The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Beer w/Straw]

...just afraid to post a prediction that I can make fun of.

That wouldn't be nice.

Why haven't we seen your pictures in a magazine or something?

 

[billvon]

So readers, here we have a third fatal flaw in this silly "model".

Yep. Imagine what the Futilitist of the 18th century would have said about how our reliance on wood will cause the collapse of society:

FutilitistOfOld: We are so f*cked. Where are we going to get enough wood to meet demand? Everything we do -- our entire society is based on wood. We'll collapse without it.

Planner: We'll switch to coal.

FutilitistOfOld: Oh, yeah right. And monkeys are gonna fly out of my butt. You f*cking idiot. Our whole economy is based on cheap wood. Wagons, housing, tools, transport, shipping, cooking, packaging, heating, blacksmithing, furniture. We're doomed without it. Do you have any idea how foul coal is? And how far you have to go to get it? Where are you going to get the wood to move all that coal? For God sakes, wood just grows out of the ground, and you're proposing that we dig into solid rock for that filthy substandard junk? You need to up your medication. Do you have any idea how many people its going to take to dig those holes? And how are you going to make their houses, and keep them warm, and get them to the job without wood? What are you going to make their shovels and wagons out of? The only reason those people can dig coal now is because they're subsidized with cheap wood!!! And even supposing that you could marshal all those people you need to do the digging, you'll just hit water, and then it's game over. You can't bail out the water because YOU NEED WOOD TO MAKE THE F*CKING BUCKETS. Sorry man, but coal is nothing but a bunch of wishful thinking. You're pinning all your hopes on it because you're afraid to face the fact that our wood-based society is doomed. The stupid, myopic wood party is over and the hangover is going to be killer. There is simply nothing which can replace the convenience, versatility and cheapness of wood.

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/03/262-wood-to-coal-transition.html

 

[Futilitist]

I was reading that and I thought you wrote it yourself until I got to the end and saw the link!

Very creative.

And totally useless. I hate to be the one to break this to you, billvon, but you are definitely not funny. You can't seem to come up with even one decent argument about the Etp model. Making fun of peak oil and me with material from a site called Peak Oil Debunked is not a serious argument concerning the Etp model. That is the topic of this thread.

It would be much better if we could have a serious discussion.

In the meantime, where the hell is that graph of your oil price forecast that you promised you would make?

Are you afraid to post a prediction?

Put up or shut up.



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Hey Russ_Watters.

Here is the actual relationship between world oil production and world GPD:

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_012.htm

That is a very close relationship, isn't it? That is because the relationship is based on the physics of energy.

Are you still claiming that GDP is unrelated to energy?



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Exchemist.

Thanks for summarizing your arguments:

1) the misguided attempt to apply an entropy calculation to a thermodynamic "system" that is not finite.

I don't think you understand how the Etp model is designed. It uses three nested control volumes.

"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

2) the failure to allow for the added value of oil beyond its mere calorie content.

It doesn't seem to be necessary, since the Etp model forecasts the yearly average price of oil with an accuracy of 96.5%.

3) the failure to recognise that the GDP/kWh is not fixed, because the world is continually getting more efficient in its use of energy.

Like I said, the Etp model forecasts the yearly average price of oil with an accuracy of 96.5%.


Number 1 above is the important argument. I think the nested control volumes answers your criticism sufficiently.

Numbers 2 and 3, if they were really important and could be factored in, would amount to a refinement of a working model that is already performing nearly perfectly. Thus, even if numbers 2 and 3 were true, it would not invalidate the Etp model.

What else you got?



---Futilitist

 

[Write4U]

Yep. Imagine what the Futilitist of the 18th century would have said about how our reliance on wood will cause the collapse of society:

FutilitistOfOld: We are so f*cked. Where are we going to get enough wood to meet demand? Everything we do -- our entire society is based on wood. We'll collapse without it.

Planner: We'll switch to coal.

That is a reasonable scenario and let's continue this in the present

Write4U of today: We are so f*cked . Where are we going to get enough oil and coal to meet demand? Everything we do -- our entire society is based on oil and coal. We'll collapse without it.

Planner: We'll switch to ...........oh well, we'll find something, I'm sure of it.

 

[Write4U]

That's basically a criticism of capitalism: oil companies have no such obligations. Remember, they are just selling a resource they pump out of the ground. It happens that they sell a lot of it and demand makes it profitable. But in terms of profit margin, many natural resources have or have had very high profit margins, by nature. Gold? Diamonds? Hydroelectric power? The Hoover dam is nearing 100 years old and is a pure profit machine! Do you find that obscene?

OK, people invest in successful corporations to make a profit, fair enough.

But when (fracking) corporation manage to escape EPA restrictions and responsibilities, such as the Halliburton Loophole, the moral dynamics of making a profit change. The equation then changes from honest profit to "profit at cost of other people", such as fracking which now promises to have some very nasty side-effects, such as "fire water" in farmwells, which cannot be addressed in court.

There is even an example where a farmer complained that the vein ran under his house and not it is not livable anymore. The result of this complaint was confiscation of the farm by reason of "eminent domain" and now belongs to the fracking company.

You complain, we take your land, because the nation needs that oil (gas). Somehow that presents a moral question in my mind.

 

[exchemist]

Exchemist.

Thanks for summarizing your arguments:

1) the misguided attempt to apply an entropy calculation to a thermodynamic "system" that is not finite.

I don't think you understand how the Etp model is designed. It uses three nested control volumes.

"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

2) the failure to allow for the added value of oil beyond its mere calorie content.

It doesn't seem to be necessary, since the Etp model forecasts the yearly average price of oil with an accuracy of 96.5%.

3) the failure to recognise that the GDP/kWh is not fixed, because the world is continually getting more efficient in its use of energy.

Like I said, the Etp model forecasts the yearly average price of oil with an accuracy of 96.5%.


Number 1 above is the important argument. I think the nested control volumes answers your criticism sufficiently.

Numbers 2 and 3, if they were really important and could be factored in, would amount to a refinement of a working model that is already performing nearly perfectly. Thus, even if numbers 2 and 3 were true, it would not invalidate the Etp model.

What else you got?



---Futilitist

As I say, there are at least 3 fatal flaws in this silly model. And that is leaving aside the most obvious one of all, which is that the price of oil is subject to geopolitics, as well as economics.

I make this prediction. Five years from now we will all be sitting comfortably in our homes as we are now, arguing with silly people on the internet about supposedly imminent catastrophes that have not occurred.

 

[billvon]

That is a reasonable scenario and let's continue this in the present

Write4U of today: We are so f*cked . Where are we going to get enough oil and coal to meet demand? Everything we do -- our entire society is based on wood. We'll collapse without it.

Planner: We'll switch to ...........oh well, we'll find something, I'm sure of it.

I assume you meant oil, not wood, in the post above.

Similar laments were heard about wood - and then about coal. After all, everyone "knew" that you could not replace coal with oil. Now those same laments are being heard about oil.

But indeed let's continue with my assumed correction (wood to oil.)

Write4U of today: We are so f*cked . Where are we going to get enough oil to meet demand? Everything we do -- our entire society is based on oil. We'll collapse without it.

Planner: We'll switch to natural gas, nuclear and renewables. That will leave enough oil for the critical purposes (aviation and feedstocks) and provide people with alternatives that they will use as oil prices climb.

 

[billvon]

I make this prediction. Five years from now we will all be sitting comfortably in our homes as we are now, arguing with silly people on the internet about supposedly imminent catastrophes that have not occurred.

Agreed. Further I will predict that oil prices will be higher and people will complain about gasoline costs while driving their cars 30 miles to work by themselves.

 

[Futilitist]

As I say, there are at least 3 fatal flaws in this silly model.

Right. You listed them. And I just answered them up the page and on the last page. Here, again are my answers:

1) the misguided attempt to apply an entropy calculation to a thermodynamic "system" that is not finite.

I don't think you understand how the Etp model is designed. It uses three nested control volumes.

"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

2) the failure to allow for the added value of oil beyond its mere calorie content.

It doesn't seem to be necessary, since the Etp model forecasts the yearly average price of oil with an accuracy of 96.5%.

3) the failure to recognise that the GDP/kWh is not fixed, because the world is continually getting more efficient in its use of energy.

Like I said, the Etp model forecasts the yearly average price of oil with an accuracy of 96.5%.


Number 1 above is the important argument. I think the nested control volumes answers your criticism sufficiently.

Numbers 2 and 3, if they were really important and could be factored in, would amount to a refinement of a working model that is already performing nearly perfectly. Thus, even if numbers 2 and 3 were true, it would not invalidate the Etp model.

You can't just repeat your stupid claims as if they were somehow valid. You have to address my counter claims.

And that is leaving aside the most obvious one of all, which is that the price of oil is subject to geopolitics, as well as economics.

Yes, that is mostly true. Geopolitics could change the oil price. But the Etp model is still 96.5% accurate up till now. So your claim doesn't invalidate the Etp model in any way.

Besides, even geopolitics can't violate the laws of physics.

Agreed. Further I will predict that oil prices will be higher and people will complain about gasoline costs while driving their cars 30 miles to work by themselves.

Who cares what you predict for 5 years from now? I want to see your oil price prediction graph so I can see how you think we will get to your perfect future.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Brent crude is now 48.08 US Dollars per each barrel and WTIC is 44.72 good old US Dollars per each and every barrel. This price is not sufficient to pay the full cost of the oil production cycle. The industry is downsizing fast. The Etp model correctly predicts and explains this, and further predicts that the price of oil will continue to decline until oil reaches the "zero state" and is no longer a source of energy for civilization, around 2021. This conclusion is based on the laws of physics.



---Futilitist

 

[Write4U]

I assume you meant oil, not wood, in the post above.

Corrected.

Similar laments were heard about wood - and then about coal. After all, everyone "knew" that you could not replace coal with oil. Now those same laments are being heard about oil.
But indeed let's continue with my assumed correction (wood to oil.)

Write4U of today: We are so f*cked . Where are we going to get enough oil to meet demand? Everything we do -- our entire society is based on oil. We'll collapse without it.

Planner: We'll switch to natural gas, nuclear and renewables. That will leave enough oil for the critical purposes (aviation and feedstocks) and provide people with alternatives that they will use as oil prices climb.

a) Natural gas, more fracking, until gas runs out.

b) Nuclear,

However, the economic costs of nuclear power accidents is high, and meltdowns can render areas uninhabitable for very long periods. The human costs of evacuations of affected populations and lost livelihoods is also significant.

c) Renewables: There are many renewables, but so far they contribute just a few percent of the total energy supply.

In view of the World's ever increasing demand, all this seems like using band aids to close an ever growing wound.

I predict a global shortage of energy, when exactly remains to be determined, but it will happen, IMO.

 

[Futilitist]

Damn, Write4U!

Thanks a lot. What did I ever do to you?



---Futilitist

 

[Write4U]

Damn, Write4U!

Thanks a lot. What did I ever do to you? ---Futilitist

What did I say that offended you? It certainly was not my intent. As I said before, I do not rule out your proposition, but I just can't comment on it scientifically.

I said "energy will run out sometime in the future", which is a neutral statement and in no way excludes your prediction.

The statement was in no way contradictory to your theory. All claims by others that you are wrong, cannot be laid at my doorstep.

 

[Futilitist]

The conversation you are having with billvon is boring old shit that you guys have been talking about for years. It very much reminds me of the useless, distracting discussion you were having with krash661. You are doing it to disrupt the thread. If you are not doing this, please understand how it looks to me. I am trying to have a serious discussion about the Etp model and you keep popping in to babble on about the general energy situation within the same old frame that it has been discussed for the last ten years. It's time to move on. This thread is about new information that changes the comfortable old way the conversation has always been framed.

If you really cared about the energy issue and you really wanted to understand where things are actually headed, you would look deeper at the Etp model. But you seem to want to bury your head in the sand, instead. It doesn't make sense. Your persona is not consistent. And your every action seems to aid the trolls. Please explain.


---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

The statue of that dude in you avatar, what was his name again?

 

[billvon]

a) Natural gas, more fracking, until gas runs out.

At which point we will switch to biogas for applications that still require methane.

b) Nuclear, However, the economic costs of nuclear power accidents is high, and meltdowns can render areas uninhabitable for very long periods. The human costs of evacuations of affected populations and lost livelihoods is also significant.

And yet so far the death toll and environmental damage caused by nuclear has been far less than that of coal. Coal kills more people, destroys more habitats, and releases more nuclear waste into the environment than nuclear power does - and coal still provided most of our electrical power for almost 100 years.

c) Renewables: There are many renewables, but so far they contribute just a few percent of the total energy supply.

And growing rapidly.

In view of the World's ever increasing demand, all this seems like using band aids to close an ever growing wound.

As natural gas replaces oil the wound will stop growing, and as nuclear and renewables replace natural gas that wound will start shrinking.

I predict a global shortage of energy, when exactly remains to be determined, but it will happen, IMO.

It already happened back in the 1970's. We survived that; we will survive future shortages now that we have a much greater fuel diversity.

 

[Write4U]

The conversation you are having with billvon is boring old shit that you guys have been talking about for years. It very much reminds me of the useless, distracting discussion you were having with krash661. You are doing it to disrupt the thread. If you are not doing this, please understand how it looks to me. I am trying to have a serious discussion about the Etp model and you keep popping in to babble on about the general energy situation within the same old frame that it has been discussed for the last ten years. It's time to move on. This thread is about new information that changes the comfortable old way the conversation has always been framed.

If you really cared about the energy issue and you really wanted to understand where things are actually headed, you would look deeper at the Etp model. But you seem to want to bury your head in the sand, instead. It doesn't make sense. Your persona is not consistent. And your every action seems to aid the trolls. Please explain. --Futilitist

OK, then we are at the end of the thread it seems. You made a proposition which was refuted by all but me.
But if you think my observations are useless, I'll leave you to your own devices.
You're own then. Good luck.

 

[Futilitist]

And growing rapidly.

Exactly how rapidly?

The Etp model puts a tight deadline on switching to alternatives.

It already happened back in the 1970's. We survived that; we will survive future shortages now that we have a much greater fuel diversity.

By future shortages, what, exactly do you mean? How far in the future?

And what if the shortage happens next year? Will we be ready by then?



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

OK, then we are at the end of the thread it seems. You made a proposition which was refuted by all but me.

It's weird how you worded that. We are not at the end of the thread. My proposition has not been refuted by anyone. You did not exactly agree with my proposition. And other people more explicitly disagreed, but no one has yet to present any valid arguments against the Etp model. They can't. That is why they just play games.

But if you think my observations are useless, I'll leave you to your own devices.

I never said your observations are useless. Just that you seemed to be stuck in time. And stuck in a comfortable frame. Like a part of some comfortable machine. Putting people to sleep.

I like this one:

Yes, I am sure everyone is in agreement about the inevitability of a paradigm shift from non-renewable resources, to sustainable eco-friendly energy.

So, to you, a paradigm shift to alternative fuels is inevitable, and you are sure that everyone agrees. Sure. Then why were you and billvon even arguing? You and he are basically in agreement.

You seemed more like a real person to me back on thescienceforum.com.

You're own then. Good luck.

Okay. No hard feelings, then. Good luck to you, too.



---Futilitist