The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Futilitist]

Hi Write4U.


From the worldometers.info site:

Countdown to the end of Oil:

38 Years, 2 Months, 28 Days, 20 Hours, 57 Minutes, 56 Seconds

Assumption:

• If consumed at current rates

Unfortunately, as scary as this may sound, it turns out to be a wildly optimistic estimate based on unsound, obsolete forecasting techniques as well as the obviously unsound assumption above.

The Etp model is based on the laws of thermodynamics as applied to the lifecycle of the oil production process. It measures the rising entropy production in the oil production process over time. It accurately forecasts that the price of oil can no longer (since 2012) rise to a level sufficient to pay for the full cost of oil production going forward. The price of oil will continue dropping. The Etp model forecasts that we really don't have 38 years left until the end of oil. We really only have about 5 years left (2021)! Since oil is our primary energy source, accounting for around 38% of total energy and around 90% of transportation fuels, this effectively means we have reached the end of world economic growth. And the end of world economic growth signals the onset of collapse.

---Futilitist

 

[Write4U]

Except that, as with some other predictions that rely on extrapolating a +ve exponential (e.g. population growth), future consumption of oil - which is what this thread is supposed to be about - will not follow a +ve exponential pattern.

It will flatten and eventually level off and then decline, driven by supply/demand relationships and their effect on price, as other energy sources progressively displace it, for the applications where oil has no special added value. In fact, what seems most likely is that oil will in due course ( say a couple of centuries from now) find its use approximating a negative exponential of some kind, tending towards but never quite approaching zero, as it is displaced out of more and more of its higher value applications. Most of these will not be energy applications at all, I suspect.

Well, at current consumption (0% growth) we have about 38 years left to "end of oil" (for all practical purposes) and replace that with renewable resources. IMO, we are running well behind the curve, in view of the enormity of changes that need to be made.

I agree in principle with Futilist as to future global replacement energy problems. I can't comment on his maths, but they sound much worse than my conservative estimate, and certainly does not offer a more optimistic forecast.

The day before Wall Street collapsed economic reports were rosy and promising. We all know what happened next.

 

[Futilitist]

It will flatten and eventually level off and then decline, driven by supply/demand relationships and their effect on price

So, then, the price of oil will eventually reach a thermodynamic limit. That is obvious. Thank you for finally admitting this.

Since you have finally accepted that there must eventually be a thermodynamic oil price limit, what makes you think that we haven't already passed that limit like the Etp model shows actually happened in 2012?

Did you happen to get a chance to read through the math proof I took the trouble to write?



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

Well, at current consumption (0% growth) we have about 38 years left to "end of oil" (for all practical purposes) and replace that with renewable resources. IMO, we are running well behind the curve, in view of the enormity of changes that need to be made.

I agree in principle with Futilist as to future global replacement energy problems. I can't comment on his maths, but they sound much worse than my conservative estimate, and certainly does not offer a more optimistic forecast.

The day before Wall Street collapsed economic reports were rosy and promising. We all know what happened next.

Well, actually I don't think the collapse of Wall St did much damage. A lot of countries had a recession for a while, but that is the nature of things anyway. It certainly did not remotely shake the foundations of civilisation, nor did it change most people's way of life significantly. As to the size of the changes required, I agree they are large, but many countries in Europe - which has had higher energy costs than N America for a long time - are making significant strides towards reducing dependence on oil. The cost of renewables has come down sharply and there is no reason to think any kind of limit has been reached. Nuclear remains underexploited, due to the luxury we have now of choosing to treat it as too dangerous, but that calculus could easily shift if we get sufficiently short of energy. An enormous amount can be done to improve energy efficiency as well.

I do not doubt that implementing the necessary changes will be a brake on economic growth in years to come, but I see no reason whatever to think that we face any sort of cliff edge effect. I think the market - and the politics - will continue to drive change progressively, just as it has already done to a significant extent in N. Europe.

 

[exchemist]

So, then, the price of oil will eventually reach a thermodynamic limit. That is obvious. Thank you for finally admitting this.

Since you have finally accepted that there must eventually be a thermodynamic oil price limit, what makes you think that we haven't already passed that limit like the Etp model shows actually happened in 2012?

Did you happen to get a chance to read through the math proof I took the trouble to write?



---Futilitist

No because it is obvious you do not understand either maths or thermodynamics. You just cut and paste rubbish from this Hills bloke.

 

[Futilitist]

No because it is obvious you do not understand either maths or thermodynamics. You just cut and paste rubbish from this Hills bloke.

This isn't a math contest.

You can't just proclaim that something is rubbish. You have to say why. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe anything you say.

Say something smart about the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes so people can judge your general depth of understanding on the subject.

Let's take things one step at a time:

Values for $$E_{TP}$$ are derived from the solution of the Second Law statement, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:

$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt} =\sum_j\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}} +\sum_i\dot{m}_{i}s_{i} -\sum_e\dot{m}_{e}s_{e} +\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$

"Where $$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}$$ represents the time rate of change of entropy within the control volume. The terms $$\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}$$ and $$\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}$$ account, respectively, for rates of entropy transfer into and out of the control volume accompanying mass flow. The term $$\dot{Q}_{j}$$ represents the time rate of heat transfer at the location on the boundary where the instantaneous temperature is $$T_{j}$$. The ratio $$\frac{\dot{Q}_j}{T_j}$$ accounts for the accompanying rate of entropy transfer. The term $$\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$ denotes the time rate of entropy production due to irreversibilities within the control volume."
~(Taken from Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran and Shapiro)

Do you have a problem with any of this? If so, then you are obviously just faking. It comes from a textbook on engineering thermodynamics.

So, moving on:

Because there is only one temperature boundary (at the exit point of the reservoir) and no crude oil enters the reservoir from the environment, the equation reduces to:

$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}=\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}-\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$

giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$

If the derivation seems good to you so far, please let me know so we can move on to the next math step. If not, please list your specific objections to the material presented so far. Otherwise, buzz off.



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

This isn't a math contest.

You can't just proclaim that something is rubbish. You have to say why. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe anything you say.

Say something smart about the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes so people can judge your general depth of understanding on the subject.

Let's take things one step at a time:

Values for $$E_{TP}$$ are derived from the solution of the Second Law statement, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:

$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt} =\sum_j\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}} +\sum_i\dot{m}_{i}s_{i} -\sum_e\dot{m}_{e}s_{e} +\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$

"Where $$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}$$ represents the time rate of change of entropy within the control volume. The terms $$\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}$$ and $$\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}$$ account, respectively, for rates of entropy transfer into and out of the control volume accompanying mass flow. The term $$\dot{Q}_{j}$$ represents the time rate of heat transfer at the location on the boundary where the instantaneous temperature is $$T_{j}$$. The ratio $$\frac{\dot{Q}_j}{T_j}$$ accounts for the accompanying rate of entropy transfer. The term $$\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$ denotes the time rate of entropy production due to irreversibilities within the control volume."
~(Taken from Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran and Shapiro)

Do you have a problem with any of this? If so, then you are obviously just faking. It comes from a textbook on engineering thermodynamics.

So, moving on:

Because there is only one temperature boundary (at the exit point of the reservoir) and no crude oil enters the reservoir from the environment, the equation reduces to:

$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}=\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}-\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$

giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$

If the derivation seems good to you so far, please let me know so we can move on to the next math step. If not, please list your specific objections to the material presented so far. Otherwise, buzz off.



---Futilitist

This concept relates to analysing entropy in a single, discrete chemical engineering process. Trying to apply it to a constantly changing global aggregate of oil wells, old and new, across the world, is barking mad. You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[krash661]

No, because it isn't really relevant anymore. That was a long time ago[...] Then you went away for quite a while. And now you are back to bring this irrelevant shit up again.

is this not hypocritical?

 

[krash661]

Hi Write4U.


From the worldometers.info site:

Countdown to the end of Oil:

38 Years, 2 Months, 28 Days, 20 Hours, 57 Minutes, 56 Seconds

Assumption:

• If consumed at current rates

what if there is more reserves found during this?
would that not make this ridiculous line incorrect and then you'll have to recalculate it again, then claim another end of the world scenario, which would create another 38 or so years ?
so in others words your fear mongering is only kicking cans down the road because it's incorrect and always will be?

 

[krash661]

The day before Wall Street collapsed economic reports were rosy and promising.

except this is not true. there was econ reports claiming the opposite, including other money guys. shakes head. they were called idiots.
but guess what, when they made billions from shorting, all of the sudden, they're not idiots anymore.
not only that but the markets are usually ahead of econ by six months or more. which is why the word precursor is used.

 

[exchemist]

what if there is more reserves found during this?
would that not make this ridiculous line incorrect and then you'll have to recalculate it again, then claim another end of the world scenario, which would create another 38 or so years ?
so in others words your fear mongering is only kicking cans down the road because it's incorrect and always will be?

Quite. Shale oil has already blown many of the previous calculations to smithereens.

We may well find that the limit to oil consumption is ultimately set by the need to control climate change, rather than the feasibility of extracting it all. It certainly seems likely that we will choose to leave a great deal of the world's coal in the ground rather than burning it, for exactly this reason.

P.S. F'list disappeared from the forum 6 minutes after my last response to him. My guess is he has had to go running to Hill to get a comeback to what I said, as he doesn't have a clue how to respond himself. But we'll see, I suppose.

 

[Russ_Watters]

In any case, you picked a great time to come back, since Russ_Watters apparently ran away because he obviously can't even understand the math he repeatedly demanded to see! Oops.

Believe it or not, I have other things going on in my life, so you'll have to excuse me for taking a week to respond to something I've been waiting a year for (assuming it is, though at first glance it appears incomplete). I'd be careful about dislocating a shoulder patting yourself on the back for that.

 

[billvon]

38 Years, 2 Months, 28 Days, 20 Hours, 57 Minutes, 56 Seconds

It seems like only yesterday that you were predicting the end of the world in 2014. Now it's in 2053. I guess it's the New Math.

 

[Futilitist]

38 Years, 2 Months, 28 Days, 20 Hours, 57 Minutes, 56 Seconds

It seems like only yesterday that you were predicting the end of the world in 2014. Now it's in 2053. I guess it's the New Math.

I did not say that. I was quoting someone else. You clearly know that. So, you are just trying to create confusion rather than have a serious discussion. Intentionally misquoting me is trolling.

Please explain why you keep doing this kind of crap. Wouldn't it be better to have a real discussion? Are you just desperate?

This concept relates to analysing entropy in a single, discrete chemical engineering process. Trying to apply it to a constantly changing global aggregate of oil wells, old and new, across the world, is barking mad. You have no clue what you are talking about.

I just finished explaining to you that you can't just say something is rubbish without explaining why. Now you say something is barking mad and you still can't say why. What the hell is the matter with you?

Here, again, is an explanation of the nested control volumes used in the Etp model:

"Crude oil is used primarily as an energy source; its other uses have only minor commercial value. To be an energy source it must therefore be capable of delivering sufficient energy to support its own production process (extraction, processing and distribution); otherwise it would become an energy sink, as opposed to a source. The Total Production Energy ($$E_{TP}$$) must therefore be equal to, or less than EG, its specific exergy. To determine values for $$E_{TP}$$ the total crude oil production system is analyzed by defining it as three nested Control Volumes within the environment. The three Control Volumes (where a control volume differs from a closed system because it allows energy and mass to pass through it's boundaries) are the reservoir, the well head, and the Petroleum Production System (PPS). The PPS is where the energy that comes from the well head is converted into the work required to extract the oil. The PPS is an area which is distributed within, and throughout the environment. It is where the goods and services needed for the production process originate. This boundary make-up allows other energy, and mass transfers to be considered as exchanges, such as natural gas used in refining, electricity used in well pumping, or water used for reservoir injection."
~BW Hill

exchemist, read the paragraph above. It directly addresses your objection quite clearly. There is nothing "barking mad" about the use of nested control volumes. Please explain exactly what is wrong with the Etp methodology. Be specific. If you can't do that, you are not making a valid argument.

what if there is more reserves found during this?

It wouldn't matter. The tight oil reserves that are being fracked were not recently discovered. The high oil price made some old discoveries profitable using expensive fracking. Now the price of oil is too low, and tight oil is not profitable anymore.

Reserves are meaningless. That is just oil in the ground. It takes energy to run an oil production system. Any oil that will be produced relies on the energy of the oil has already been produced.

Believe it or not, I have other things going on in my life, so you'll have to excuse me for taking a week to respond to something I've been waiting a year for (assuming it is, though at first glance it appears incomplete).

It is incomplete, Russ. It is just a partial summary, like I said. The book has about 60 pages of detailed formulas and charts and graphs! There is no way to present all of that here and you know that. I went out of my way to take the time to write that summary just for you. If there is still not enough information for you, then either buy the book, or ask BW Hill directly, or shut up.



---Futilitist

 

[billvon]

I did not say that. I was quoting someone else.

So you'd prefer to go with the 2021 "end of oil" date? Or what that someone else as well?
Let's review your previous predictions:

"I can now predict the date of the onset of collapse with near absolute certainty: June of 2014. In other words, I am no longer attempting to predict the future. I am now stating that the collapse of industrial civilization has already begun! And I can prove it."

"The real apocalypse will be a complete and total social collapse, the collapse of industrial civilization, along with a rapid 90% mass die off of the species."

"When we come off of the bumpy plateau of world oil production between now and 2015, we will experience a rapid and severe die off (90+%)."

"There is no solution. Science will not save us. The laws of physics trump political will. Run for the hills."

"After 2015, we will cross over into permanent depletion. That means about a 4-8 percent shortfall every year from then on. That is up to 2X as bad as the first oil shock in the 1970's, over and over again, every year. Hypothetically, gasoline will be 12-24 a gallon the first year, and 24-48 a gallon the next, except that the economy will completely collapse before that can happen." (Posted Jan 2013)

Please explain why you keep doing this kind of crap.

Simple. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Wouldn't it be better to have a real discussion?

Sure! That discussion can start by you acknowledging that your previous predictions were in error. Until you can exhibit that basic level of intellectual honesty, real discussion is impossible.

 

[Write4U]

what if there is more reserves found during this?
would that not make this ridiculous line incorrect and then you'll have to recalculate it again, then claim another end of the world scenario, which would create another 38 or so years ?
so in others words your fear mongering is only kicking cans down the road because it's incorrect and always will be?

Are you not overlooking the exponential function? New finds will add perhaps a few years, but will be insignificant in the greater scope of our dependency on non-renewable natural resources.

Even at 1% growth it would take only 70 years to consume more than all of the oil in previous history

We know that is impossible, so we are definitely on the downslope of the curve and the end of oil will come during our children's lifetimes. As Bartlett said "it is 1 minute before twelve o'clock" (when we run out).

 

[Write4U]

except this is not true. there was econ reports claiming the opposite, including other money guys. shakes head. they were called idiots.
but guess what, when they made billions from shorting, all of the sudden, they're not idiots anymore.
not only that but the markets are usually ahead of econ by six months or more. which is why the word precursor is used.

There you have it. They were called idiots, until they were proven right, in spite of the "optimistic forecasts".

I see a similar pattern with oil, for exactly the same reasons. Questions like, "what if the alarmists are wrong", "we can find new oil", "reduction in oil consumption will happen", are all wishful thinking. The end of oil will come sooner than later on the human clock.
Even if (as Exchemist says) negative "growth" will happen, consumption and depletion will continue relentlessly, until we find an eco-friendly renewable replacement source.

 

[Futilitist]

We know that is impossible, so we are definitely on the downslope of the curve and the end of oil will come during our children's lifetimes.

Your worries are *WAY* out of date. We are *WAY* further down the downslope of the curve than you think we are. The Etp model definitively shows that the end of oil will come during our lifetimes. In about 5 years. 2021. Not some far off future.

If you are really concerned about the future, you should read up on the Etp model. Then you could take the 'concerned about the future' position in these arguments armed with the best current evidence, instead of the same old stuff we have been hearing for the last 10 years (no offense to Al Bartlett).



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

I did not say that. I was quoting someone else. You clearly know that. So, you are just trying to create confusion rather than have a serious discussion. Intentionally misquoting me is trolling.

Please explain why you keep doing this kind of crap. Wouldn't it be better to have a real discussion? Are you just desperate?


I just finished explaining to you that you can't just say something is rubbish without explaining why. Now you say something is barking mad and you still can't say why. What the hell is the matter with you?

Here, again, is an explanation of the nested control volumes used in the Etp model:

"Crude oil is used primarily as an energy source; its other uses have only minor commercial value. To be an energy source it must therefore be capable of delivering sufficient energy to support its own production process (extraction, processing and distribution); otherwise it would become an energy sink, as opposed to a source. The Total Production Energy ($$E_{TP}$$) must therefore be equal to, or less than EG, its specific exergy. To determine values for $$E_{TP}$$ the total crude oil production system is analyzed by defining it as three nested Control Volumes within the environment. The three Control Volumes (where a control volume differs from a closed system because it allows energy and mass to pass through it's boundaries) are the reservoir, the well head, and the Petroleum Production System (PPS). The PPS is where the energy that comes from the well head is converted into the work required to extract the oil. The PPS is an area which is distributed within, and throughout the environment. It is where the goods and services needed for the production process originate. This boundary make-up allows other energy, and mass transfers to be considered as exchanges, such as natural gas used in refining, electricity used in well pumping, or water used for reservoir injection."
~BW Hill

exchemist, read the paragraph above. It directly addresses your objection quite clearly. There is nothing "barking mad" about the use of nested control volumes. Please explain exactly what is wrong with the Etp methodology. Be specific. If you can't do that, you are not making a valid argument.


It wouldn't matter. The tight oil reserves that are being fracked were not recently discovered. The high oil price made some old discoveries profitable using expensive fracking. Now the price of oil is too low, and tight oil is not profitable anymore.

Reserves are meaningless. That is just oil in the ground. It takes energy to run an oil production system. Any oil that will be produced relies on the energy of the oil has already been produced.


It is incomplete, Russ. It is just a partial summary, like I said. The book has about 60 pages of detailed formulas and charts and graphs! There is no way to present all of that here and you know that. I went out of my way to take the time to write that summary just for you. If there is still not enough information for you, then either buy the book, or ask BW Hill directly, or shut up.



---Futilitist

Yes, it's barking alright. You cannot apply an entropy calculation to a system that is not finite. And, so long as new wells, new sources of oil such as shale, and new non-oil sources of energy can be become available to the world at a rate that your model cannot predict, you have a non-finite system.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times (to no avail), oil has added value beyond that of its basic calorific value. So its price is not determined purely by its calorific value.

The whole idea is daft. You appear to have been bamboozled by a load of impressive looking maths, but it's crap from start to finish.

Anyway, now that the sky has not fallen in after the recent Chinese stock market wobble, I expect you will go back to sleep - until the next jitters awaken you once more, with further silly predictions of impending "thermodynamic" doom. I'd stick to the "Peak Oil" websites if I were you. There you can happily preach to the converted, as the creationists and the free energy nutters do, in their obsessive little online communities. Here, you stand zero chance of convincing anybody with this nonsense.

 

[brucep]

There you have it. They were called idiots, until they were proven right, in spite of the "optimistic forecasts".

I see a similar pattern with oil, for exactly the same reasons. Questions like, "what if the alarmists are wrong", "we can find new oil", "reduction in oil consumption will happen", are all wishful thinking. The end of oil will come sooner than later on the human clock.
Even if (as Exchemist says) negative "growth" will happen, consumption and depletion will continue relentlessly, until we find an eco-friendly renewable replacement source.

Which is the the real reason why hydrocarbon based fuels will, hopefully, find declining usage. For environmental reason not because we're running out or because it becomes to expensive to extract from its home under the ground. Side goodie. We all get to flip off the Koch brothers.