd law of thermo when we use it, so when it takes 1/3 of a barrel to get a barrel, you are breakeven energetically. So, much of the oil Lynch depends upon will never come out of the ground.

Just for clarity: This does not quite add up. If I use 1/3 of a barrel to get a barrel, I still get 2/3 of a barrel more than I used. Now, are you saying it takes an additional 2/3 of a barrel per barrel to get something useful, like gasoline or diesel, or are you say that the once the barrel is processed, 2/3 of it's energy is lost when it is used due to basic inefficiencies in internal combustion engines etc.


Jim