Economy without fossil fuels

[Syzygys]

Oh boy...:bugeye:

Thats incorrect. The ratio for tarsands and oil shale is more like 1:4 or 1:5.

Whatever. I didn't remember the exact ratio. Keep in mind that in the beginning the ratio is always better and as we keep producing it goes down.

But let's translate this so average reader can understand this:

A 1 to 1.5 ratio means that you have to sacrifice/use up 2 barrels to make 3 barrels of oil. In other words, whatever the resort holds you can multiply it by .6 and that's how much you can actually get out, because the rest goes for production...

The fact that you would exaggerate

I am also a big Meanie....

Don't trust me, check out it for yourself. Or you will see it in 2 decades...

 

[Syzygys]

I also have a problem with the argument that products such as plastics and fertilizers and others are made with oil. Therefor when oil is gone, so are plastics....

Please quote me if I ever said that.

There you go again

I am not going anywhere... The point was that oil is used for more than just one thing. A guy called Rockefeller (maybe you heard about him) said: Oil is to valuable to burn it in engines.:

These products most defiantly can be made with synthetics.

Of course a price comparison at this point would have been nice...

I find it very irritating...

...when people missrepresentating other's posts.

 

[Billy T]

This is quoted in post 39, but I can not find the original.

“Originally Posted by Dale Allen Pfieffer
approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.”

I first read this about 30 years ago, but in a different form, which was:

"An Idaho potato, eaten in NYC, is more than 90% oil."*

The article then went on to explain about oil used for pesticides, fertilizer, tractors, etc and the transport etc. It is amazing how much the crop yields have increase in the oil age. Also scary is the fact that, on average for an American, the food you eat has traveled more that 500 miles to arrive at your table.
-------------------------------
*Perhaps it said "more than 95% oil" - my memory is not clear on this.

 

[Syzygys]

For extra credit on tar sand:

" for every barrel of synthetic oil produced in Alberta, more than 80 kg of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere and between 2 and 4 barrels of waste water are dumped into tailing ponds that have flooded about 50 km² of forest and bogs. The forecast growth in synthetic oil production in Alberta also threatens Canada's international commitments. In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce, by 2012, its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% with respect to [1990]. In 2002, Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 24% since 1990."

 

[Syzygys]

Also scary is the fact that, on average for an American, the food you eat has traveled more that 500 miles to arrive at your table.

I think it is WAY more, like 1600 miles, but I have to check first because somebody (DubStyle) will accuse me that I am cheating with the numbers...

Edit: It is 1494 miles for produce. Gee, I was off by less than 10%, so somebody sue me!!

http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/files/food_travel072103.pdf

On page 6 there is a list of the different produces with their different foodmiles....

 

[okayillgonow]

We'll just invent something that converts energy into hydrogen, since hydrogen atom's the simplest out of any atom. We always invent something better than old crap.

 

[Billy T]

We'll just invent something that converts energy into hydrogen, ...

What would be the point?
The complete combustion of the hydrogen would get back only a very tiny (>0.0001% I am sure, but just guessing) fraction of the energy required to make the hydrogen.

Starting with energy E, sufficient to make 4 hydrogen atoms, and then in some yet to discovered fusion reactor, conveting them to a helium atom, might if you had perfect efficiency in all steps, recover less than 1% of the original E. - Sounds like a very dumb idea to me.

 

[okayillgonow]

What would be the point?

UHHHH.... I don't know. Maybe it's because HYDROGEN BURNS CLEANER. It's also lighter.

 

[Billy T]

We'll just invent something that converts energy into hydrogen, ...

Perhaps you really ment "uses energy to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen in water" (instead of make hydrogen from energy)? It that case then if solar or nuclear energy is used to run an electrolysis then there is a pollution reduction point, but I responded, in prior post, to what you actually said ("make hydrogen from energy").

 

[okayillgonow]

Perhaps you really ment "uses energy to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen in water" (instead of make hydrogen from energy)? It that case then if solar or nuclear energy is used to run an electrolysis then there is a pollution reduction point, but I responded, in prior post, to what you actually said ("make hydrogen from energy").

1. Electrolysis is too expensive, too complicated, & too little to replace gasoline.

2. Einstein developed E=mc^2. As a result, this theory shows that energy can be converted to mass & vice versa.

 

[DubStyle]

Syzygys,

I was really only responding to you directly with about the whole 1:1.5 ratio you posted. To act like its not a big deal is wrong. The difference between 1:1.5 to 1:5 is huge. You understated it by such a huge amount that you made it look to be completely worthless as an alternative energy source. Thats completely bogus.

The whole thing about substitutes and plastic was more a rebuttal to the community at large that likes to bring up the point that everything is made from oil derivatives and cannot be replaced.

And to those who claim that our trucks wont have gas to move our food and other logistics.....pffft. Do you really believe that gasoline and oil are going to disappear over the span of several days???? Thats absurd. If and when their is a serious serious supply shock, it will be a gradual thing. Prices might skyrocket from supply side inflation but the food will be there.

 

[phonetic]

And to those who claim that our trucks wont have gas to move our food and other logistics.....pffft. Do you really believe that gasoline and oil are going to disappear over the span of several days???? Thats absurd. If and when their is a serious serious supply shock, it will be a gradual thing. Prices might skyrocket from supply side inflation but the food will be there.

Prices will skyrocket, yeah. People won't be able to afford so much food. It won't be economically viable to bring things from so far away, including many ingredients. People will be laid off because less needs to be made. Less people will be able to afford food. Soon, nothing that isn't made locally with local ingredients will be available. It's a downward spiral and one that nobody will be able to stop.

You'll be growing vegetables in your garden, growing some corn to make flour for bread and if you're lucky enough, you might be able to barter for a goat or cow to get some milk and butter.

 

[Syzygys]

Syzygys,

I was really only responding to you directly with about the whole 1:1.5 ratio you posted. To act like its not a big deal is wrong.

Well, I actually went into the trouble and tried to find a reliable quote, and I didn't find ANY quote. So you are welcome to provide a link to any quote.

The main reason I didn't find such a quote, because it is very relative.
There are basicly 3 places (Canada, Utah and Venezuela) where the tarsand can be find in huge quantities, but all those 3 are different from each other in its technology and economics. Bottomline is, it is very hard if not impossible to calculate that ratio. But again, if you can provide the link, go ahead, I will take a look.

You understated it by such a huge amount

I understated it (and we still haven't established this as a fact) because I don't remember exact numbers for all facts. It was not intentional.

that you made it look to be completely worthless as an alternative energy source.

I read on the Canadian tarsand and if not economically but enviromentally it could be a HUGE disaster. I can quote if you care. Right now they also have problems with logistics and hiring enough workers...

Right now it looks like tarsands are still not a very viable replacements for crude oil. We can start a separate thread on that, if you wish.

In the maintime, provide the link /source for your 1:1.5 ratio....

 

[Billy T]

1. Electrolysis is too expensive, too complicated, & too little to replace gasoline.

2. Einstein developed E=mc^2. As a result, this theory shows that energy can be converted to mass & vice versa.

OK, so you did mean to suggest that we MAKE hydrogen from energy, rather than recover the existing hydrogen in water via electrolysis. - It was so hard to believe anyone could be so ill informed about the relative costs of these two alternative source of hydrogen, that I assumed in post 49 that you were just not stating you plan correctly. I now understand that you are just extremely ignorant.

Your prefered source will be many millions of times more expensive. Do the numbers, fortunately the cost ratio does not depend upon what price you assume for a kWhour.

 

[okayillgonow]

OK, so you did mean to suggest that we MAKE hydrogen from energy, rather than recover the existing hydrogen in water via electrolysis. - It was so hard to believe anyone could be so ill informed about the relative costs of these two alternative source of hydrogen, that I assumed in post 49 that you were just not stating you plan correctly. I now understand that you are just extremely ignorant.

Your prefered source will be many millions of times more expensive. Do the numbers, fortunately the cost ratio does not depend upon what price you assume for a kWhour.

You make me laugh.

To form a hydrogen atom, it is required that the electron and proton have almost no energy, almost no velocity relative to each other.
A hydrogen atom ionizes at less than 20 electron-volts of energy (that's a very small amount of energy by the way), so reverse ionization requires energy less than about 20 electron-volts (eV) AND freedom and luck to radiate a photon of the right energy to render the electron "captured".

Such an easy process renders your quote useless (No offense if that was offensive).

 

[swivel]

You make me laugh.

To form a hydrogen atom, it is required that the electron and proton have almost no energy, almost no velocity relative to each other.
A hydrogen atom ionizes at less than 20 electron-volts of energy (that's a very small amount of energy by the way), so reverse ionization requires energy less than about 20 electron-volts (eV) AND freedom and luck to radiate a photon of the right energy to render the electron "captured".

Such an easy process renders your quote useless (No offense if that was offensive).

Yeah, but that process has nothing to do with E=mc^2, which is what Billy T was referring to. His "millions of times" quote was exactly correct. The ratio, if you will observe, is the speed of light squared. This is the process by which atoms gain mass in cyclometers as the energy used to accelerate them is converted to extra mass. It is not an equation that allows the easy access of energy from matter, or the other way around.

The process you are talking about is chemical, not nuclear.

 

[okayillgonow]

Yeah, but that process has nothing to do with E=mc^2, which is what Billy T was referring to. His "millions of times" quote was exactly correct. The ratio, if you will observe, is the speed of light squared. This is the process by which atoms gain mass in cyclometers as the energy used to accelerate them is converted to extra mass. It is not an equation that allows the easy access of energy from matter, or the other way around.

Opinions differ.

The process you are talking about is chemical, not nuclear.

Not Nuclear?

In a vacuum tube, what if we have an electron, moving at about 100 electronvolts (eV), moving east, & we decelerate it down to 10 eV. Same process with the proton, which is moving west. The 2 would collide with each-other if we didn't decelerate to 2 particles. If both the electron & proton are decelerated to 10 eV, They meet eachother. What will happen? A hydrogen atom will occur! A simple process.

 

[swivel]

Opinions differ.

Not Nuclear?

In a vacuum tube, what if we have an electron, moving at about 100 electronvolts (eV), moving east, & we decelerate it down to 10 eV. Same process with the proton, which is moving west. The 2 would collide with each-other if we didn't decelerate to 2 particles. If both the electron & proton are decelerated to 10 eV, They meet eachother. What will happen? A hydrogen atom will occur! A simple process.

I suggest you work the math out on this in full. See what a gram of Hydrogen will cost you. You are talking about making Hydrogen in a molecular stream, which is an extremely slow and expensive process.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with E=mc^2.

 

[okayillgonow]

I suggest you work the math out on this in full. See what a gram of Hydrogen will cost you. You are talking about making Hydrogen in a molecular stream, which is an extremely slow and expensive process.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with E=mc^2.

OK.

 

[Billy T]

You make me laugh.

To form a hydrogen atom, it is required that the electron and proton have almost no energy, almost no velocity relative to each other.
A hydrogen atom ionizes at less than 20 electron-volts of energy (that's a very small amount of energy by the way), so reverse ionization requires energy less than about 20 electron-volts (eV) AND freedom and luck to radiate a photon of the right energy to render the electron "captured"....

I could laugh also but do not laugh at simple ignorance - instead I try to teach.

The ionization potential of atomic hydrgen (in ground state) is 13.6eV and one fourth this from the first (n=2) excited state as the energy levels are given by En = 13.6/n^2.
You get energy (in the form of a photon) when ever a free electron "falls into" one of these levels, equal to the kinetic energy the free electron had plus the depth (given by 13.6/n^2) of the level. That is you have it just backwards. No energy is required to combine an electron with a proton to make atomic hydrogen.

BTW in the typical case, you will get a whole series of photons, (a cascade, one after the other), as the electron capture cross section for the high n levels is much larger than direct capture into the n= 1 ground state. Because these high level are less than 1eV bound, you will not see these IR photons. Likewise you will not see the photon that drops the electron into the ground state, even if it has fallen only from the n = 2 level as that is (3/4)13.6 = 10.2eV, a harsh UV photon.

What you totally fail to understand is much more simple than the above. If you are to make hydrogen you must make the electron (that takes 0.511MeV) and as the proton is about 2000 times heaver (a little less, but I forget exact number ?18xx?), the total enery requred to "make hydrogen" is approximately 1000Mev or approxiamtely 1,000,000,000eV.

When you chemically react hydrogen, say burn it in motor to make water, you will get less than 5eV per hydrogen atom.

Thus your recommended process will require about 200 millions times more input energy than you will recover. Whose laughing now! (Everyone should be.)

PS you may erroneously think that you can get electrons for "free" from the electric company, but they do not sell electrons, they only rent them to you - I.e. they take back every one they let you have. If you want to "boil them out" of hot filament, instead of genuinely make them, you will discover that the filament is becoming positive and it will take ever higher higher voltages to extract them. In short the is no source of free electrons and nothing even approximating one for protons. Aslo, while it is conceptually possible to "make electrons" you will make an equal number of positrons. How you will keep from producing harsh gamma rays when they recombine, I have no idea, but suggest you have at least several feet of lead between you and your "electron factory"