The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
W You totally failed thermodynamics. How come all you "scientists" actually only went to business school?
Right, because it couldn't possibly be that your understanding of entropy is the one that's wrong!?
Dude, all processes in the universe are subject to the second law of thermodynamics.
Lol; I just bought a soda for $0.65. How much entropy did I generate?
Let's resolve this once and for all. Please list the best seriousarguments you guys can think of against the Etp model. Number them for clarity. I will answer them all and prove, once again, that the Etp model is valid.
Except for the ones you will declare not serious and refuse to answer of course! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Don't call me names. It is rude. It doesn't belong in a serious science discussion. And it just shows how desperate you are.
I didn't say you were a buffoon I simply was stating how I would disseminate the information. Don't you think it was rude calling me a liar. I think you are an asshole for calling me a liar.

So to you a process that is "experiencing entropy" actually means the process is increasing entropy?
 
I would have a buffoon post it on science forums.

By the way did you hear that the Shell is pulling out the arctic, apparently the exploration was not promising. So this is good news for consumers according to your model, because less oil that means the price of will drop.:rolleyes:

I think I have spent enough time on this thread listening to your panicked crying that the "end is nigh"!!!

No, no, the real reason Shell has pulled the plug, you see, is that the entropy has risen too far to make it possible to extract the oil! Of course, Shell is keeping quiet about this, in order to avoid Ben van Beurden having to announce "We're DOOOOMED".

You know it makes sense..... :D
 
exchemist said:
Evading again, tut tut.
Just like you always do. What is the point of your post?
exchemist said:
No, no, the real reason Shell has pulled the plug, you see, is that the entropy has risen too far to make it possible to extract the oil! Of course, Shell is keeping quiet about this, in order to avoid Ben van Beurden having to announce "We're DOOOOMED".
You know it makes sense..... :D
Since I never said any of that, I guess you are just arguing with yourself.

I didn't say you were a buffoon I simply was stating how I would disseminate the information. Don't you think it was rude calling me a liar. I think you are an asshole for calling me a liar.
So to you a process that is "experiencing entropy" actually means the process is increasing entropy?
What do you mean "the process is increasing entropy?"

If you mean something like "So to you a process that is "experiencing entropy" actually means the process is experiencing rising entropy", the answer would be yes. That makes sense since entropy can only increase. Are you trying to play a word game? I probably should have said, "The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process, which provides most of the energy for the world economy, must experience rising entropy over time." But I don't think the meaning is really different.

The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process, which provides most of the energy for the world economy, must experience rising entropy over time.
Agree or disagree?

http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased.

Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.

Agree or disagree?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
No, no, the real reason Shell has pulled the plug, you see, is that the entropy has risen too far to make it possible to extract the oil! Of course, Shell is keeping quiet about this, in order to avoid Ben van Beurden having to announce "We're DOOOOMED".

You know it makes sense..... :D

Crap, the Shell nearest me just shut down! The end truly is here!

Or maybe the strategic position it once had has been made unfavourable by the new freeway and the newer highway?
Entropy diverted the traffic!
 
Holy F*ck Dude! Just the title of that link.
The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process, which provides most of the energy for the world economy, must experience rising entropy over time.
Agree or disagree?

http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

The universe? How does gravity and dark energy enter the Etp model along with predicting how I feel and think?

:EDIT:

Now, if we're into the realm of total serious discussion, I think this should solve the world energy problem:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131203-could-black-holes-provide-energy
 
Last edited:
Holy F*ck Dude! Just the title of that link.
The universe? How does gravity and dark energy enter the Etp model along with predicting how I feel and think?
Are you dissing the second law on a science forum?

Now, if we're into the realm of total serious discussion, I think this should solve the world energy problem:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131203-could-black-holes-provide-energy
In order for that to solve the energy problem you will first have to solve the black hole information paradox. To do that you will need to understand time in 3 dimensions. Then you could harmonize General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Good luck. Super symmetry and string theory can't do this.

But it turns out there is a mathematical way get an infinite series of relative frames of reference to converge to finite quantities. To get the necessary progression and regression of the relative frames of reference, here is one of the equations you will definitely need:

$$\frac{a}{b}=\frac{(n^*-I)}{(I-u^*)}$$

This equation is the first step in relating mass to 3 dimensional time. I'm not kidding. The trick is that the information never really disappears. It just changes history over time. Get it?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
So, this is an interesting one:
futilitist said:
The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process, which provides most of the energy for the world economy, must experience rising entropy over time.
Agree or disagree?
In order to continue, I guess we'll need to set aside the false claim about oil providing "most of the energy for the world economy" -- it's actually about a third.

Regardless, the question isn't worded properly because you don't understand thermodynamics and how to apply it. What you probably should say is that the oil extraction process generates entropy. Period. But that's the key problem, isn't it: you need there to be *something* about "entropy" that makes the extraction itself get harder for no other reason. But it doesn't. That isn't what entropy is about. So your statement is false: I disagree. Or, perhaps more accurately: your statement isn't even false, it is just nonsense. Processes generally do not "experience rising entropy". The universe does, but not individual processes. Most processes are steady state (they produce entropy at a constant rate).

The way entropy applies to oil extraction and use is simply that burning oil generates entropy, so the universe's entropy rises as more oil is extracted. But that in and of itself doesn't have any impact on the next barrel to be extracted. That's what your model demands, though, because your model "predicts" that people will leave oil in the ground that is economically recoverable instead of pumping it out and using it. Why would people do such a stupid thing? Magic! Entropy!

On the off chance that you are actually interested in how entropy actually works (yeah, I know: you're not), I'll give you a brief explanation:

Thermodynamics is all about what happens when heat moves from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir. Like a reservoir full of water, the heat will move on its own if you just stay out of the way. But if you get in the way, you can extract energy in other forms (mechanical, electrical). Entropy is the part of that energy that gets wasted. Why does some get wasted? Well, consider a hydroelectric dam. Water flows down pipes through the dam and spins a turbine. Capturing all of the energy of the water would mean the turbine would have to bring the water to a stop, otherwise it still has kinetic energy. But the water has to get out in order to keep flowing. So what they do is have larger and larger turbines, making the water exit each one slower and slower. Once they've reached a practical limit (money, space, exit velocity) they just let the water continue on its way down the river. The energy not recovered is entropy. What happens in an internal combustion engine is similar.

Now, the hydroelectric dam is a continuously flowing. But note, while its operation is increasing the entropy of the universe, that entropy increase does not impact its future performance. So too with oil. My car gets about the same fuel economy today as when I bought it. It doesn't decrease over time because of the entropy increase of the universe due to oil use. So the amount of value provided to me by a gallon of gas (barrel of oil) is constant. And that should be obvious, even without understanding entropy. That's why this whole entropy argument is so stupid: the reality is right there in front of you in every-day life that shows that what you are claiming is false.
 
You spent your last five posts falsely accusing me of being BWHill. You were wrong and you now sort of admit it. But you don't offer an apology, just more false accusations. You are rude.
I now see that you did earlier make a claim that arguably would imply that you are not BW Hill. I did not see this prior remark, since, as I told you, I came to the thread as of late and asked you for a brief summary. I was already aware that the OP was a hoax at best, but I offered you the opportunity to summarize the discussion for me up to this point. Had it been a thread dealing with a rational claim, I would have waded through the posts with interest. But this has been a trollfest for you from the outset. For that reason, I admit to my ignorance of the aforementioned facts, and I withdraw my demand that you already admitted to being on BW Hill, but I can't apologize since you are nothing but a troll. If you want respect you have to earn it, and you haven't done so.

Wow. You are seriously grandiose and delusional.
On the contrary, believing that a handful of formulas can describe all oil production in the world, is certainly grandiose and delusional. On the other hand, holding you accountable for that is nothing more than common sense.

This isn't a class and you are not a teacher.
This became a class when you started lecturing knowledgeable folks on subjects they already studied. And you have ordained every member here as your teacher by propounding glaring fallacies. By the way, some of the excellent folks at this site once put together a description of common fallacies, once a "sticky" somewhere.

So your teachers are relegated to keep slapping your knuckles with a ruler, to remind you of the fallacies you keep committing.

http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies/


This is an informal science discussion forum.
This is a forum for intelligent discussion, as opposed to the nonsense claims consigned to the lower forums.

I am certainly not writing any essays for you.
The stinking essay in question was already written and this is the subject of all of the feedback you are getting.

And the fatal flaw in your argument is that, once again, you have not specified any actual fallacies supposedly contained in my OP.
Yes I have. You ignored me and went into denial. See the link I cited immediately above. Just reading the first 5 fallacies cited, it goes without saying you have violated them all.

You are just making stuff up. Learn what it means to think and start doing it.
Shoe on the other foot. You haven't demonstrated the critical thinking skills of an early essay reader/writer. By posting crap and pretending that it is something worthy of taking seriously, you fall into this pit of unending fallacies.

Ha ha! Bad example. The report you linked concerns oil shale, not shale oil! :confused: You can't even read! That report is about oil shale, which is not even oil, it is kerogen. Shale oil, on the other hand, is actually oil. It is also called tight oil. Shale oil is found in shale formations that don't allow the oil to flow as easily as in a conventional oil well. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. Nice try.
Your answer meets the quintessential definition of trolling.

Again, the paper I cited:

http://www.circleofblue.org/waterne...010/08/oilshale-assessment-2010-for-water.pdf

There was no such ambiguity in my statements. Obviously I was referring to the same thing this whole crappy thread is about - reliance on shale extraction once "the apocalypse" is upon us. Or do you presume that the idiot known as Hill isn't talking about it? (After all, there is only "wellhead energy" in the crappy thermo analogy you are harping on.)

But way to evade the point.

My point is this paper demonstrates an educated way to address the same questions you are asking - comparing conventional oil production to shale oil production (to clarify for the troll: shale extraction with subsequent oil production) using the given economic models, arriving at energy returned on investment [EROI], the very thing you are trying to ram down reader's throats without a clue about how to make claims that are grounded in actual research. This paper demonstrates how the kind of facts you are trying to allege are childlike in their disregard for the intelligence of readers.

But way to play word games. Yes, it involves extracting oil shale (duh). More to the point: your OP really sucks, dude. Just concede on that much and a collective sigh of relief will be heard around the room.

You showed up on this thread screaming fraud.
Nope, I started confronting you when you refused to summarize the discussion in play, and esp. when you bickered with me, claiming that the OP is not trying to apply thermo to the cost of production.

The fraud you are perpetuating is that readers can cut you slack, allow all the fallacy of your OP to stand, even though it insults their intelligence, and flies in the face of the sites goals of engaging readers in intelligent discussion.

But you have been wrong about everything you have said so far. All you are left with is that you don't like the name "The Hill's Group" and some vague, unspecified suspicions.
I stated very clearly that the "Group" so far is one person named Hill, who posted his junk paper on his own site, and is not endorsed by any credible academic or commercial enterprise. And that much is obvious from the lamebrained used of fallacy to build an OP.

Much ado about nothing.
Yeah, so close the thread.

Anyway, the thread should be closed based on the findings of the above paper. It takes data from 8 credible corporate and government entities and concludes that shale oil will have an EROI of 1.2 to 1.6. That answers the question, and any further discussion is moot, unless you can find a credible source which upholds your lamebrained claims. But why bother? You are obviously just here to aggravate readers.


Oh well no point in feeding the troll. Welcome to my ignore button *click*.
 
Aqueous Id said:
It takes data from 8 credible corporate and government entities and concludes that shale oil will have an EROI of 1.2 to 1.6. That answers the question, and any further discussion is moot, unless you can find a credible source which upholds your lamebrained claims.
Okay. I found a credible source. It is your own source!

http://www.circleofblue.org/waterne...010/08/oilshale-assessment-2010-for-water.pdf

An Assessment of the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of Oil Shale
FINAL REPORT


Oil%20Rock_zpsntd1pr6f.jpg


Executive Summary

Concern over limited oil resources and record energy prices has rekindled interest in the
development of the vast oil shale resources of the Western United States. We reviewed the
existing literature on the energy return on investment (EROI) for oil shale. EROI is the ratio of
energy delivered to energy costs. The most reliable studies suggest that the EROI for oil shale
falls between 1:1 and 2:1 when self-energy is counted as a cost. Self-energy is energy released
by the oil shale conversion process that is used to power that operation.

This places the EROI for oil shale considerably below the EROI of about 20:1 for conventional
crude oil at the wellhead. This conclusion holds for both the crude product and refined fuel
stages of processing. Even in its depleted state—smaller and deeper fields, depleted natural
drive mechanisms, etc.—conventional crude oil generates a significantly larger energy surplus
than oil shale. This is not a surprising result considering the natural resource exploited in each
process. The kerogen in oil shale is solid organic material that has not been subject to the
temperature, pressure, and other geologic conditions required to convert it to liquid form. In
effect, humans must supply the additional energy required to “upgrade” the oil shale resource to the functional equivalent of conventional crude oil. The extra effort carries a large energy
penalty, producing a much lower EROI for oil shale.

Firm conclusions regarding the EROI are difficult to establish for a variety of reasons. There are very few reliable studies of current oil shale operations; many studies use a poor or undocumented methodology, and report what could be best described as “ballpark” estimates.
Some studies exclude important categories of energy inputs that generate inflated estimates of
the EROI for oil shale. This is what is known as the system boundary problem in EROI
assessments, namely, deciding what inputs and outputs to include. In addition, much of the
discussion regarding the EROI for oil shale should be regarded as preliminary or speculative
because of the very small number of operating facilities that can be assessed. We do not have a
large “sample size” of operations from which to draw robust conclusions.

The considerable uncertainty surrounding the technological characterization, resource
characterization, and choice of the system boundary for oil shale operations suggests that oil
shale cannot yet be “certified” as a clear net energy producer if one includes internal energy as
an energy cost. Alternatively, one could exclude internal energy and count only purchased
energy as input. The EROI calculated using this perspective is in the range of 2 to 16.

The low EROI for oil shale is closely connected to a significant release of greenhouse gases. The
large quantities of energy needed to process oil shale, combined with the thermochemistry of the retorting process, produce considerable carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Oil shale unambiguously emits more greenhouse gases than conventional liquid fuels from crude oil feedstocks by a factor of 1.2 to 1.75

For every barrel of oil produced in an oil shale operation, between 1 and 3 barrels of water are
required, confirming the conventional wisdom that this technology places significant demand on freshwater supplies. Pumping the large volumes of water required for industrial-scale oil shale operations would be yet another energy investment negatively affecting oil shale’s already thin EROI.

-----------------------

So...let's see....Super low EROI, many unknowns, considerable uncertainty, more greenhouse gases, and it uses up our precious fresh water supplies...

Yeah. This oil shale stuff sounds great.

I never actually made any explicit claims about oil shale. You brought it up. But I agree with your source that it sucks. :D

Aqueous Id said:
It takes data from 8 credible corporate and government entities and concludes that shale oil will have an EROI of 1.2 to 1.6.
That is *WAY* too low to do any good.

"But this argument misses a very important issue. Think of a society dependent upon one resource: oil. If the EROI for this oil was 1.1:1 then one could pump the oil out of the ground and look at it … and that’s it. It would be an energy loss to do anything else with it. If it were 1.2:1 you could refine it into diesel fuel, and at 1.3:1 you could distribute it to where you want to use it. If you actually want to run a truck with it, you must have an EROI ratio of at least 3:1 (at the wellhead) to build and maintain the truck, as well as the necessary roads and bridges (including depreciation). If additionally you wanted to put something in the truck and deliver it, hat would require an EROI of, say, 5:1.3 Now say you wanted to include depreciation on the oil field worker, the refinery worker, the truck driver, and the farmer; you would need an EROI of 7:1 or 8:1. If their children were to be educated you would need perhaps 9:1 or 10:1, to have health care 12:1, to have arts in their lives maybe 14:1, and so on.

Obviously to have a modern civilization one needs not just surplus energy, but lots of it—and that requires either a high EROI or a massive source of moderate-EROI fuels. If these are not available, the remaining low-EROI energy will be prioritized for growing food and supporting families."

~Charles Hall




---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
In order to continue, I guess we'll need to set aside the false claim about oil providing "most of the energy for the world economy" -- it's actually about a third.
The false claim you mention is in quotations but you don't mention who said it. Who made such a false claim? Please provide a post number in which I ever said such a thing. Here is what I have been consistently saying in multiple posts throughout the thread:

"The Etp model forecasts that oil will reach what is called the "zero state" around 2021. At that point, it will take the energy from 1 barrel of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil, and oil use will no longer add to GDP. Oil currently provides about 38% of world GDP."
~Futilitist:cool:
Regardless, the question isn't worded properly because you don't understand thermodynamics and how to apply it. What you probably should say is that the oil extraction process generates entropy. Period. But that's the key problem, isn't it: you need there to be *something* about "entropy" that makes the extraction itself get harder for no other reason. But it doesn't. That isn't what entropy is about.
Your statement is false. The entropy generation in the oil production process causes the cost of production to rise over time because more and more energy is required over time to keep producing oil.

Saying that there must be "*something* about 'entropy' that makes the extraction itself get harder for no other reason" is just silly. Would you say that you need something besides gravity to explain why things fall down!?
So your statement is false: I disagree. Or, perhaps more accurately: your statement isn't even false, it is just nonsense.
You are mistaken. Lying, actually.
Processes generally do not "experience rising entropy". The universe does, but not individual processes.
This is completely false. All irreversible processes dissipate energy which makes it unavailable to do any more work.
Most processes are steady state (they produce entropy at a constant rate).
This is also false. Most processes are natural and irreversible.

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

Therefore:
The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the oil production process, which provides most of the energy for the world economy, must experience rising entropy over time.
The way entropy applies to oil extraction and use is simply that burning oil generates entropy, so the universe's entropy rises as more oil is extracted. But that in and of itself doesn't have any impact on the next barrel to be extracted.
This is false and misleading. The impact on the next barrel is that it takes more energy to extract than the last one. This costs more, so the cost of oil extraction rises over time. That is why the EROEI of oil keeps falling.
That's what your model demands, though, because your model "predicts" that people will leave oil in the ground that is economically recoverable instead of pumping it out and using it. Why would people do such a stupid thing? Magic! Entropy!
Your word game completely false. The Etp model forecasts that people will leave the oil in the ground because it will not be economically recoverable. Why wouldn't people just pump the oil anyway? Because it will cost more than they can afford. Why is that simple idea so hard for you to understand?
On the off chance that you are actually interested in how entropy actually works (yeah, I know: you're not), I'll give you a brief explanation:

Thermodynamics is all about what happens when heat moves from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir. Like a reservoir full of water, the heat will move on its own if you just stay out of the way. But if you get in the way, you can extract energy in other forms (mechanical, electrical). Entropy is the part of that energy that gets wasted. Why does some get wasted? Well, consider a hydroelectric dam. Water flows down pipes through the dam and spins a turbine. Capturing all of the energy of the water would mean the turbine would have to bring the water to a stop, otherwise it still has kinetic energy. But the water has to get out in order to keep flowing. So what they do is have larger and larger turbines, making the water exit each one slower and slower. Once they've reached a practical limit (money, space, exit velocity) they just let the water continue on its way down the river. The energy not recovered is entropy. What happens in an internal combustion engine is similar.

Now, the hydroelectric dam is a continuously flowing. But note, while its operation is increasing the entropy of the universe, that entropy increase does not impact its future performance.
This is false. Dams do not last forever. Equipment fails. Concrete cracks. Silt is deposited. It requires constant work to maintain a dam. The maintenance costs rise over time because everything in the universe is subject to entropy.
So too with oil. My car gets about the same fuel economy today as when I bought it. It doesn't decrease over time because of the entropy increase of the universe due to oil use. So the amount of value provided to me by a gallon of gas (barrel of oil) is constant.
You are using the term value very imprecisely. While it is true that the energy value in a gallon of gasoline, measured in BTUs, does not change over time, the cost of gasoline is not constant, is it? It's economic value changes with the price.
And that should be obvious, even without understanding entropy.
You are wrong. Ironically, what seems obvious to you is due to your total lack of understanding of entropy.
That's why this whole entropy argument is so stupid: the reality is right there in front of you in every-day life that shows that what you are claiming is false.
Arguing with you about entropy is so stupid because your reality so twisted.

Your post is very carefully worded. You are intentionally trying to mislead people about the second law of thermodynamics. On a science forum. Shame on you.



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
Hey Russ.

I found a really interesting discussion about entropy on Physics Forums. I believe you are a moderator there.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...he-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-comments.811487/

INFO-MAN said:
Hello Chestermiller.

"There have been nearly as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it."
~P. W. Bridgman

Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not exactly an intuitive concept. While I think your article is basically a good one, it is obviously somewhat limited in scope, and my only critique is that you did not cover some of the most important aspects of entropy.

I agree that most people have a very hard time grasping entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. But I am not sure I understand why your article keeps referring to reversible processes and adiabatic idealizations. In natural systems, the entropy production rate of every process is always positive (ΔS > 0) or zero (ΔS = 0). But only idealized adiabatic (perfectly insulated) and isentropic (frictionless, non-viscous, pressure-volume work only) processes actually have an entropy production rate of zero. Heat is produced, but not entropy. In nature, this ideal can only be an approximation, because it requires an infinite amount of time and no dissipation.

You hardly mention irreversible processes. An irreversible process degrades the performance of a thermodynamic system, and results in entropy production. Thus, irreversible processes have an entropy production rate greater than zero (ΔS > 0), and that is really what the second law is all about (beyond the second law analysis of machines or devices). Every naturally occurring process, whether adiabatic or not, is irreversible (ΔS > 0), since friction and viscosity are always present.

Here is my favorite example of an irreversible thermodynamic process, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:

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

And here are are a couple of other important things you did not mention about entropy:

1) Entropy is a measure of molecular disorder in a system. According to Kelvin, a pure substance at absolute zero temperature is in perfect order, and its entropy is zero. This is the less commonly known Third Law of Thermodynamics.

2) "A system will select the path or assemblage of paths out of available paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints." This is known as the Law of Maximum Entropy Production. "The Law of Maximum Entropy Production thus has deep implications for evolutionary theory, culture theory, macroeconomics, human globalization, and more generally the time-dependent development of the Earth as a ecological planetary system as a whole."

http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com/

Chestermiller said:
Thanks INFO_MAN. It's nice to be appreciated.

Yes. You are correct. I deliberately limited the scope. Possibly you misconstrued my objective. It was definitely not to write a treatise on entropy and the 2nd law. I was merely trying to give beginning thermodynamics students who are struggling with the basic concepts the minimum understanding they need just to do their homework. As someone relatively new to Physics Forums, you may not be aware of the kinds of questions we get from novices...

INFO-MAN said:
I agree that most people have a very hard time grasping entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. But I am not sure I understand why your article keeps referring to reversible processes and adiabatic idealizations. In natural systems, the entropy production rate of every process is always positive (ΔS > 0) or zero (ΔS = 0). But only idealized adiabatic (perfectly insulated) and isentropic (frictionless, non-viscous, pressure-volume work only) processes actually have an entropy production rate of zero. Heat is produced, but not entropy. In nature, this ideal can only be an approximation, because it requires an infinite amount of time and no dissipation.

Chestermiller said:
This is an example of one of those instances I was referring to in which the constraints on the equations is not spelled out clearly enough, and, as a result, confusion can ensue. The situation you are referring to here with the inequality (ΔS > 0) and equality (ΔS = 0) applies to the combination of the system and the surroundings, and not just to a closed system. Without this qualification, the student might get the idea that for a closed system, ΔS≥0 always, which is, of course, not the case.

Even though reversible processes are an idealization, there is still a need for beginners to understand them...

INFO-MAN said:
You hardly mention irreversible processes. An irreversible process degrades the performance of a thermodynamic system, and results in entropy production. Thus, irreversible processes have an entropy production rate greater than zero (ΔS > 0), and that is really what the second law is all about (beyond the second law analysis of machines or devices). Every naturally occurring process, whether adiabatic or not, is irreversible (ΔS > 0), since friction and viscosity are always present.

Chestermiller said:
I'm sorry that impression came through to you because that was not my intention. I feel that it is very important for students to understand the distinction between real irreversible processes paths and ideal reversible process paths. Irreversible process paths are what really happens. But reversible process paths are what we need to use to get the change in entropy for a real irreversible process path.

INFO-MAN said:
Here is my favorite example of an irreversible thermodynamic process, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:

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

Chestermiller said:
This equation applies to the more general case of an open system for which mass is entering and exiting, and I was trying to keep things simple by restricting the discussion to closed systems. Also, entropy generation can be learned by the struggling students at a later stage.

INFO-MAN said:
And here are are a couple of other important things you did not mention about entropy:

1) Entropy is a measure of molecular disorder in a system. According to Kelvin, a pure substance at absolute zero temperature is in perfect order, and its entropy is zero. This is the less commonly known Third Law of Thermodynamics.

2) "A system will select the path or assemblage of paths out of available paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints." This is known as the Law of Maximum Entropy Production. "The Law of Maximum Entropy Production thus has deep implications for evolutionary theory, culture theory, macroeconomics, human globalization, and more generally the time-dependent development of the Earth as a ecological planetary system as a whole."

Chestermiller said:As I said above, I was trying to limit the scope exclusively to what the beginning students needed to understand in order to do their homework.

--------------

Looks like you need to do your homework, Russ! :confused:


INFO-MAN and Chestermiller are talking about the thermodynamic analysis of open vs closed systems. They even mention the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes. That is the second law statement that is validly used to construct the Etp model!

Both INFO-MAN and Chestermiller agree with me about the nature of entropy. They both seem to understand thermodynamics pretty well. Are you claiming they are both wrong?



---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
Here is a good explanation of thermodynamics of open systems, plus the valid methodology used to the create the Etp model:

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/A_System_And_Its_Surroundings

A System and Its Surroundings

In thermodynamics, it is imperative to define a system and its surroundings because that concept becomes the basis for many types of descriptions and calculations.


Introduction

A primary goal of the study of thermochemistry is to determine the quantity of heat exchanged between a system and its surroundings. The system is the part of the universe being studied, while the surroundings are the rest of the universe that interacts with the system. A system and its surroundings can be as large as the rain forests in South America or as small as the contents of a beaker in a chemistry laboratory. The type of system one is dealing with can have very important implications in chemistry because the type of system dictates certain conditions and laws of thermodynamics associated with that system.

Open System

An open system is a system that freely exchanges energy and matter with its surroundings. For instance, when you are boiling soup in an open saucepan on a stove, energy and matter are being transferred to the surroundings through steam. The saucepan is an open system because it allows for the transfer of matter (for example adding spices in the saucepan) and for the transfer of energy (for example heating the saucepan and allowing steam to leave the saucepan).

Let us examine how matter and energy are exchanged in an open system. Matter can be exchanged rather easily: by adding matter (i.e spices) or removing matter (i.e tasting what is being cooked). Energy exchange is a little bit more complicated than matter exchange. There are a couple of ways energy can be exchanged: through heat and through work (a more in-depth discussion of heat and work has been included below). Energy induced through heat can be demonstrated by bringing the system close to an object that dissipates heat (i.e. Bunsen burner, stove, etc.). By doing so, one is able to change the temperature of the system and therefore, induce energy through heat. Another way to increase the energy is through work. An example of inducing work is by taking a stirrer and then mixing the coffee in the cup with the stirrer. By mixing coffee, work is done as the coffee is being moved against a force.

Note: the blue diagram depicting the transfer of energy and matter is showing how energy and matter can enter the system AND leave the system. Do not be fooled by the one way arrows.
open.png
open1.png



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

Open system

In an open system, matter may flow in and out of some segments of the system boundaries. There may be other segments of the system boundaries that pass heat or work but not matter. Respective account is kept of the transfers of energy across those and any other several boundary segments.

OpenSystemRepresentation_svg_zpsvqfk3km9.png

The region of space enclosed by open system boundaries is usually called a control volume.

Here is a description of the boundary conditions used in the Etp model and the derivation of equation#7 from the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for 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
Boundary%20conditions_zpse1brybjr.jpg

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)
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: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$

For this application, crude oil and water can be treated as incompressible substances. Their specific entropies are only affected by a temperature change.

For specific heats: $$c_{v}=c_{p}=c$$, and $$s_{2}-s_{1}=c*\ln{\frac{T_{2}}{T_{1}}}$$ The reservoir temperature is constant, therefore the entropy of the reservoir must decrease at the same rate that the entropy is transferred from the reservoir by mass flow. Thus, the heat leaving the reservoir is negative in sign and the equation becomes:

$$\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}=\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$

giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$

The rate of entropy production in the petroleum production system is equal to the rate of heat extracted from the reservoir divided by the reservoir temperature.

The rate of irreversibility production in the petroleum production system therefore becomes:

$$\dot{I_{cv}}=T_{O}*\dot\sigma_{cv}$$

giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec}$$

Where $$T_{O}$$ equals the standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R (77° F).

Therefore:

$$E_{TP}=\int_{t1}^{t2}\dot{I_{cv}}dt$$

giving: $$BTU$$

Because the mass removed from the reservoir is limited to crude oil and water, the increase in $$E_{TP}$$ per billion barrels (Gb) of crude extracted as $$ds=c\frac{dT}{T}$$ is:

(Equation#7)

$$\frac{E_{TP/lb}}{Gb}
=\begin{bmatrix}\frac{(m_{c}*c_{c}
+m_{w}*c_{w})(T_{R}-T_{O})}{m_{c}} \end{bmatrix}/Gb$$

giving: BTU/lb/Gb

$$m_{c}$$ = mass of crude, lbs.
$$c_{c}$$ = specific heat of crude, BTU/lb °R
$$m_{w}$$ = mass of water, lbs.
$$c_{w}$$ = specific heat of water, BTU/lb °R
$$T_{R}$$ = reserve temperature, °R
$$T_{O}$$ = standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R
$$s_{i}$$ = specific entropy into the control volume
$$s_{e}$$ = specific entropy exiting the control volume

BTU/gal/Gb for 35.7° API crude = BTU/lb/Gb * 7.0479 lb/gal

Evaluation of $$E_{TP}$$ from Equation# 7 requires the determination of three variables: mass of the crude ($$m_{c}$$) mass of the water ($$m_{w}$$), and the temperature of the reservoir ($$T_{R}$$). These must be determined at time (t).

1) The mass of crude at time (t) is derived from the cumulative production function,
2) the mass of water is derived from the average % surface water cut (fw) of the reservoir,
3) temperature of the reserve is derived from the well depth. This assumes an earth temperature gradient of 1°F increase per 70 feet of depth.

-------------------------------

What exactly do you find wrong with the methodology, above, used to develop the Etp function?




---Futilitist:cool:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top