The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[billvon]

Conclusion: Production of Oil as a primary fuel will stop. I totally agree with that. The implications are staggering.

It will never completely stop. It will decline as other forms of energy become cheaper, but for some applications (aviation and spaceflight) it will be a primary fuel for decades, if not centuries, to come.

 

[billvon]

Interesting viewpoint, though I'm not sure about the ships thing. So long as you have refining of crude, even if only to make aviation fuel and petrochemicals, you will have relatively cheap residual bunker fuel - or something like it - as a byproduct.

Definitely. And asphalt, and naptha, and all the other byproducts of oil distillation*. But as the primary fuels (gasoline, kerosene, diesel) decline, so will the byproducts.

But ships can certainly run on natural gas, though there are issues. Safety is one: a gas escape in the confined space of ship's engine room needs to be carefully guarded against. Suitability of engines is another. Low speed engines, which are prevalent today, are highly efficient (50%+)and ideally adapted to residual fuel, have some trouble running reliably on gas.

Shouldn't be a big issue. LNG tankers already run on a mix of natural gas and bunker fuel, and ratios can approach 90%/10% in hot climates and on stormy seas.

(* - Ironically gasoline was originally used as a substitute for peanut oil - the first motor fuel for cars - because it was a useless byproduct of oil distillation.)

 

[Futilitist]

Hey billvon.

None of the things you are talking about can happen unless the oil price rises soon.

Here is my oil price forecast:

The price of oil will continue dropping. It will generally not exceed the Etp Maximum Price Curve going forward. Oil will reach the "zero state" as an energy source around 2021.

Please post a graph of your oil price forecast for side by side comparison. Thanks.



---Futilitist

 

[krash661]

The price of oil will continue dropping.

as it does in every winter/fall duration. it's referred to as a cycle.
shrugs.

 

[exchemist]

Definitely. And asphalt, and naptha, and all the other byproducts of oil distillation*. But as the primary fuels (gasoline, kerosene, diesel) decline, so will the byproducts.

Shouldn't be a big issue. LNG tankers already run on a mix of natural gas and bunker fuel, and ratios can approach 90%/10% in hot climates and on stormy seas.

(* - Ironically gasoline was originally used as a substitute for peanut oil - the first motor fuel for cars - because it was a useless byproduct of oil distillation.)

That I didn't know. I thought I had read that paraffin for lamps was the original value added product from crude, and the gasoline was a byproduct of that, but the bit about peanut oil for cars is new to me. Maybe we'll go back to running them on peanut oil one day…..

 

[Billy T]

Fuel of the Future: When Henry Ford told a New York Times reporter that ethyl alcohol was "the fuel of the future" in 1925, he was expressing an opinion that was widely shared in the automotive industry. "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust -- almost anything," he said. "There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years."

Ford recognized the utility of the hemp plant. He constructed a car of resin stiffened hemp fiber, and even ran the car on ethanol made from hemp. Ford knew that hemp could produce vast economic resources if widely cultivated.

Ford's optimistic appraisal of cellulose and crop based ethyl alcohol fuel can be read in several ways. First, it can be seen as an oblique jab at a competitor. General Motors had come to considerable grief that summer of 1925 over another octane boosting fuel called tetra-ethyl lead, and government officials had been quietly in touch with Ford engineers about alternatives to leaded gasoline additives.
Secondly, by 1925 the American farms that Ford loved were facing an economic crisis that would later intensify with the depression. Although the causes of the crisis were complex, one possible solution was seen in creating new markets for farm products. With Ford's financial and political backing, the idea of opening up industrial markets for farmers would be translated into a broad movement for scientific research in agriculture that would be labelled "Farm Chemurgy."

Ethanol has been known as a fuel for many decades. Indeed, when Henry Ford designed the Model T, it was his expectation that ethanol, made from renewable biological materials, would be a major automobile fuel. However, gasoline emerged as the dominant transportation fuel in the early twentieth century because of the ease of operation of gasoline engines with the materials then available for engine construction, a growing supply of cheaper petroleum from oil field discoveries, and intense lobbying by petroleum companies for the federal government to maintain steep alcohol taxes. Many bills proposing a National energy program that made use of Americas vast agricultural resources (for fuel production) were killed by smear campaigns* launched by vested petroleum interests.

One noteworthy claim put forth by petrol companies was that the U.S. government's plans "robbed taxpayers to make farmers rich".

*Big Oil still uses "smear campaigns" to keep cars fueled by gasoline, not alcohol from crops. For example public is told that switching sugar cane alcohol would destroy the rain forests (not true - more than enough abandoned pasture) and never a word admitting sugar cane based alcohol is a slightly negative net source of CO2, in stark contrast to gasoline (and diesel) being a major contributor to Global Warming.

I don't have data, but suspect peanut oil powered less miles driven than either wood or coal, as energy source for the steam powered cars. The "Stanly Steamer" held the world's speed record until the early 1920s if memory serves me correctly.

 

[brucep]

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

LOL.

 

[brucep]

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.

*Big Oil still uses "smear campaigns" to keep cars fueled by gasoline, not alcohol from crops. For example public is told that switching sugar cane alcohol would destroy the rain forests (not true - more than enough abandoned pasture) and never a word admitting sugar cane based alcohol is a slightly negative net source of CO2, in stark contrast to gasoline (and diesel) being a major contributor to Global Warming.

I don't have data, but suspect peanut oil powered less miles driven than either wood or coal, as energy source for the steam powered cars. The "Stanly Steamer" held the world's speed record until the early 1920s if memory serves me correctly.

The oil industry will say anything to maintain the bottom line status quo. The real problem is the illiterate boneheads that believe the nonsense.

 

[krash661]

so many subsidies and tax breaks.

 

[billvon]

That I didn't know. I thought I had read that paraffin for lamps was the original value added product from crude

Yes, that and lubricating oil I believe. (Paraffin was another name for kerosene.) The first diesel engines were designed to run on a variety of vegetable oils and Ford was targeting ethanol.

Maybe we'll go back to running them on peanut oil one day…..

Well, there are plenty of diesels out there today that run on reclaimed fryer oils. It's far too small a feedstock to run a significant percentage of the cars on the road, but it's a nice secondary use for something that would otherwise be wasted.

 

[Write4U]

It will never completely stop. It will decline as other forms of energy become cheaper, but for some applications (aviation and spaceflight) it will be a primary fuel for decades, if not centuries, to come.

But at what prices? IMO, it is certain that the modern world will have to go on a voluntary restricted use of natural resources, unless we place limits on consumption by law, ........ punch cards?

Bill Maher cited a newspaper article where a rich guy with a 4 acre estate vowed not to heed the California restriction of water use.
His justification was that because he paid higher taxes on his property he was "entitled " to more water.
Who is going to tell the owner of a 60,000 dollar Hummer to cut down on his oil consumption?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we first start to deceive (ourselves).

The only solution, daunting as it is, is to forget about fossil fuels and develop entirely new resources. Corn won't work because it would take all farmland to produce sufficient corn to supply current demand.

I still believe Hemp is a promising energy source, as it also yields a variety of other products and has a very short growing period, requiring minimal cultivation.
Of course solar energy is the most desirable, it is truly unlimited, by our standards.

 

[brucep]

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?

The organized conspiracy the oil industry is involved in is lying about climate science putting their money where their mouth is. As soon as the industry believes the source of their bottom line is disappearing they'll be looking for a replacement. All the lying is to prevent a consensus that would demand they begin moving in that direction because of the climate threat.

 

[krash661]

But at what prices? IMO, it is certain that the modern world will have to go on a voluntary restricted use of natural resources, unless we place limits on consumption by law, ........ punch cards?

Bill Maher cited a newspaper article where a rich guy with a 4 acre estate vowed not to heed the California restriction of water use.
His justification was that because he paid higher taxes on his property he was "entitled " to more water.
Who is going to tell the owner of a 60,000 dollar Hummer to cut down on his oil consumption?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we first start to deceive (ourselves).

The only solution, daunting as it is, is to forget about fossil fuels and develop entirely new resources. Corn won't work because it would take all farmland to produce sufficient corn to supply current demand.

I still believe Hemp is a promising energy source, as it also yields a variety of other products and has a very short growing period, requiring minimal cultivation.
Of course solar energy is the most desirable, it is truly unlimited, by our standards.

OMFG.. you're such an society facade enthusiast.

 

[billvon]

But at what prices? IMO, it is certain that the modern world will have to go on a voluntary restricted use of natural resources, unless we place limits on consumption by law, ........ punch cards?

No, the limits will be those placed by market forces. Once the price exceeds that which people can buy gas to use for their cars, oil prices will stop climbing - because demand will fall precipitously. (It won't be a hard limit, of course. Once the price of gas rises to the point where EV's are significantly cheaper to operate, then demand will start to fall as people choose the cheaper option. This will slow the rise of oil prices.)

Bill Maher cited a newspaper article where a rich guy with a 4 acre estate vowed not to heed the California restriction of water use.
His justification was that because he paid higher taxes on his property he was "entitled " to more water.
Who is going to tell the owner of a 60,000 dollar Hummer to cut down on his oil consumption?

No one. He's going to buy a $100,000 Tesla Model X instead because they are faster and plusher and more exclusive. (And at a gas price over about $5/gallon, that's actually the cheaper option over the life of the car.)

The only solution, daunting as it is, is to forget about fossil fuels and develop entirely new resources. Corn won't work because it would take all farmland to produce sufficient corn to supply current demand. I still believe Hemp is a promising energy source, as it also yields a variety of other products and has a very short growing period, requiring minimal cultivation. Of course solar energy is the most desirable, it is truly unlimited, by our standards.

Agreed. All the above will play a role as the price of oil rises.

 

[Write4U]

OMFG.. you're such an society facade enthusiast.

I am? What gave you that impression?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Ripley's: Bullshit or Not?

reason that we believe we will be able to create fusion technology quickly. The smaller the size of the device, the easier it is to build up momentum and develop it faster. Instead of taking five years to design and build a concept, it takes only a few months. If we undergo a few of these testing and refinement cycles, we will be able to develop a prototype within the same five year timespan.[/i]

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

So my question: What are the views that this would viably happen, if at all possible, before oil reserves would run out?

 

[Write4U]

No, the limits will be those placed by market forces. Once the price exceeds that which people can buy gas to use for their cars, oil prices will stop climbing - because demand will fall precipitously. (It won't be a hard limit, of course. Once the price of gas rises to the point where EV's are significantly cheaper to operate, then demand will start to fall as people choose the cheaper option. This will slow the rise of oil prices.)

I agree, but that does nothing to prevent the eventual depletion of natural resources, it would at best buy a little time.

No one. He's going to buy a $100,000 Tesla Model X instead because they are faster and plusher and more exclusive. (And at a gas price over about $5/gallon, that's actually the cheaper option over the life of the car.)

Ok, that accounts for the top 10% of the entire population. What about the other 90%. Are they going to run out and buy an 100,000 dollar EV?

Agreed. All the above will play a role as the price of oil rises.

Yes, I am sure everyone is in agreement about the inevitability of a paradigm shift from non-renewable resources, to sustainable eco-friendly energy.
The big question is how fast this will happen, because IF it is not a smooth transition (which will take decades), the consequences are unimaginable, except that it will be very, very bad.

Trump (looking ahead) already calls for just taking middle East oil, which is tantamount to a declaration of war.

As Bartlett say, "if Man does not voluntarily takes restrictive actions, Nature surely will". If I were Nature, what would be the easiest solution to overconsumption of resources? A nice global nuclear war killing 75% of mankind would solve the problem immediately. To Nature war is just an expression of natural selection of those organisms which can survive in spite of limited resources.

I find all this talk about war with the Middle East very disturbing. Strange that for such purposes our applied science are the most advanced and sophisticated, as well as very scary to the rest of the world.

Suppose we came bearing gifts of cheap sustainable energy for everyone on earth. We would be considered saviors, instead of an all devouring devil.

Bottom line: this is not a local but a global problem, and that presents the need for a global solution. What are the chances of that happening soon and how long will that take?

 

[Write4U]

Ripley's: Bullshit or Not?

So my question: What are the views that this would viably happen, if at all possible, before oil reserves would run out?

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Futilitist]

Once the price of gas rises to the point where EV's are significantly cheaper to operate, then demand will start to fall as people choose the cheaper option. This will slow the rise of oil prices.

What rising oil prices? Last time I checked they were still under $50 a barrel.

Your statement above almost made sense in 2006! It is the same old soothing song and dance we have been hearing for decades. Perhaps it seemed somewhat plausible way back then, but it certainly isn't remotely possible today. You need to get up to date, billvon!

Why are you so worried about rising oil prices when they are actually falling? Your mantra doesn't make any sense anymore, but you keep repeating it anyway. You are like a robot.

Agreed. All the above will play a role as the price of oil rises.

You are dreaming. Oil prices are not going to rise. The Etp model proves they are going to fall. But, since you can't figure out how to deal with the truth, you just ignore reality. Not very scientific or mature.

Also, please post a graph of your oil price forecast. Thanks. It seems like you would want to have something like that on record, since you think I am so wrong. Put your money where your mouth is. I've asked 3 times. Are you afraid to embarrass yourself? That never stopped you before.



---Futilitist

 

[Kristoffer]

You are dreaming. Oil prices are not going to rise. The Etp model proves they are going to fall. But, since you can't figure out how to deal with the truth, you just ignore reality. Not very scientific or mature.



---Futilitist

Sorry, what were you saying? I was a bit distracted because I felt a disturbance in the Force. It was as if 90% of the human race suddenly died a few years ago.