The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Write4U]

Fluctuations in energy use is the domain of economics, not thermodynamics.

No argument there, but wasted energy is in the domain of thermodynamics, is it not?

The domain of thermodynamics is the transformation of energy and mechanical work, within a defined thermodynamic system - which we do not have, if we are considering the global economy.

Ok, that I can understand.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Are you suggesting a Thermodynamic device of some sort?

Huh?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Low speed engines, which are prevalent today, are highly efficient (50%+)and ideally adapted to residual fuel, have some trouble running reliably on gas. Medium speed engines and turbines can do fine on it however.

It is notable that while most commercial ships are diesels, most Navy ships are gas turbine powered.

 

[Futilitist]

It is notable that while most commercial ships are diesels, most Navy ships are gas turbine powered.

Interesting. Why is that notable? Does it solve the coming energy crisis?



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Fluctuations in energy use is the domain of economics, not thermodynamics.

Yeah sure. That makes good sense on a science forum. Economics trumps physics. Okay. And, like you said before, oil use does not contribute to GDP, right?

The ETP model's predicted rapid decline event is in opposition to the contemporary assumption that production will phase out slowly. The slow decline scenario is known as "sliding down Hubbert's curve". Implied in this belief is the assumption that all barrels of petroleum were made equal in quality, and will remain so in time. Of course this conflicts with the Second Law, and thus can not be an accurate representation of the situation. All barrels were not made with an API of 30-45°, nor is the energy needed to extract, process and distribution them the same over time. It has to increase.
~BWHill

That's just basic physics, exchemist. I think you really know that.



---Futilitist

 

[Write4U]

Well certainly N America has been notoriously slow to accept the implications of climate change and agree to do something about it, much slower than Europe. But long before climate change was an issue, European governments taxed transport fuel highly. For example, the price of motor fuel in the UK today is about 2.5 times that in the USA, and 80% of this price is made up of government taxes. It is much the same in continental Europe. Vehicles are smaller and more efficient and public transport is more widely used. And we manage fine - we just use a lot less transport fuel in our lifestyles than N. Americans do.

But I don't want to sound smug - living as I do in an incredibly wasteful Victorian house without good insulation and with leaky sash windows - I'm merely pointing out that the sky does not necessarily fall in if you have to reduce oil consumption.

I agree completely on an individual basis. But starting a new eco-friendly Industrial Revolution is not easy, when the existing supply of fossil fuels is still manageable. This was the warning of Bartlett, at what point do you know when you are running out and MUST begin to take pre-emptive action.?

For all the reasons from different viewpoints of everyone, I feel that due haste in development of renewable or permanent solar or hydro energy , or nuclear energy resources is paramount. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

We can look at it from all kinds of perspectives, but the facts remain the same. Large scale change is inevitable. Oil and coal and natural gas (except methane) are finite and will run out at some time in the relatively near future. Big changes ahead.

 

[Futilitist]

I agree completely on an individual basis. But starting a new eco-friendly Industrial Revolution is not easy, when the existing supply of fossil fuels is still manageable. This was the warning of Bartlett, at what point do you know when you are running out and MUST begin to take pre-emptive action.?

You know you are running out when it is already too late to do anything about it. Bartlett gave us all a timely warning and not enough people paid attention.

The sad truth is that we could not have made the transition anyway. Alternatives were never really viable. We were just lying to ourselves all along. We did the best we could, we kicked the can down the road, and here we are.

For all the reasons from different viewpoints of everyone, I feel that due haste in development of renewable or permanent solar or hydro energy , or nuclear energy resources is paramount. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

I do. I feel it is already *WAY* too late. People have been talking about this impending crisis since the 1970's. We told ourselves we needed to act soon or it would be too late. But we did not succeed in making the transition to alternatives and we finally ran out of time.

We can look at it from all kinds of perspectives, but the facts remain the same. Large scale change is inevitable. Oil and coal and natural gas (except methane) are finite and will run out at some time in the relatively near future.

Yes. And *WAY* sooner than most people think.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Interesting. Why is that notable?

Lol, with your substantial grasp of thermodynamics, I'm sure you can figure it out if you google it long enough!

 

[Futilitist]

It is notable that while most commercial ships are diesels, most Navy ships are gas turbine powered.

Interesting. Why is that notable? Does it solve the coming energy crisis?

Lol, with your substantial grasp of thermodynamics, I'm sure you can figure it out if you google it long enough!

I meant, what does the fact that while most commercial ships are diesels, most Navy ships are gas turbine powered, have to do with the topic of the thread?

Are you intentionally trying to disrupt this thread again?

Must you always be so disingenuous?



---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

ugh... If fossil fuels were so important, I'm sure the Keystone XL pipeline would have gotten a green light already and not be left dangling for 7 years. As it could bring 830 000 barrels of oil to the U.S. daily.

Countries are reducing carbon emissions and looking for greener energy sources.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/12/politics/keystone-pipeline-pessimism-obama-administration/index.html

The world isn't doomed.

--Beer w/Straw

 

[exchemist]

I agree completely on an individual basis. But starting a new eco-friendly Industrial Revolution is not easy, when the existing supply of fossil fuels is still manageable. This was the warning of Bartlett, at what point do you know when you are running out and MUST begin to take pre-emptive action.?

For all the reasons from different viewpoints of everyone, I feel that due haste in development of renewable or permanent solar or hydro energy , or nuclear energy resources is paramount. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

We can look at it from all kinds of perspectives, but the facts remain the same. Large scale change is inevitable. Oil and coal and natural gas (except methane) are finite and will run out at some time in the relatively near future. Big changes ahead.

Of course, nobody sensible would dispute that. The dispute is about the pace of these changes and about the (unwarranted) predictions of imminent catastrophe from F'tist. There need be no catastrophe, so long as energy switching progresses rapidly enough - and we have several decades in hand. Fortunately for us all (in a sense, though it is probably a more serious problem for the world) , the climate change imperative helps, as it provides a separate, powerful incentive to switch away from high carbon fuels sources, thus making the existing and future reserves last longer and smoothing the transition. Gas provides a useful midway staging post, lower in carbon but still usable in recognisably the same machinery infrastructure we have already. The problem is urgent, and we need to keep on it, through both the market and the politics, but I see no reason to subscribe to the predictions of doom from our hysterical friend here:

,

and least of all from this Etp "model", which is manifestly nonsense.

 

[Futilitist]

There need be no catastrophe, so long as energy switching starts early enough.

That is what they have been saying since 1972!

When exactly is early enough? When will it be too late? The narrative is getting very stale.

The problem is urgent...

But not too urgent, apparently. Why can't we just continue to ignore the warnings if, according to you, we are never going to have a real problem?

...but I see no reason to subscribe to the predictions of doom...

As long as you don't see a reason to be concerned, I guess that should be good enough for anyone. It's okay everyone, exchemist has reassured us there is no need for concern. Well, some concern, but not too much. Got it?

and least of all from this Etp "model", which is manifestly nonsense.

So says you, Mr. Conservative, Business As Usual Man. I guess we should just take your word on that, since you manifestly failed to actually refute the Etp model in any way.



---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If your model is good, get it published, no?


:EDIT:


My bad. But if the U.S. was one of the founding members of the IEA and the ETP model is correct (meaning the world is doomed) I think there would be a little more hubbub in the media.

http://www.iea.org/countries/membercountries/unitedstates/

 

[Russ_Watters]

If your model is good, get it published, no?

No, that's a non sequitur: the model is so good that it doesn't need to be published and rejection by a journal would only prove their involvement in the conspiracy. It's a delicious little self-reinforcing delusion.

 

[krash661]

You haven't posted anything pertaining to the Exponential function, because you refuse to learn this FUNDAMENTAL law of Mathematics.

why is an idiot putting words in my mouth ? also, understand how this function can be manipulated.
manipulating it is as easy as,
IN---> IN[subscript]f---> f(#) ---> OUT[subscript]f = IN[subscript]f-1 --->f^-1(#)--->OUT[subscript]f-1=IN[subscript]f--->out
here's more math that simply can plot the same function,
https://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=122920&view=findpost&p=791737
https://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=122920&view=findpost&p=791746
and yes, i thought it was this topic that i had made some comments about, it's actually the other oil topic.

Yes, shrugging is an expression of ignorance or disinterst.

actually incorrect. only too an idiot. shrugging indicates one does not care about another being obviously incorrect and that other continues to show their mentality. so i shrugs in response of say ok, think what you want even tho it's incorrect.
shrugs.

As you are replying to my post

i'm only replying to your nonsense only because someone responded to my words and i received an alert. now this pathetic individual is still attempting their shenanigans.
shrugs.

you cannot be disinterested. Thus in this case it is an expression of ignorance on the subject.

so learn something that is not a wiki link
shrugs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrug

cute, more wiki links shakes head.
i also love the part that's exactly the same line as your above wiki comment. this what i seen from that link that you conveniently sidestepped,
or not caring about a result
what a joke you are.

Have you learned about the exponential function yet? If not, you cannot claim to be well informed and your derogatory comments (grunts) about my posts, and Bartlett's knowledge, and the accuracy of the wiki definition (and functionality), and denial of exhaustion of finite resources, and denial of population growth, are an expression of ignorance, which reminds me of this little anecdote. In this example, each square represented a doubling time.
And you say this is idiotic, just like that King did, before he learned the power of the Exponential function.

So we have quite a list of denials, without any coherent counter arguments. Now who is the idiot?
Give me another shrug and confirm my assessment of your intellectual abilities.

I hope you do at least understand that I am not supporting Futilist's proposition, because I admit that I have no deep understanding of what he is trying to prove. In his case, I can shrug, not from derision but from the the fact that I have not studied that subject and cannot comment intelligently on his proposition.

However, in context of oil depletion, I do know something about the exponential function and I also know that you are completely ignorant of the term as well as the defined mathematical function.
After all, you asked what that means and for me to explain it to you, to which I generously responded with ample and reliable information, which apparently you did not read or did not understand.

So, unless I get a lucid answer on any of my questions, I must assume that you are detemined to remain ignorant of the subject and just remain rude, a clear sign of discomfort.

all this rest of a pile of mentally disabled nonsense is just that.
shrugs.

 

[krash661]

Neither one of you has studied the subject of this thread and so neither one of you can comment intelligently on my proposition.

except i clearly stated in that other topic that i'm a series 7 ,which you have not an inkling of what that means. then i asked you about your experience and knowledge, remember there was only crickets.... then you pointed to that graph, remember ?

If you want to argue about the exponential function with krash661, you should start a separate thread about the topic. Thanks.

i'm not even sure what his pathetic whining is about.
shrugs.

 

[krash661]

.

As to my debate with Krash661 on the Exponential Function, that has already finished as a hopeless exercise in futility.

what debate? you pointed at some guy and then claimed i have no clue. shakes head
you have no clue what you're spewing. it's that simple. then you claim to debate?
hilarious^2 ,what a complete joke this is.

 

[exchemist]

That is what they have been saying since 1972!

When exactly is early enough? When will it be too late? The narrative is getting very stale.


But not too urgent, apparently. Why can't we just continue to ignore the warnings if, according to you, we are never going to have a real problem?


As long as you don't see a reason to be concerned, I guess that should be good enough for anyone. It's okay everyone, exchemist has reassured us there is no need for concern. Well, some concern, but not too much. Got it?


So says you, Mr. Conservative, Business As Usual Man. I guess we should just take your word on that, since you manifestly failed to actually refute the Etp model in any way.



---Futilitist

No need to take my word for it. BP for example estimates >50 years of current proven reserves (that means technically recoverable), at current rates of consumption. Even allowing for an annual growth in demand, and assuming no more finds (which obviously there will be) that implies there are several decades of supply:

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corpora...y/review-by-energy-type/oil/oil-reserves.html

I wonder who knows more about this subject, a major oil company or Flatulitist and BW Hills?

Unless of course you think the oil companies are engaged in some sort of organised conspiracy to disguise the truth. Remind me, where do you stand on that question?

 

[exchemist]

It is notable that while most commercial ships are diesels, most Navy ships are gas turbine powered.

Yes, that's to do with the Navy emphasis on speed and good power/volume and power/weight ratio, while of course fuel cost is a minor consideration for them. So they burn distillate and use high speed diesel and/or gas turbine power sources.

The low speed engine has atrocious power/weight and power/volume ratio, but that does not matter if you run a fleet of container ships or tankers in a cut-throat market: what you need then is to burn the cheapest fuel you can get and with the maximum efficiency. That is what the low speed diesel does par excellence.

Here is a picture of a 10 cylinder example:
http://www.my.all.biz/low-speed-diesel-engine-generator-g45620#.VfG520vgwbw

This one is in a power station rather than a ship. Notice the disk-like alternator, very different from the cylindrical ones you get with turbine gensets. That's to get enough poles around the rim to give you 50 or 60Hz at 100 rpm or so, which is flat out for these things.

 

[billvon]

Agreed, though it will make air travel substantially more expensive. The worst-case for cars is something like a 10% price premium to cut gas usage in half and 30% to eliminate it. But I can see air travel doubling or tripling in price.

It shouldn't more than double. Right now even the airlines with the most inefficient aircraft have fuel as only 46% of their operating costs. Thus even if prices triple they need to increase their income by less than a factor of 2. But even doubling will be a big hit on them.

Agreed. Some research is probably needed before nuclear can be deployed widespread in commercial shipping, but once it is, it'll be awesome: massive ships that produce no pollution and never have to refuel.

Well, as several incidents have demonstrated, they won't be pollution-free - but they will still likely be cleaner than modern ships.